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 .
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-7, 13, 14, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heck et al. (US 2015/0380764), cited in the Information Disclosure Statement dated August 21, 2024.
Regarding independent claim 1 and claim 22, Heck et al. disclose a battery comprising a battery casing forming a battery apparatus (abstract; paragraphs [0029], [0039]-[0043], and [0056]-[0070]; and Figures 2-10), wherein a peripheral edge of the battery casing (surrounded by an encapsulating housing – see paragraph [0029]) of the battery is provided with a flange structure as first and second overlapping connecting sections (24,34) (see paragraphs [0059]-[0061]; and Figures 3 and 4), with a potential collecting portion (20,30) of first and second current collectors (16,18) being provided on the flange structure (24,34), in which the potential collecting portion (20,30) extends from the flange structure (24,34), and the flange structure (24,34) and the potential collecting portion (20,30) are integrally formed, wherein the battery casing includes first and second casing pieces (see Figure 2) that connect to form a cell accommodating space for an electrochemical cell (10), wherein a flange of the first casing piece is directly connected to a flange of the second casing piece to form the flange structure (24,34) and the potential collecting portion (20,30) of the first and second current collectors (16,18) – see paragraphs [0029] and [0056]-[0061]; and Figures 2-4, 7, and 8.
Although Heck et al. disclose that the potential collecting portion (20,30) “extends from” the flange structure (24,34), Heck et al. do not explicitly show that the potential collecting portion (20,30) “extends outwards from” the flange structure (24,34). However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that orientation of the potential collecting portion (20,30) with respect to the flange structure (24,34) of Heck et al. would be one of parallel, angled/bent (including “extends outwards from”), or perpendicular, any of which would be obvious to try with a finite number of predictable solutions under a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of obtaining mechanical flexibility and stability, thus resulting in a more compact and cost-efficient battery apparatus with increased energy density (see paragraph [0042]).
Regarding claim 2, Heck et al. disclose that the potential collecting portion (20,30) is substantially parallel to the flange structure (24,34) – see Figure 3.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, although Heck et al. disclose and/or suggest the structural features of independent claim 1 (and further including the claim 2 limitation that the potential collecting portion (20,30) is substantially parallel to the flange structure (24,34), as shown in Figure 3), Heck et al. do not explicitly disclose that the potential collecting portion (20,30) is arranged to be substantially perpendicular to or bent from one side of the flange structure (24,34) facing the battery casing. However, and as similarly applied to the “extends outwards from” limitation of amended independent claim 1 above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that orientation of the potential collecting portion (20,30) of Heck et al. would be one of parallel, angled/bent, or perpendicular, any of which would be obvious to try with a finite number of predictable solutions under a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of obtaining mechanical flexibility and stability, thus resulting in a more compact and cost-efficient battery apparatus with increased energy density (see paragraph [0042]).
Regarding claim 5, Heck et al. disclose that the potential collecting portion (20,30) is spaced apart from the battery casing, as shown in Figures 3 and 4.
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 14, Heck et al. disclose that the potential collecting portion (20,30) is formed by one or a plurality of layers to form a sandwich structure (see Figures 2-4), in which the flange is provided on a peripheral edge of at least one of the first and second casing pieces, so as to form the flange structure (24,34) and the potential collecting portion (20,30) after the second casing piece is connected to the first casing piece, wherein the first and second casing pieces together form a multi-layered potential collecting portion (20,30) – see Figures 2-4 and paragraphs [0056]-[0059].
Regarding claim 7, although Heck et al. disclose and/or suggest the structural features of independent claim 1 (and further including the claim 6 limitation that the potential collecting portion (20,30) is formed by one or a plurality of layers to form a sandwich structure, as disclosed in paragraphs [0056]-[0059] and shown in Figures 2-4), Heck et al. do not explicitly disclose that the potential collecting portion is bent to form a plurality of layers, wherein after the potential collecting portion (20,30) is unfolded, a length direction of the potential collecting portion (20,30) is parallel to a length direction of the battery casing. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that orientation of the plurality of layers forming a sandwich structure in the potential collecting portion (20,30) of Heck et al. would be one of parallel, angled/bent, or perpendicular, any of which would be obvious to try with a finite number of predictable solutions under a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of obtaining mechanical flexibility and stability, thus resulting in a more compact and cost-efficient battery apparatus with increased energy density (see paragraph [0042]).
Regarding claim 23, although Heck et al. disclose and/or suggest the structural features of independent claim 1 and claim 22, Heck et al. do not explicitly disclose that the potential collecting portion (20,30) is provided in plurality, in which two ends of the battery casing are respectively provided with potential collecting portions (20,30), the battery casing is electrically connected to an adjacent pole assembly through one of the potential collecting portions (20,30), and another one of the potential collecting portions (20,30) and the adjacent pole assembly are configured to be connected to a voltage collecting structure. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that ends of the potential collecting portion (20,30) would be attached to an adjacent pole assembly to a voltage collecting structure to complete a battery apparatus providing power to a component, and a plurality of said potential collecting portion (20,30) would be selected to provide greater power and longer life to the battery apparatus. Moreover, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 24, although Heck et al. disclose and/or suggest the structural features of independent claim 1 and claim 22, while rendering obvious the features of claim 23 above, Heck et al. do not explicitly disclose that the battery is at least two in number, in which the battery apparatus further comprises a busbar, wherein the busbar is connected to the pole assemblies of adjacent two of the batteries, and the battery casing is electrically connected to the busbar through one of the potential collecting portions (20,30), such that the one of the potential collecting portions (20,30) is electrically connected to an adjacent one of the pole assemblies. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the battery would be provided in plurality and would require at least one busbar through at least one of the potential collecting portions (20,30) that would be electrically connected to an adjacent one of the pole assemblies, since such an arrangement of plural batteries and one or more busbars would be readily selected to provide greater power and longer life to the battery apparatus. Moreover, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heck et al. (US 2015/0380764), and further in view of CN 214589168 U, of which a complete copy of the Chinese document with a machine translation was provided with the Information Disclosure Statement dated August 21, 2024.
Heck et al. disclose and/or suggest the structural features of independent claim 1, but do not explicitly disclose that the pole assembly is disposed on the battery casing and adjacent the potential collecting portion (of claim 8), that the battery casing comprises two opposite first surfaces surrounded by four second surfaces (with an area of the first surfaces being larger than that of the second surfaces) with the pole assembly having a connection surface disposed thereon (of claims 9 and 10), and that two sides of each of plural pole assemblies are both provided with the potential collecting portion and disposed at two ends of the battery casing and are electrically connected to the battery casing (of claims 11 and 12).
However, CN ‘168 discloses a battery (including a plurality of batteries) and battery pack with a battery casing (abstract; paragraphs [0004]-[0015] and [0040]-[0066] of translation; and Figures 1-3), in which the battery comprises two opposite first surfaces (12) and four second surfaces (13) arranged around the first surfaces (12), a pole assembly (110), and a bus bar (120), wherein an area of the first surfaces (12) is larger than that of the second surfaces (13), wherein the pole assembly (110) is disposed on the battery casing (housing/shell (15)), in which each pole assembly (110) has a connection surface disposed thereon, such that each pole assembly (110) is provided with the potential collecting portion and disposed at two ends of the battery casing (15) and is electrically connected to the battery casing (15), for the purpose of obtaining an electrical connection with a pole assembly (110) of another (adjacent) battery to be facilitated (see abstract; and paragraphs [0004]-[0015] of translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants’ invention was made to modify the battery comprising a battery casing forming a battery apparatus, as disclosed and/or suggested by Heck et al., by using the battery comprising two opposite first surfaces and four second surfaces arranged around the first surfaces, a pole assembly, and a bus bar, wherein an area of the first surfaces is larger than that of the second surfaces, a pole assembly disposed on the battery casing, in which each pole assembly has a connection surface disposed thereon, such that each pole assembly is provided with the potential collecting portion and disposed at two ends of the battery casing and are electrically connected to the battery casing, in order to obtain an electrical connection with a pole assembly of another (adjacent) battery to be facilitated (CN ‘168; abstract; and paragraphs [0004]-[0015] of translation).
Response to Arguments
The examiner acknowledges the applicants’ amendment/response received by the USPTO on July 28, 2026. The applicants have amended both independent claim 1 and (withdrawn) independent claim 15. Although the amendment to independent claim 1 overcomes the prior 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection, a new 35 USC 103 rejection is provided in view of the applicants’ amendment, of which said amendment is deemed as rather similar in scope to applicants’ claim 4 (for which a 35 USC 103 rejection was provided in section 7 of the non-final Office Action mailed April 29, 2026). Claims 15-21 remain withdrawn from consideration as drawn to a non-elected invention. Claims 1-14 and 22-24 remain under consideration in the application.
Applicants' arguments filed July 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the applicants’ remarks/arguments on pages 8-10 of the amendment, the applicants first argue that the new limitation “the potential collecting portion extends outwards from the flange structure” of claim 1 would overcome the teachings of Heck et al. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the applicants state (in the last three paragraphs on page 8 of the REMARKS section) that the structural sequence of Heck et al. does not match with the “inside to outside” structural sequence of the claimed disclosure (while referring only to Figure 2 of Heck et al. at the top of page 9 of the REMARKS section), it is noted that Heck et al. show that the flange structure (24,34) and the potential collecting portion (20,30) are integrally formed, thus being advantageous for forming a more compact structure (see paragraphs [0058]-[0062]; and Figures 2-4, 7, and 8). In referring to the newly underlined portions of the above 35 USC 103 rejection (in section 4), the examiner agrees that the new limitation “extends outwards from” is not explicitly disclosed by Heck et al. However, the limitation would be suggested since one of ordinary skill in the art would readily contemplate one or more configurations (other than parallel) of angled, bent, or perpendicular, any orientation of which would have been obvious to try with a finite number of predictable solutions under a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of obtaining mechanical flexibility and stability, thus resulting in a more compact and cost-efficient battery apparatus with increased energy density (see paragraph [0042] of Heck et al.). In view of the 35 USC 103 rejections (in above sections 4 and 5) and for these additional reasons, claims 1-14 and 22-24 remain rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN P KERNS whose telephone number is (571)272-1178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm.
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.
/KEVIN P KERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735 September 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights