DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/5/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-11 are pending in the application. New grounds of rejection have been added for claims 1-7 and 9-11 as a result of the amendment to the claims submitted 1/5/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 100686859 B1, see Machine Translation) in view of Guen et al. (US 2016/0043378) and further in view of Nakamura et al. (US 2014/0128710).
Regarding claim 1, Kim et al. discloses in Figs 1-3, a rechargeable battery (ref 100) comprising: an electrode assembly (ref 200) including a first electrode (ref 210), a second electrode (ref 220), and a separator (ref 230) positioned between the first electrode (ref 210) and the second electrode (ref 220); a case (ref 110) having an internal space (Fig 1) accommodating the electrode assembly (ref 200) and an opening (Fig 1) with one opened side (Fig 1, top part); a cap plate (ref 310) coupled to (Fig 1) the opening of the case (ref 110) and having a terminal hole (ref 311) exposing the internal space (Fig 1); and an electrode terminal (ref 320) electrically connected to (Fig 1) the electrode assembly (ref 200) through the terminal hole (ref 311) and overlapping (Fig 1) the cap plate (ref 310), wherein the separator (ref 230) has a greater width (P6/L11-16) than the first electrode (ref 210) and the second electrode (ref 220), and the separator (ref 230) is in contact with an internal bottom surface (depicted in Fig 3, bottom, P6/L15-17) of the case (ref 110).
Kim et al. does not explicitly disclose the electrode terminal decreases in width from a position linearly aligned with one surface of the cap plate to a position linearly aligned with an opposite surface of the cap plate.
Guen et al. discloses in Figs 1-9, a secondar battery (ref 100) including a cap plate (ref 20) and a terminal plate (ref 32) that is curved/bent with respect to (Fig 4, [0039]) the cap plate (ref 20). This configuration enhances the structural integrity and safety of the battery ([0009], [0010], [0068]).
Guen et al. and Kim et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the curved structure disclosed by Guen et al. into the terminal of Kim et al. with respect to the cap plate of the battery to enhance structural integrity and overall safety of the battery.
Kim et al. also does not explicitly disclose it is a portion of the electrode terminal extending through the cap plate that decreases in width.
Nakamura et al. discloses in Figs 1-5, a button battery (ref 4) including a terminal body (ref 61) that to have a thickness that is decreased internally within the battery structure to allow flush fitting of internal structures within the battery ([0079], Figs 4-5), enhancing overall battery structural integrity and performance.
Kim et al. and Nakamura et al. are analogous since each deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of fling to incorporate the decreased internal thickness disclosed by Nakamura et al. of the internal terminal part of modified Kim et al. allow flush fitting of internal components and thereby enhance overall battery structural integrity and performance.
Regarding claim 7, modified Kim et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the electrode terminal (ref 320) includes: a flange part (“F”, Fig 1 below) covering (Fig 1) the terminal hole (ref 311) and overlapping the cap plate (ref 310); and a protruded part (“P”, Fig 1 below) integrally formed with the flange part (“F”, Fig 1 below) and protruded from the flange part (“F”, Fig 1 below) toward the terminal hole (ref 311).
PNG
media_image1.png
104
210
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, modified Kim et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the protruded part continuously decreases in width from the flange part to an end of the protruded part. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to change the width of the protruded part, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). It is well known in the art that the shape of the terminal may vary due to connection needs and structures and that many design parameters are taken into consideration when determining the dimensions of a battery terminal.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 100686859 B1, see Machine Translation) in view of Guen et al. (US 2016/0043378) and Nakamura et al. (US 2014/0128710) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Spillman et al. (US 2002/0122975).
Regarding claim 2, modified Kim et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses a first electrode tab (ref 215) electrically connected to the first electrode (ref 210); and a second electrode tab (ref 225) electrically connecting the second electrode (ref 220) and the electrode terminal (ref 320).
Kim et al. does not explicitly disclose the first electrode is connected to an internal bottom surface of the case.
Spillman et al. discloses secondary batteries in a variety of shapes and sizes ([0005]). These include prismatic and button cells ([0005]). It is noted that in button cells, a bottom of a casing of the button cell is a terminal of the button cell.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the battery of Kim et al. in the configuration of a button cell having a bottom casing a terminal as disclosed by Spillman et al. A skill artisan at the time of the invention would have been motivated to incorporate the configuration of Spillman et al. into the structure of Kim et al. to match the end use of the device it powers (see Spillman et al., [0005]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Kim et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses a first tape (“Tape”, Fig 1 below) attached to the lower surface (Fig 1 below) of the second electrode tab (ref 225) in an area larger than (“Tape” is wider than ref 225) the second electrode tab (ref 225) to insulate between the second electrode tab (ref 225) and the electrode assembly (ref 200); and a second tape (ref 260 is a tape, P6/L24-26) attached along the diameter direction external circumferential surface (P6/L24-26) of the electrode assembly (ref 200)and wrapped around the exterior side (P6/L24-26) of the electrode assembly (ref 200) to insulate between (P6/L24-26) an exterior side of the electrode assembly (ref 200) and an inner side of the case (ref 110).
PNG
media_image2.png
168
278
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, modified Kim et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses an insulating disk (ref 330) positioned between (Fig 1) the second electrode tab (ref 225) and a top surface (Fig 1) of the electrode assembly (ref 200) and insulating between (Fig 1) the electrode terminal (ref 320) and the electrode assembly (ref 200).
Regarding claim 5, modified Kim et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses an insulating plate (ref 340) positioned between (Fig 1) the second electrode tab (ref 225) and the cap plate (ref 310) and insulating between (Fig 1) the second electrode tab (ref 225) and the cap plate (ref 301), wherein the insulating plate (ref 340) has a portion that is removed corresponding to (at hole ref 341, Fig 1) the electrode terminal (ref 320). Further, it is well known in the art that the insulating material can have a variety of shapes of configurations, including disk / washer shaped, plate shaped, etc. (as evidenced by Kim et al., see shape of refs 330, 340, respectively, Fig 1). The change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to modify insulating plate of Kim et al. to include having a disk / washer shape. An ordinary skilled artisan at the time of filing the invention would have been motivated to do the foregoing in order to optimize the efficiency of insulation within the battery structure.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 100686859 B1, see Machine Translation) in view of Guen et al. (US 2016/0043378) and Nakamura et al. (US 2014/0128710) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (US 2006/0257729).
Regarding claim 6, modified Kim et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the cap plate is welded to the case (ref 110), and the cap plate (ref 310) and the case (ref 110) are made of a same metal (P5/L19, P6/L30). Kim et al. does not explicitly disclose the cap plate is welded to the case.
Lee discloses in Figs 1-6, a battery (Abstract) including a cap plate (ref 240) and can (ref 210) formed of a same metal and welded ([0048]). This configuration enhances the sealing and structural integrity of the battery ([0048]).
Lee and Kim et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of fling to incorporate the welding disclosed by Lee into the structure at the cap plate and casing of Kim et al. to enhance sealing and overall structural integrity and performance of the battery.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 100686859 B1, see Machine Translation) in view of Guen et al. (US 2016/0043378) and Nakamura et al. (US 2014/0128710) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Azami et al. (US 2016/0226099).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, modified Kim et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose a thermal fusion layer positioned between the cap plate and the flange part, and insulating bonding between the cap plate and the flange part, wherein the thermal fusion layer is melted in a predetermined temperature.
Azami et al. discloses in Fig 1, a battery ([0018]) including a casing having a thermal fusion layer that melts at temperature to enhance sealing of the battery structure ([0082]).
Azami et al. and Kim et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of fling to incorporate the thermal fusion layer of Azami et al. into the structure at the cap plate and casing of Kim et al. to enhance sealing and overall structural integrity and performance of the battery.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 100686859 B1, see Machine Translation) in view of Guen et al. (US 2016/0043378) and Nakamura et al. (US 2014/0128710) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Lipman (US 2003/0047364).
Regarding claim 11, modified Kim et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the protruded part continuously decreases in width from the flange part to an end of the protruded part. It is well known in the art that the terminal can have a variety of shapes of configurations, including V-shaped (decreasing width) (as evidenced by Lipman, Fig 1, terminals 5, 5’ v-shaped). The change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to modify terminal of Kim et al. to include a v-shaped terminal, as taught by Lipman. An ordinary skilled artisan at the time of the invention would have been motivated to do the foregoing in order to optimize the efficiency of terminal internal connection and overall battery structural integrity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Reasons for indication of allowable subject matter for instant dependent claim 8 were stated in the 11/14/2025 office action at P10 and are therefore not being repeated here.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7 and 9-11 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH J DOUYETTE whose telephone number is (571)270-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8A - 4P EST.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/KENNETH J DOUYETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725