DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/22/2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The claim limitation of a “positioning gap” in claim 1 (and in subsequent dependent claims) is given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. The examiner is interpreting a “positioning gap” to be a discontinuity in the edge conductive element for example the edge of the conductive element is not a perfect circle as noted in the instant specification [0007, 0018, fig. 6-8].
The claim limitation of “end foot” in claim 1 is given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. The examiner is interpreting “end foot” to be any piece of the edge of the top cover in which two grooves are placed either side of it as noted in [0011] and fig. 7 of the instant specification.
Claim 1 line 14 recites “end pins” but it appears this is a typo and should read “end foot” as such, the examiner is interpreting “end pins” to be “end foot”.
If this is not a typo and was intended then clarification is required otherwise a rejection under 35USC112b may arise.
Claim 1 lines 9-11 recites the following and in the remarks figure 7 is relied upon for support.
PNG
media_image1.png
103
781
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As such the grooves each are recessed from the edge of the conductive element to a center of the conductive element will be interpreted such that the groves start at the edge of the conductive element and are recessed in a direction towards the center as depicted in figure 7 of the instant application and not such that they must start at the edge of the conductive element and end at (to) the center of the conductive element because this interpretation is supported by the instant specification.
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, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng (CN111613739A) and in view of Mori (US 20060019158 A1).
Regarding claim 1, A case component for a button battery accommodating a battery cell [fig. 1-2 , Peng], comprising a case body (10, shell) and a conductive element (30) [0075, fig. 1-2, Peng], and the case body comprises a bottom case (101) and a top cover (102) [0076, fig. 1-2, Peng]; an accommodating cavity (1011) is in the case body [0075, fig. 2, Peng]; one end of the bottom case has an opening that is in communication with the accommodating cavity [0075-0076, fig. 2, Peng]; the top cover is disposed on the opening of the bottom case [0076, fig. 2-3, Peng]; the conductive element is disposed on the top cover by an insulating adhesive layer (50) [0078- 0081, fig. 2-3, Peng discloses that a sealing rubber ring (50) is used to bond the conductive element to the through hole of the top cover; sealing rubber ring reads on insulating adhesive layer]; and where the conductive element (30 has a flat sheet-like structure [fig. 2, Peng]
Peng is silent to 1) the use of a positioning gap on the conductive element and the use of an end foot on the positioning gap. 2) the depths of the grooves
In regards to 1) and 2), Mori discloses a case component (11) for a battery comprising a case body and a conductive element (15) and a top cover (13) [fig. 1, Mori]. Wherein the case body comprises a bottom case (11c) and an accommodating cavity to house the electrode assembly [fig. 1, Mori]. The conductive element (15b) further comprises a series of flange structures (153, 156, 553, 563, 566 “positioning gaps”) on the edge of the conductive element [figs. 2, 3a, 4, 5a-c, 6, Mori]. Wherein the positioning gap comprises a pair of grooves [fig. 2, 3a, 4, 5a-c, 6, Mori], and the grooves each are recessed from the edge of the conductive element to a center of the conductive element [fig. 2, 3a, 4, 5a-c, 6, Mori]. wherein the positioning gap further comprises an end foot [fig. 2, 3a, 4, 5a-c, 6, Mori], and the pair of grooves are respectively located on both sides of the end foot [fig. 2, 3a, 4, 5a-c, 6, Mori]. The grooves and end foot are arranged along the outer edge of the conductive member and are arranged abreast in the direction of the outer edge of the conductive member [fig. 2, 3a, 4, 5a-c, 6, Mori]. (1)
See annotated figure 6 below for additional clarification.
PNG
media_image2.png
438
674
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 6, Mori showing “positioning gaps” and an “end foot” with grooves on either side of it.
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Peng such that there existed a series of flanged structures along the edge of the conductive member. Wherein the flanged structure contains an “end foot” with two grooves on either side of the “end foot” arranged along the outer edge of the conductive member and are arranged abreast in the direction of the outer edge of the conductive member. Using flange structures (“positioning gaps”) along the edge of the “conductive member” and allow for positioning at regions of the main surface of the conductive member and may be used to guide on the XY plane for positioning of the conductive member [0058, Mori]. (1)
Mori further notes that the percentage of the cut out part to form the flange structure on the edge of the conductive member can be arbitrarily determined [0024, Mori]. (2)
One of ordinary skill within the art would appreciate that if the depth of the groove were too small the impact grooves/notches (e.g. improved adhesion) would not be prevalent. If the grooves/notches were too large then the structural integrity of the conductive element would be diminished. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing would therefore recognize the depth as a result effective variable.
Prior to the effective filing date, on of ordinary skill within the arts, barring any critically, would find it obvious to optimize the conductive element groove depth to between 0.05-0.5mm to balance the function of the groove while maintaining structural integrity of the overall component, see MPEP 2144.
Regarding claim 5 and 7, Peng as presently modified is silent to the positioning of the “positioning gaps”.
However, Mori discloses the case component wherein the edge of the conductive element is provided with two flange structures “positioning gaps” (153, 156, 553, 563, 566) [fig. 2, 3a, 4, 5a-c, 6, Mori], and the two positioning gaps are disposed at opposite sides of the edge of the conductive element [fig. 2, 3a, 4, 5a-c, 6, Mori]; or the edge of the conductive element is provided with four positioning gaps [fig. 2, 3a, 4, 5a-c, 6, Mori] , and the four positioning gaps are evenly disposed at the edge of the conductive element [fig. 2, 3a, 4, 5a-c, 6, Mori] .
Mori notes that the number and location of the flange structures may be modified to one’s optimal values according to the size of the battery and electrode assembly [0115, Mori].
PNG
media_image3.png
458
744
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 6, Mori showing positioning of the “positioning gaps”
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Peng such that the positioning gaps were located to have either two gaps on opposite edges and/or four positioning gaps evenly distributed around the edge of the conductive member. Doing so allows for one to obtain secure connection points and allow for improved positioning of the conductive member [0058, 0085, Mori].
Regarding claim 9 and 11, modified Peng discloses the case component, wherein the bottom case (101) comprises a bottom wall and a side wall [fig. 2-5, Peng], a bottom end of the side wall is connected to the bottom wall [fig. 2-5, Peng], and the top cover (102) is disposed on an top end of the side wall [fig. 2-5, Peng].
Regarding claim 13, modified Peng discloses a battery comprising a battery cell (20) and the case component for the battery [0075, fig. 1-2, Peng], and the case component for the battery comprises the case body (10, shell) and a conductive element (30) [0075, fig. 1-2, Peng]; the battery cell is accommodated in the accommodating cavity of the case body [0075, fig. 2, Peng]; the battery cell has a first pole ear (201, equivalent to “first tab”) and a second pole ear (202, equivalent to a “second tab”) [0075, Peng]; the conductive element is electrically connected to one of the first tab and the second tab [0075, Peng]; and the bottom case is electrically connected to the other one of the first tab and the second tab [0075, Peng].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See below for details.
Applicant’s arguments Peng and Mori not possessing a flat, sheet-like structure is not persuasive. As can be seen in figure 2 of Mori the conductive element (30) does posses a flat sheet-like structure. Applicant points to figure 3 of Mori as evidence the Mori does not teach this limitation. The examiner notes that figure 3 is one embodiment of the invention.
"Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments." see MPEP 2123.II
The examiner notes that as written the claimed limitation requires the conductive element to have a flat sheet-like structure with nothing baring a “sink hole” or “extension” as argued by the applicant additionally being present in addition to a flat sheet-like structure.
Applicant argues the intended use of the positing grooves to bring convenience for the CCD visual positioning and detection of the battery.
The examiner notes, that the intended use for the positioning grooves to bring convenience for CCD visual positioning is not persuasive as an argument for allowability.
A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Applicant then points to a the flange height of Mori being 0.3-0.8. This is unpersuasive as the height (vertical direction) of the flange is not commensurate with its depth (horizontal direction).
Applicant then argues comparative examples of Mori having comparative examples showing flange structures without flanges. The examiner is not sure what the applicant is arguing here as if Mori is showing flanges structures (as pointed to by the applicant) then it is unclear how these flange structures do not have flanges.
Applicant argues Mori does not have a flat structure. The examiner notes that Mori is not relied upon for this feature. But still respectfully disagrees with the applicant as one can see a flat sheet-like structure in the conductive element of Mori (see fig. 2 as one example).
Applicant argues that Mori cannot achieve the technical effects of the present application and that Mori is structurally and functionally different from the technical solution of Claim 1. The examiner is not persuaded by this as the applicant only alleges this and does not provide evidence.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
"[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999), see MPEP 2112.I.
Arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness."), see MPEP 2145.I
Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention. In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979) "The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious." Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
This argument as presented by the applicant is further unpersuasive as Mori notes that the cutout structures on the conductive element may be used for positioning in the XY plane [0058, Mori]. As such, Mori does discloses an intended us for positioning the conductive element.
No other arguments are presented. The examiner maintains their rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUINTIN DALE ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-5423. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6pm (MST).
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 5712705256. 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.
/QUINTIN D. ELLIOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights