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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-20 are pending and presented for examination on the merit.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because “support insulation direction” in line 4 should be changed to “support insulation layer”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8, 10, 12, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by TW 201322534 to Lin et al. (machine translation provided for citation).
Regarding claim 1, Lin et al. teaches a connection member for electrically connecting a plurality of tabs 114 or 134 of a current collector, the connection member comprising:
a conductive handle 140 corresponding to the claimed connection plate; and
a protruding pin 142 corresponding to the claimed at least one protrusion arranged on the connection plate and protruding from one side surface of the connection plate in a thickness direction of the connection plate, wherein at least one end of the at least one protrusion in a length direction of the at least one protrusion is formed as a tip in a plane perpendicular to the thickness direction of the connection plate, and wherein the tip is capable of puncturing the plurality of tabs in the length direction of the at least one protrusion as the protruding pin 142 is thin (Figs. 6a; [0011]).
Regarding claim 8, Lin et al. teaches that the at least one protrusion comprises a connection section and a puncturing section that are connected to each other in a protruding height direction of the at least one protrusion, the connection section being connected to the connection plate, the puncturing section being connected to an end of the connection section away from the connection plate and being configured to puncture the plurality of tabs in the thickness direction of the connection plate, as the conductive handle 140 and the protruding pin 142 are integral and the connection section and the puncturing end of the protruding pin 142 are integral (Figs. 6a; [0011]).
Regarding claim 10, Lin et al. teaches that connection plate and the at least one protrusion are integrally formed as the conductive handle 140 and the protruding pin 142 are integral (Figs. 6a; [0011]).
Regarding claim 12, Lin et al. teaches a battery, comprising:
a current collector comprising a plurality of electrode plates 110, 130 laminated to each other, each of the plurality of electrode plates comprising a tab 114 or 134 (Figs. 1-3; [0008]); and
a conductive connection assembly comprising a connection member for electrically connecting a plurality of tabs of the current collector, the connection member comprising:
a conductive handle 140 corresponding to the claimed connection plate; and
a protruding pin 142 corresponding to the claimed at least one protrusion arranged on the connection plate and protruding from one side surface of the connection plate in a thickness direction of the connection plate, wherein:
an end of the at least one protrusion in a length direction of the at least one protrusion is formed as a tip in a plane perpendicular to the thickness direction of the connection plate; the tip is capable of puncturing the plurality of tabs in the length direction of the at least one protrusion as the protruding pin 142 is thin (Figs. 6a; [0011]); and
the at least one protrusion of the connection member penetrates the plurality of tabs and is electrically connected to the tabs as the protruding pin 142 passes through the plurality of tabs, connecting the conductive handle 140 and the tabs through ultrasonic welding (Figs. 8 and 9; [0013]). The prior art structure is indistinguishable from the claimed counterpart.
Regarding claim 13, Lin et al. teaches that the protruding pin 142 is electrically connected to the plurality of tabs through ultrasonic welding, which uses a high-frequency vibration, and wherein a vibration direction of the high-frequency vibration is parallel to the length direction of the at least one protrusion (Figs. 6-9; [0011-13]). The prior art structure reads on the claimed structure of the at least one protrusion puncturing and the plurality of tabs and being electrically connected thereto.
Regarding claim 20, Lin et al. teaches a battery pack or battery module, comprising the battery according to claim 12 (Figs. 1-3; [0008]).
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 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. as applied to claim 12 above, in view of WO 2020/258754 to Li et al. (English equivalent US 2022/0093932 used for citation).
Regarding claim 14, Lin et al. does not expressly teach that each of the plurality of electrode plates comprises a support insulation layer, a first conductive layer and a second conductive layer, the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer covering two side surfaces of the support insulation layer in a thickness direction of the support insulation layer, respectively.
Li et al. also relates to a battery and teaches that the battery comprises an electrode including a support layer 101 that is made of an insulation material ([0082-84]; [0180-184]) and conductive layers 102 covering two side surfaces of the support insulation layer in a thickness direction of the support insulation layer, respectively (Figs. 1, 2, and 11; [0119]; [0120]; [0148]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made each of the electrode plates of Lin et al. as claimed, motivated by the fact that Li et al. demonstrates that the electrode plates having the composite current collector that is relatively thin provide significantly improved energy density of the electrochemical apparatus, nail penetration safety performance, and electrical properties ([0012-16]). The skilled artisan would have obtained expected results applying a known element to a known product.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7, 9, 11, and 15-19 are 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: Lin et al. does not teach that the at least one protrusion comprises a main section and a spike section as claimed in claims 2 and 15, respectively, as the tip of the protruding pin 142 of Lin et al. does not seem to have a spike section. Accordingly, claims 3-7 and 16-19 dependent on these claims also contain the allowable subject matter. Lin et al. also does not teach the arc connection of claim 9 or the matrix of claim 11. No other reference was found to remedy the deficiencies.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4 of copending Application No. 18/533,209 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the reference application claims a connector for electrically connecting a plurality of layers of tabs of an electrode plate, the connector comprising: a connection plate; and a protrusion arranged at the connection plate, wherein the protrusion protrudes from a side surface of the connection plate in a thickness direction of the connection plate, and is configured to penetrate the plurality of layers of tabs, thus corresponding to the claimed connection member of claim 1 in the instant application. Claim 4 of the conflicting application recites that the plurality of protrusions is arranged in a matrix pattern, essentially the same as claim 11 of the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENG M CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5859. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 5:30 pm on Monday, 9 am - 3 pm on Tuesday, and 9 am to 1 pm on Wednesday and Thursday.
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.
/Heng M. Chan/Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725