Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment received 1/22/2026 (“Amendment”) has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6, 13 and 15-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-10 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20180183018A1 (Maeda) further in view of US20150228958A1 (Jang).
Regarding claim 1, Maeda teaches an energy storage device [abs]. Maeda teaches a battery cover, comprising a terminal and comprising an upper plastic insulator [#42; 0082], a top cover [#12] and a bottom insulator [#43; 0083] successively stacked [0053]; wherein a first step hole [41aa] and a second step hole [41ab; 0095] are coaxially disposed and a diameter of the second step hole is larger than a diameter of the first step hole [41aa; 0060]; the first step hole and the second step hole [depicted below]. Maeda does not teach riveting, and thus does not explicitly teach how the protrusion is formed.
The following claim limitations- “ a part of the stamped end of the terminal protruding from the first step hole is stamped to form a protrusion and the protrusion is located in the second step hole” and “riveting block” recites the process by which the stamping and protrusions are made and the instant claim does not impart additional structural limitations on the PRODUCT; in accordance with MPEP 2113 the claim is treated as a product claim even though it is defined by the method in which it is made. Unless the process of making PRODCUT imparts a particular property not recognized in the prior art, the prior art teaches the product as claimed. The applicant is invited to submit evidence show how such properties distinguish over the prior art.
See MPEP 2113 relating to Product by Process limitations - "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
As noted, in the instant specification [0033-39]; the riveted cover is formed by the riveting tool which then forms the protrusions as claimed, therefore, the Examiner has rejected the claimed limitations by giving patentable weight to the structural components of the battery. The method of how the structure is formed, is not given patentable weight.
In a similar field of endeavor, Jang teaches a secondary battery [abs], and teaches a rivet member 16 protruding downward from the lead member 15 may be inserted in the coupling hole 17′. In addition, a shaping tool (not shown) such as a hammer is located on a side of the lead member 15 and the current collecting member 17 that are arranged to overlap with each other and a die is located on the other side of the lead member 15 and the current collecting member 17, and after that, the lead member 15 and the current collecting member 17 are hit by the shaping tool so that the rivet member 16 may be compressed to a periphery of the coupling hole 17′. Then, the lead member 15 and the current collecting member 17 may be coupled to each other through the riveting or caulking process [0063; fig.6]. Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position, Jang in view of Maeda teaches; a stamped end [Jang teaches the riveting process and a hammer tool, which causes the terminal end to be stamped] of the terminal successively passes through the bottom insulator, the top cover, the upper plastic insulator, a part of the stamped end of the terminal protruding from the first step hole is stamped to form a protrusion [formed by the riveting tool] and the protrusion is located in the second step hole, wherein the riveting block is provided with a counterbore coaxially distributed with the second step hole and an upper end of the protrusion is located in at least one of the counterbore or the second step hole; and wherein a diameter of the counterbore is larger than a diameter of the second step hole. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Maeda in view of Jang, the riveting process of taught by Jang as doing so increase the thickness of the coupled portion, an internal volume of the case, for example, an effective internal volume in the case may be reduced. For example, the thickness of the coupled portion increases in a vertical direction of the case , and the number of windings of the electrode assembly may be limited [0066]. The coupling structure of the electrode units that constitute the charging and discharging paths coupled to the electrode assembly may be improved, and accordingly, the effective internal volume in the case, in which the electrode assembly is accommodated, may be increased, and the battery capacity of the electrode assembly may be increased [0071].
PNG
media_image1.png
611
478
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
652
383
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, modified Maeda teaches wherein the protrusion is welded on the riveting block and an upper end of the terminal is recessed on the riveting block [Jang -0048-0049].
Regarding claim 8, Maeda teaches wherein a placing groove is defined on the upper plastic insulator and the riveting block [negative plate] is located in the placing groove [0060].
Regarding claim 9, Maeda teaches wherein the terminal is provided with a step and the step is attached to a lower-end surface of the riveting block [0055; 0060; fig. 2-3]].
Regarding claim 10, Maeda teaches wherein the riveting block [negative/positive plate] is a riveted aluminum block [0046].
Regarding claim 15, Maeda in view of Jang teaches wherein a placing groove is defined on the upper plastic insulator and the riveting block [taught by Jang] is located in the placing groove [Maeda 0059-68; fig. 2-3].
Regarding claim 16, Maeda in view of Jang teaches wherein a placing groove is defined on the upper plastic insulator and the riveting block is located in the placing groove [Maeda 0059-68; fig. 2-3].
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20180183018A1 (Maeda) further in view of US20150228958A1 (Jang) and US20180233716A1 [Chen]
Regarding claim 3, Maeda teaches wherein a sealing member [43a; 0062] is sleeved on the terminal [0061-0062; fitted and positioned]; however, does not teach the sealing member is clamped between the top cover and a securing end of the terminal. Chen teaches a battery structure [abs] and teaches the sealing member is clamped as required by the instant claim [0063, 0080]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Maeda in view of Chen and clamp the sealing member to the terminal as doing so enables a secured structure and one would expect a reasonable expectation of success [0063]. The prior art can be modified or combined to reject claims as prima facie obvious as long as there is a reasonable expectation of success. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (see MPEP § 2143.02).
Claim(s) 4-5 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20180183018A1 (Maeda) further in view of US20150228958A1 (Jang), US20180233716A1 [Chen] and US20150147636A1 [Kim].
Regarding claim 4, Maeda teaches wherein the sealing member is sleeved on the terminal and the sealing member [noted in claim 3] however does not teach the sealing member comprises a sealing gasket and a sealing ring and a top of the sealing ring abuts the upper plastic insulator. Kim teaches a battery [abs]; the sealing gasket [#165; 0041, 0060-0061]; and the sealing ring is [#164]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Maeda in view of Kim as adding the sealing gasket and sealing ring as this enables a stable mechanic and electrical connection [0057].
Regarding claim 5, modified Maeda teaches wherein the top cover is provided with a first connecting hole for the terminal to pass through; the upper plastic insulator is provided with a second connecting hole directly facing the first connecting hole [fig.4 of Maeda]; a ring-shaped protrusion is disposed on a periphery of the second connecting hole; and the ring-shaped protrusion extends into the first connecting hole and abuts the sealing ring [noted in fig.4 and Maeda and Kim].
Regarding claim 17, Maeda in view of Jang teaches wherein a placing groove is defined on the upper plastic insulator and the riveting block is located in the placing groove [Maeda 0059-68; fig. 2-3].
Regarding claim 18, Maeda in view of Jang teaches wherein a placing groove is defined on the upper plastic insulator and the riveting block is located in the placing groove [Maeda 0059-68; fig. 2-3].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARIKA GUPTA whose telephone number is (571)272-9907. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571-272-1481. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729