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 .
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.
Status of the Claims
Arguments were filed 10/14/25. Claims 1-7 are pending, wherein claims 6-7 remain withdrawn as being directed to a non-elected invention. This action is NON-FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oda et al (US 2016/0118641, cited in IDS filed 10/20/22) in view of Nansaka et al (US 2016/0247637).
Regarding claim 1, Oda et al teaches a terminal component (figs 3-13, negative electrode terminal 20) for a secondary battery which has a plate-like head portion (see fig 5, paragraph [0060], rivet shape with a T-shaped cross-section, note the flange portion 22 of the T-shaped cross-section, also see fig 12 and paragraph [0120], flange portion 522 may be rectangular frame-shaped) with a bottom surface (fig 5, lower surface 22e) and an upper surface (fig 5, upper surface 22a) in an opposite side to the bottom-surface and a shaft portion (fig 5, shaft portion 21) extending from the bottom surface (fig 5, note that the shaft portion extends downwardly from the bottom surface 22e), the terminal component comprising:
a first metal (figs 5-7, metal layer 40); and
a second metal joined to the first metal (figs 5-7, metal layer 30) and having a higher ductility than that of the first metal (paragraph [0078], metal layer 30 is Al, metal layer 40 is Cu, the same materials as disclosed in applicant’s specification thus having the same properties (aluminum more ductile than copper), additionally note paragraph [0129] where layer 30 and layer 40 may alternatively be a combination of Al and Ni, and that paragraph [0107] discloses that Ni is slightly less ductile than Al and Cu),
wherein
the bottom surface of the head portion is formed of the first metal (fig 5, note that the bottom surface 22e is of metal layer 40),
the upper surface of the head portion is formed of the second metal (fig 5, note that the upper surface 22a is of metal layer 30), and
a boundary between the first metal and the second metal (figs 4-5, note the interface I along the side surface 22d, see fig 12 showing the boundary).
Oda et al is quiet to a circumferentially continuous chamfered portion is provided in an outer end portion of the bottom surface of the head portion, and the boundary between the first metal and the second metal is formed in the chamfered portion.
Nansaka et al teaches an electrical storage device (abstract), including a terminal plate (40, fig 4, corresponding to the claimed head portion and flange portion 22/522 of Oda), and an insulating holder (fig 4, insulating holder 50, corresponding to an insulating packing 7 of fig 4 in Oda) provided to surround the terminal plate, and that the terminal plate has a step or a slope in an area in which the terminal plate comes in contact with the holder (paragraph [0021]). This makes it possible to prevent the holding power of the holder that holds the terminal plate from being excessively decreased while reducing the contact resistance between the terminal plate and the bus bar, thereby implementing a compact electrical storage device (paragraph [0021]). The terminal plate 40 has a chamfered approximately rectangular shape (paragraph [0051], fig 4, fig 6), having a first plane (upper side 44), a second plane (lower side 46), and a third side (side 48) (paragraph [0050], fig 4). The plate has a first plane with a larger area than a second plane (paragraph [0051], fig 6), where the dimension L1 of the first plane in the Y-axis is larger than the dimension L2 of the second plane in the Y-axis, thus forming a step having a flange (fig 4, paragraph [0051]). Additionally, the X-axis direction of the first plane may be larger than the X-axis direction of the second plane (paragraph [0052]). In figure 4, the third side 48 is shown with the step that connects the first plane to the second plane, where the third side is in contact with the holder (paragraph [0053]). Note that the cross-section of the corner portion has a rectangular recessed shape (fig 4). Nansaka teaches an alternative embodiment in which the terminal plate can have a sloped surface (fig 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Oda et al such that the plate-like head portion of the terminal portion (as well as the corresponding insulating packing) has the configuration of Nansaka, where the upper surface has a larger area than the bottom surface which defines a stepped surface on the side surface to be received in the recess of the insulating holder, as Nansaka teaches the arrangement provides the advantage of making a compact battery and reducing the contact resistance without reducing the holder power of the insulating holder (paragraph [0021]).
Note that the structure of Nansaka having a step on the third side 48 between the bottom surface 46 and the upper surface 44 in figure 4 (rectangular recessed cross-section) is construed as a chamfered portion. Applicant’s specification, paragraph [0037], describes that there is no limitation on the shape of the chamfered portion, and that the shape may be a scooped surface shape in which a cross section of a corner portion has a rectangular recessed shape. Applicant’s specification, paragraph [0057], appears to suggest that the chamfered portion may have a stepped cross-section. Note that Nansaka’s stepped portion is similarly stepped from the outer end portion of bottom surface to the side surface 48, having a cross section of a corner portion of a rectangular recessed shape, thus meeting the claim limitation of a chamfered portion. Furthermore, this chamfered portion is circumferentially chamfered, as the stepped portion is defined by the first plane having a larger area than the second plane, in the Y-axis as shown in figure 6 (paragraph [0051]) and may also be larger in the X-axis as discussed in paragraph [0052].
Regarding the location of the boundary between the first and second metal layers being formed in the chamfered portion, note that in figure 4 of Oda et al, the boundary between the first and second metal layers is shown within the insulating packing (7). The combination suggests modifying Oda et al such that the upper surface of the head portion is extended over the bottom surface, to define a stepped portion, as shown by the extension width W in figure 4 of Nansaka. Thus, the boundary of the combination would be located along the stepped portion, thus meeting the limitation of the claim.
Regarding claim 2, the combination teaches wherein the terminal component is formed of a cladding material in which the first metal and the second metal are joined to each other (Oda et al, abstract, clad material in which at least a first metal layer and a second metal layer are bonded to each other, fig 5).
Regarding claim 3, the combination is quiet as to wherein in at least one of the first metal and the second metal, the chamfered portion is harder than a portion located in a more inner side than the chamfered portion.
However, the combination suggests the same method of making the terminal, as Oda et al teaches arranging the clad material in a mold corresponding to the shape of the negative electrode terminal and extrusion processing under ordinary temperature (Oda et al, paragraph [0088], fig 6-7), corresponding to the disclosed cladding material being pressurized by cold-forging in which compression molding is performed at normal temperature using a mold (applicant’s specification, paragraph [0050]). Work hardening is a result of the plastic deformation (applicant’s specification, paragraph [0055]).
As the terminal is produced by a substantially identical process, claimed properties (such as the chamfered portion being harder than a more inner portion) are presumed to be inherent. MPEP 2112.01(I). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2112.01(I).
Regarding claim 4, the combination teaches wherein the head portion has a rectangular shape when viewed from top (Oda, fig 12, paragraph [0130], not restricted to annular flange and may be a rectangular frame-shaped flange).
The combination is quiet to an average of a difference between a maximum value and a minimum value of a distance from each side of the bottom surface of the head portion to the boundary is within 200 µm.
However, note that the limitation is directed to the positioning of the boundary so as to remain relatively straight at the chamfered portion and not meander away from the chamfered portion, with respect to the distance from the bottom surface. Oda et al shows, in figure 12, a boundary that is substantially straight around the entire flange portion, with respect to the bottom surface. Oda et al teaches that the thickness of the first layer 30 is t2, while the thickness of the second layer 40 is t1-t2 (paragraph [0086]), and that the thickness ratios are substantially equal at completion (paragraph [0086]). Oda et al further teaches that the first and the second metal layer are substantially axisymmetric with respect to the shaft center (paragraph [0067]), thereby suggesting the boundary to be substantially the same on each of the sides.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form said boundary to be substantially straight between the first and second metal layers and not meander away from the corner (i.e., having a low average difference between a max and min value from bottom surface to boundary), as Oda et al teaches shows the boundary to be a straight line in fig 12, teaches that first and second metal layer are substantially axisymmetric, and that the thickness ratios of the layers are substantially equal at completion.
Regarding claim 5, the combination teaches a secondary battery comprising:
a battery case (Oda, figs 1-3, battery 1 including a case body 3 and cover member 2);
a positive electrode terminal (Oda, figs 1-3, positive electrode terminal 10) and a negative electrode terminal (Oda, figs 1-3, negative electrode terminal 20) mounted on the battery case (figs 1-3),
wherein
at least one of the positive electrode terminal and the negative electrode terminal includes the terminal component according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above, negative terminal 20).
Response to Arguments
During a telephone interview held on 10/02/25, the examiner indicated that applicant’s argument that Takabayashi teaches away from the claimed invention was persuasive, as Takabayashi specifically positions the boundary at an exposed area (which is located near the upper surface) to avoid aqueous liquid from getting trapped, whereas the previous rejection suggested positioning the boundary to be near the bottom surface (which would not be exposed) and would cause the aqueous liquid to get trapped and cause galvanic corrosion.
Applicant’s arguments, see p.5 of the Remarks, filed 10/14/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-5 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Oda et al as modified by Kang and Takabayashi have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Oda et al and Nansaka et al.
Note that in the rejections above, Nansaka is cited showing a terminal plate where the upper surface has a larger area than a bottom surface, thereby defining a stepped portion from the bottom surface to the side surface (fig 4, Nansaka), the stepped portion being construed as a chamfer (see above regarding applicant’s shape of a chamfer including a cross-section where a corner has a rectangular recess, which would be a stepped shape). The combination would extend the upper surface of Oda’s terminal in figure 4 so as to extend over the insulating packing 7 similar to the extending portion W of Nansaka over the insulating holder, while the boundary would remain within the insulating packing, at a surface which is part of the stepped surface. Note that this configuration would look similar to figure 4 of CN212062562 U (cited below), where the boundary between the copper part 22 and aluminum pole 2 is at a stepped portion that is received within the insulating member 8.
In response to applicant's argument that the recited location of their boundary is critical, the fact that the inventor 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. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991). See MPEP 2144 (IV).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CN212062562 U teaches (fig 4) a piece (second protrusion 22) of copper (paragraph [0051]), and a pole (second pole 2) of aluminum (paragraph [0051]), wherein the boundary between the two metals is formed in the stepped portion (fig 4) shown as a rectangular recessed portion at the corner between parts 22 and 2.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACKY YUEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5749. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/JACKY YUEN/
Examiner
Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735