DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/3/2025 has been entered.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Priority
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63/242,690 fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Independent claims 1 and 8, and thus all those dependent thereon, are not supported by the provisional application '690.
The only ribbon bonding disclosed in the provisional is between cells and the common current collector (see Figs. 5-6; P15-18). Accordingly, the presently claimed ribbon bonding connection recited below of:
“…a first negative terminal of one planar surface of the fist cylindrical battery cell is directly connected to the second positive terminal of one planar surface of the second cylindrical battery cell via a ribbon bond…”
is not taught in the provisional such that the claims are not accorded the provisional application date. It is noted this is only one limitation that is not supported by the provisional application; the claim as a whole is not supported by the provisional.
If future claim amendments are alleged to be supported by the provisional, citation thereto should be provided by paragraph number such that an accurate effective filing date can be accorded to the claims which is foundational to searching (i.e., determining what is prior art and what is not).
It is noted that the non-provisional application 17/940,396 includes additional drawings and written description, including Fig. 3B illustrating the claimed feature of:
“…a first negative terminal of one planar surface of the fist cylindrical battery cell is directly connected to the second positive terminal of one planar surface of the second cylindrical battery cell via a ribbon bond..”
PNG
media_image1.png
609
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This figure does not exist in the provisional, and no written description of the quoted feature is found within the provisional.
Specification & Drawings
3. The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). The drawings are objected to because the newly added language added to the claim has no basis within the written description with a reference numeral provided to each of the specification and drawings (i.e., there is no descriptive portion identification or reference numeral designating the part or parts to which the newly added language applies). See emphasized portions below of MPEP § 608.01(o):
The meaning of every term used in any of the claims should be apparent from the descriptive portion of the specification with clear disclosure as to its import; and in mechanical cases, it should be identified in the descriptive portion of the specification by reference to the drawing, designating the part or parts therein to which the term applies. A term used in the claims may be given a special meaning in the description. See MPEP § 2111.01 and § 2173.05(a).
Usually the terminology of the claims present on the filing date of the application follows the nomenclature of the specification, but sometimes in amending the claims or in adding new claims, new terms are introduced that do not appear in the specification. The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted.
New claims, including claims first presented after the application filing date where no claims were submitted on filing, and amendments to the claims already in the application should be scrutinized not only for new matter but also for new terminology. While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to insure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification See 37 CFR 1.75, MPEP § 608.01(i) and § 1302.01 and § 2103.
Correction of the following is required:
The specification should include a description of the newly added terminology (e.g., “As shown in Fig. #, the first planar surface # is shown”) and the specification and drawings should include corresponding reference numerals designating the part or parts to which the term applies:
a first planar surface;
a second planar surface;
a first negative terminal of one planar surface of the first cylindrical battery,
the one planar surface of the first cylindrical battery completely surrounding a first positive terminal in the one planar surface of the first cylindrical battery;
a second negative terminal of one planar surface of the second cylindrical battery cell,
the one planar surface of the second cylindrical battery cell completely surrounding a second positive terminal in the one planar surface of the second cylindrical battery cell.
It is the position of the Examiner that a large amount of the language is new matter and violates the written description and is not adequately supported on the sole basis of the drawings (see subsequent rejections below under 35 U.S.C. 112). Future language that is fully supported and not new matter should be added to the specification with corresponding reference numerals in the specification and drawings. The language as shown above, if added, would be new matter. Accordingly, the intent of the section is that future claims introducing new terminology and features with no basis in the written description and drawings is properly annotated with reference numerals and described.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
4. The prior Office Action objections to claims 1 and 8 are withdrawn in view of the corrections filed.
Claims 1 and 8 are objected to for the following:
Grammar: “….a plurality of cylindrical battery cells that have a uniform orientation, include a first cylindrical battery cell and a second battery cell…” should be including
Clarity: the series of “wherein” clauses (starting at line 11 of claim 1) should be indented from one another for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. The prior Office Action rejections of claim 1 (sections A-F), and thus dependent claims 2-7, and claim 8 (sections A-F), and thus dependent claims 9-14, under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention are withdrawn in view of the claim amendments filed.
7. The prior Office Action rejections of claim 1 (sections G-H, labeled sections A-B, respectively, below), and thus dependent claims 2-7, and claim 8 (sections G-H, labeled sections A-B, respectively, below), and thus dependent claims 9-14, under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention are maintained.
The claim amendments filed necessitate additional grounds of rejection against claim 1, and thus dependent claims 2-7, and claim 8, and thus dependent claims 9-14, under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is drawn to a system, and claim 8 is drawn to a process of making the system. All rejections applied to claim 1 are simultaneously applied to claim 8.
Claim 1 as amended requires the following two features:
“…wherein the one planar surface of the first cylindrical battery cell has the first negative terminal completely surrounding a positive terminal in the one planar surface of the first cylindrical battery cell…”
“…wherein the one planar surface of the second cylindrical battery cell has a second negative terminal completely surrounding the second positive terminal in the one planar surface of the second cylindrical battery cell…”
The language does not exist in the written description, and it is not shown in the drawings (see subsequent rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/first paragraph). If the claimed one planar surface of the respective cell has the negative terminal “completely surrounding” the positive terminal of a respective cell in the one planar surface thereof, it would have to exist as a hemispherical dome such that the positive terminal was “completely surrounded.” A hemispherical dome surface is not a planar surface (nor is it supported). It is entirely unclear how to configure a planar surface [an entity that is two-dimensional] such that it can completely surround a three-dimensional object (the positive terminal) in the one planar surface as claimed rendering the claim highly indefinite. It is further entirely unclear how to configure such a terminal construct and still allow for appropriate electrical connections to be made to the cell for charge/discharge.
Claim 1 as amended requires the following two features:
“…wherein the one planar surface of the first cylindrical battery cell has the first negative terminal completely surrounding a positive terminal in the one planar surface of the first cylindrical battery cell…”
“…wherein the one planar surface of the second cylindrical battery cell has a second negative terminal completely surrounding the second positive terminal in the one planar surface of the second cylindrical battery cell…”
The language does not exist in the written description, and it is not shown in the drawings (see subsequent rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/first paragraph). If the positive and negative terminals of a battery cell existed in the same planar surface, the battery would be defunct as positive and negative terminal surfaces must be electrically isolated from one another to constitute a viable battery. Accordingly, with regards to the language being indefinite, it is entirely unclear how to configure such a terminal construct and create an operational battery. Furthermore, it is not clear how to configure the described entity outside of a hemispherical dome negative terminal surface which would not be a planar surface. It is entirely unclear how to configure a planar surface [an entity that is two-dimensional] such that it can completely surround a three-dimensional object (the positive terminal) in the one planar surface as claimed rendering the claim highly indefinite.
Claim 1 defines, “…wherein each cylindrical battery cell has a first planar surface and a second planar surface…” The claim then goes onto reference and utilized “one planar surface of the first cylindrical battery,” and “one planar surface of the second cylindrical battery cell” throughout the claim. It is not clear from the claim or the disclosure (no such language exists in the written description and no explanation is provided by Applicant) if Applicant is attempting to define:
1) an additional planar surface (“one planar surface”) for each cell outside of the defined first and second planar surfaces already defined, or
2) the issue is one of failing to define that the “one planar surface” is one of the already defined first and/or second planar surfaces (not proposed claim language as this is not supported – see subsequent rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/first paragraph rejection).
Accordingly, the meets and bounds of the claims are unclear.
Claim 1 defined that each cylindrical battery cell has a first planar surface and a second planar surface, with there being two defined cylindrical battery cells (“includ[ing] a first cylindrical battery cell and a second cylindrical battery cell”) arranged in a plurality of columns (i.e., a first cylindrical battery cell defines a first column; a second cylindrical battery cell defines a second column).
The claim then recites:
“a thermal management and structural (TMS) plate that is disposed at the second planar surface of the plurality of battery cylindrical battery cells.”
There is insufficient antecedent basis a singular second planar surface of the plurality of battery cylindrical battery cells.
The Examiner recommends: “a thermal management and structural (TMS) plate that is disposed at the respective second planar surfaces of the plurality of battery cylindrical battery cells.”
Claim 1 defined that each cylindrical battery cell has a first planar surface and a second planar surface, with there being two defined cylindrical battery cells (“includ[ing] a first cylindrical battery cell and a second cylindrical battery cell”) arranged in a plurality of columns (i.e., a first cylindrical battery cell defines a first column; a second cylindrical battery cell defines a second column). The claim then recites:
“a bonding plate that is disposed at the first planar surface of the plurality of cylindrical battery cells..”
There is insufficient antecedent basis a singular first planar surface of the plurality of cylindrical battery cells.
The Examiner recommends: “a bonding plate that is disposed at the respective first planar surfaces of the plurality of battery cylindrical battery cells.”
Appropriate correction is required.
7. The prior Office Action rejections of claim 1, and thus dependent claims 2-7, and claim 8, and thus dependent claims 9-14, under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement are maintained. The claim amendments filed necessitate additional grounds of rejection against claim 1, and thus dependent claims 2-7, and claim 8, and thus dependent claims 9-14. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is drawn to a system, and claim 8 is drawn to a process of making the system. All rejections applied to claim 1 are simultaneously applied to claim 8.
A) Claim 1 as amended requires the following two features:
“…wherein the one planar surface of the first cylindrical battery cell has the first negative terminal completely surrounding a positive terminal in the one planar surface of the first cylindrical battery cell…”
“…wherein the one planar surface of the second cylindrical battery cell has a second negative terminal completely surrounding the second positive terminal in the one planar surface of the second cylindrical battery cell…”
The language does not exist in the written description, and it is not shown in the drawings. If the negative terminal “completely surrounded” the positive terminal, it would have to exist as a hemispherical dome such that the positive terminal was “completely surrounded” by the negative terminal. Such a construct does not exist in the drawings, and the language does not exist in the written description. Moreover, a hemispherical dome surface cannot be a planar surface. Accordingly, the language violates the written description requirement.
B) Claim 1 as amended requires the following two features:
“…wherein the one planar surface of the first cylindrical battery cell has the first negative terminal completely surrounding a positive terminal in the one planar surface of the first cylindrical battery cell…”
“…wherein the one planar surface of the second cylindrical battery cell has a second negative terminal completely surrounding the second positive terminal in the one planar surface of the second cylindrical battery cell…”
The language does not exist in the written description, and it is not shown in the drawings. Accordingly, the language violates the written description requirement. If the positive and negative terminals of a battery cell existed in the same planar surface, the battery would be defunct as positive and negative terminal surfaces must be electrically isolated from one another to constitute a viable battery. Accordingly, as shown in Figs. 3A-3B, negative terminal 354 defines a first planar surface, and positive terminal 352 defines a second, distinctive planar surface, wherein they are not in the same planar surface.
At best, based on Fig. 3A and P23 of the disclosure, it would appear that: the negative terminal 354 defines a first planar surface, the positive terminal 352 defines a second planar surface, and the first planar surface and the second planar surface exist in a same virtual plane.
In general, it does not appear possible to configure a planar surface [an entity that is two-dimensional] such that it can completely surround a three-dimensional object (the positive terminal) in the one planar surface as claimed.
C) Claim 1 defines, “…wherein each cylindrical battery cell has a first planar surface and a second planar surface…” The claim then goes onto reference and utilized “one planar surface of the first cylindrical battery,” and “one planar surface of the second cylindrical battery cell” throughout the claim. As outlined in section C of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/second paragraph:
It is not clear from the claim or the disclosure if Applicant is attempting to define: 1) an additional planar surface (“one planar surface”) for each cell outside of the defined first and second planar surfaces already defined, or 2) the issue is one failing to define that the “one planar surface” is one of the already defined first and/or second planar surfaces (not proposed claim language as this is not supported – see subsequent rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/first paragraph rejection). Accordingly, the meets and bounds of the claims are unclear.
In terms of the written description issue, the language of “one planar surface” in addition to the already defined “a first planar surface and a second planar surface” has no basis within the written description. If Applicant is introducing new terminology into the claims that has its sole support in the drawings, then corresponding reference numerals and matching terminology must be added to the written description, so long as it is not new matter. The Examiner is not clear what the “one planar surface” is meant to define given Applicant has not pointed out where the amended claim is supported, and there does not appear to be a written description of the claim limitation. Per Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007), the prior statement is sufficient to make such a rejection:
Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing MPEP § 2163.04 which provides that a "simple statement such as ‘applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation in the application as filed’ may be sufficient where the claim is a new or amended claim, the support for the limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where the limitation is supported.")
If the intent is that the “one planar surface” is meant to be one of the first planar surface or the second planar surface as already defined, this lends itself to an additional written description issue as the “one planar surface” cannot be the claimed second planar surface. Claim 1 defines the following features as best understood by the Examiner given a great majority of the language is not found in the description with corresponding reference numerals in the drawings and specification (see objections above):
PNG
media_image2.png
753
730
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The bonding plate 200 is where the electrical connections between the cylindrical battery cells 200 are being made. Accordingly, assuming the “one planar surface” used throughout the claim set is intended to reference one of the already defined first planar surface or second planar surface of the claim, the “one planar surface” fails the written description requirement because it cannot be the second planar surface and would thus be a broadening amendment in terms of what the “one planar surface” can constitute.
Appropriate correction is required. Future claim amendments should be accompanied with comments that specifically point out support for any claim amendments. See MPEP 2163, section 3(b); MPEP § 714.02; and MPEP § 2163.06:
With respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims. See, e.g., Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
"Applicant should ... specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure."
Prior Art Evaluation
8. Per MPEP § 2143.03:
“"All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art." In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970). (The Board erred because it ignored claim language that it considered to be indefinite, and reached a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious based only on the rest of the claim.). However, an examiner should not simply speculate about the meaning of the claim language and then enter an obviousness rejection in view of that speculative interpretation. In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859,134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962) (The "considerable speculation" by the examiner and the Board as to the scope of the claims did not provide a proper basis for an obviousness rejection.)
When evaluating claims for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103, all the limitations of the claims must be considered and given weight, including limitations which do not find support in the specification as originally filed (i.e., new matter). Ex parte Grasselli, 231 USPQ 393 (Bd. App. 1983) aff’d mem. 738 F.2d 453 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
MPEP § 2173.06 further notes that when there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims. The claims are highly indefinite as outlined above in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/second paragraph to the point of precluding prior art examination.
For compact prosecution purposes, the following prior art is cited and is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure and analyzed against claim 1 as best as possible.
Lane et al. (US 2014/0212695) was previously cited and is further expanded upon below with respect to what is attempting to be claimed as best understood by the Examiner.
Lane et al. (US 2014/0212695) teaches a system (Figs. 1-6; entire disclosure relied upon) comprising:
a plurality of cylindrical battery cells 105 that have a uniform orientation, includ[ing] a first cylindrical battery cell and a second cylindrical battery cell (Figs. 1-6), and are arranged in a plurality of columns (Figs. 1-6), wherein each of the plurality of cylindrical battery cell has a first planar surface and a second planar surface;
a thermal management and structural (TMS) plate 165 that is disposed at the [respective] second planar surface[s] of the plurality of cylindrical battery cells (Figs. 1-2; P32); and
a flexible printed circuit 120 (“bonding plate”) that is disposed at the [respective] first planar surface[s] of the plurality of cylindrical battery cells (Figs. 1-2; P29, 34-45),
wherein a first annular negative terminal 145 of the first cylindrical battery cell is directly connected to a second positive terminal 140 of the second cylindrical battery cell via a “ribbon bond” (see Fig. 5 - 400 is described as being a flexible printed circuit 400 having the format shown reasonably construed as a ribbon bond- P34-45), the direct connection circled below:
PNG
media_image3.png
742
562
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
464
461
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The following language is not examinable given the issues outlined under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/first paragraph and 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/second paragraph; however, it appears the attempt is to capture the following illustrated construct of the instant application:
PNG
media_image5.png
276
361
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
612
625
media_image6.png
Greyscale
“…wherein the one end one planar surface of the first cylindrical battery cell has the first negative terminal completely surrounding a first positive terminal in the one planar surface of the first cylindrical battery cell, and
wherein one end the one planar surface of the second cylindrical battery cell has a second negative terminal completely surrounding the second positive terminal in the one planar surface of the second cylindrical battery cell.”
Lane teaches:
“Each energy storage element 105 are a rechargeable secondary battery cell having a flat top with its terminals at one end. Each energy storage element 105 thus includes a center positive terminal 140 and a surrounding annular negative terminal 145 (P31). Providing all electrical connections to energy storage elements 105 at one end enables a cooling system 165 to be directly coupled to the other end (P32).”
Truncated Fig. 2 & Fig. 3 of Lane are reproduced below with annotations:
PNG
media_image7.png
205
562
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
668
565
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, claim 1 less the non-examinable portion (but interpreted as best as possible in view of the instant application figures), does not to appear to be patentable over Lane et al. (US 2014/0212695).
Additional prior art cited previously as well as newly found references are cited below:
With respect to a positive terminal and negative terminal being located at one end and having respective surfaces in a same virtual plane, the construct is well-known and common place in the art. See at least Ahn et al. (US 2021/0203028):
PNG
media_image9.png
652
382
media_image9.png
Greyscale
With respect to the type of electrical connection being made in Fig. 3B (i.e., a positive terminal of one cell connected to a negative terminal of another cell), it is a known technique to provide a first polarity terminal 180 of one cell connected to a second, opposite polarity terminal of another cell using a ribbon bond conductive connection 230 as taught by Trester et al. (US 2010/0015519) (at least Fig. 4), with both polarity terminals being on one end of each respective cell. Trester teaches the ribbon bonding conductive member 230 shown below making a connection between first polarity 180 of the right cell to second, opposite polarity 190 of the left cell, with both polarity terminals being on one end of each respective cell:
PNG
media_image10.png
351
476
media_image10.png
Greyscale
A person having ordinary skill in the art would immediately recognize wire bonding and ribbon (or strip) bonding as functionally equivalent alternatives as taught by Broekelmann et al. (US 2021/0194102)
PNG
media_image11.png
97
375
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Additionally, the use of conductive ribbon bonding versus conductive wire has the known, predictable advantage of providing higher mechanical strength than the conductive wire as taught by Kwag (US 2021/0167345) (P129) such that there is necessary teaching, suggestion, and motivation to replace wire bonds with ribbon/strip bonds.
See also Seol et al. (US 2021/0028431) teaching the same (“..bonding wires or bonding ribbons may be used as connectors 105”) with Fig. 4 reproduced below:
PNG
media_image12.png
538
645
media_image12.png
Greyscale
See also Yasui eta l. (US 2011/0177365)
Broekelmann et al. (US 2021/0194102) teaching that the electrical connections 4 shown below with strip connector 4 between a positive and negative terminal of adjacent cells:
PNG
media_image13.png
421
496
media_image13.png
Greyscale
The provision of a TMS plate disposed at the second planar surface of a plurality of cylindrical cells opposite the electrical connection occuring on the first planar surface (where both terminals of each cell exist) is well-known in the art and taught by Wynn et al. (US 2020/0153057).
See also Zeiler et al. (US 2022/0045395); Weis (US 2022/0181732); Capati et al. (US 2019/0081294).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's response filed 11/3/2025 has been fully considered. Any pertinent arguments to maintained positions are addressed below:
Applicant argues/remarks:
PNG
media_image14.png
152
626
media_image14.png
Greyscale
In response:
Fig. 3 and P15 of the provisional application 63/242,690 are reproduced below:
PNG
media_image15.png
847
644
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
145
642
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Figure 3 shows no ribbon bonding whatsoever; Fig. 5 shows the ribbons bonds that connect the cells to the current collector as previously outlined by the Examiner in the analysis of why the provisional does not support the instant application:
The only ribbon bonding disclosed in the provisional is between cells and the common current collector (see Figs. 5-6; P15-18).
Figure 5 does not have a single ribbon bond that directly connects the cells as claimed:
“…a first negative terminal of one planar surface of the fist cylindrical battery cell is directly connected to the second positive terminal of one planar surface of the second cylindrical battery cell via a ribbon bond..”
Accordingly, the presently claimed ribbon bonding connection is not taught in the provisional such that the claims are not accorded the provisional application date. It is noted that it is improper for an Applicant or Applicant’s representative to misrepresent material facts to the Examiner. Xitronix Corp. v. KLA-Tencor Corp., No. A-14-CA-01113-SS, 2016 WL 7626575 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 2016), aff’d Rule 36, No. 16-2746 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2019).
It is noted that the non-provisional application 17/940,396 includes additional drawings and written description, including Fig. 3B illustrating the claimed feature of:
“…a first negative terminal of one planar surface of the fist cylindrical battery cell is directly connected to the second positive terminal of one planar surface of the second cylindrical battery cell via a ribbon bond..”
PNG
media_image1.png
609
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This figure does not exist in the provisional, and no written description of the quoted feature is found within the provisional. Accordingly, the remark that the provisional application supports the claim with citations having no foundation as to supporting the claim are not persuasive. The instant application is not accorded the benefit of the priority application date.
Applicant argues/remarks:
PNG
media_image17.png
183
642
media_image17.png
Greyscale
In response:
Applicant makes no actual traversal with respect to the maintained rejections above under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/first paragraph (sections A & B from prior Office Action) or 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/second paragraph (sections G & H from prior Office Action) despite the language rejected remaining in the claim. A proper response should submit an argument under the heading “Remarks” pointing out disagreements with the examiner’s contentions.
It is noted that in the instant Office Action, Lane et al. (US 2014/0212695) is analyzed against claim 1 as best as possible (see section 8 above). A future response should specifically point out what is absent from the Lane reference within future amended claims given as best understood by the Examiner, there does not appear to be any form of patentably distinguishing feature in the claim over Lane et al. (US 2014/0212695) versus the construct shown in the instant application Figures 3A-3B as analyzed above.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA J BARROW whose telephone number is (571)270-7867. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am - 6pm CST.
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 on (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.
/AMANDA J BARROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729