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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/09/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The following is in response to the applicant’s remarks filed 1/9/26.
The applicant submits that the amendments overcome the previous rejection.
The examiner agrees, and the previous rejection is withdrawn. A new basis for rejection appears below as necessitated by amendment.
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.
Claims 1 – 3 and 6 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda, US20160197334A1, and Zhao, US20230138917A1.
Regarding claim 1, Ueda teaches an aluminum battery [0001], comprising:
a shell (case (14)) having an internal space [fig. 2];
an electric core (electrode group (12))[0093] disposed in the internal space [fig. 2],
wherein the electric core comprises a pole sheet group (connection portions (26)(28))[fig. 2], and the pole sheet group has a pole lug (conductive spacer (30))[fig. 3];
a pole tab (connection member (70) comprising lead (62) and rivet (52))[0109][fig. 6A][fig. 3A] partially exposed from the shell [fig. 6A] and extended from the internal space to an outside of the shell (river comprising internal (52a) and external (52c) portions)[fig. 6A]; and
a joint (fastening members (34)(38)) penetrating the pole lug (30)[fig. 3] and the pole tab in the internal space (portions of connecting member (62)(52a) withing case (14))[fig. 3A][fig. 6A] to join and electrically connect the pole lug and the pole tab [fig. 3A][0103].
Ueda does not teach wherein a thickness of the electric core is between 1 – 3 cm.
Zhao teaches an aluminum battery [0002][0029] comprising an electric core [0069] wherein a thickness of the electric core is between 1 – 3 cm (0.1 – 1 cm)[0088]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). Further, Zhao teaches the aluminum battery comprising an electric core within the claimed thickness can reduce poor production and improve yield [0004][0005]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the core thickness of Zhao into the battery of Ueda to improve yield when winding the core.
Regarding claim 2, combined Ueda teaches the aluminum battery according to claim 1.
Further, Ueda teaches wherein the joint comprises a rivet, a screw, or a combination thereof [0079].
Regarding claim 3, combined Ueda teaches the aluminum battery according to claim 1.
Further Ueda teaches wherein the pole lug (30) and the pole tab (62) respectively have holes, and joining performed by the joint comprises riveting, fixing, or a combination thereof [0079][fig. 3A].
Regarding claim 6, combined Ueda teaches the aluminum battery according to claim 1.
Further Ueda teaches wherein a material of the joint comprises metal, and an electrical conductivity of the metal is at least greater than 3.78∗107 S/m (inherent property of aluminum)[0073].
Regarding claim 7, combined Ueda teaches the aluminum battery according to claim 6.
Further Ueda teaches wherein the metal comprises gold, copper, silver, aluminum, or a combination thereof (aluminum)[0073].
Regarding claim 8, combined Ueda teaches the aluminum battery according to claim 1.
Further Ueda teaches wherein the pole sheet group comprises a plurality of positive pole sheets and a plurality of negative pole sheets, the negative pole sheets are aluminum pole sheets, and the positive pole sheets are nickel pole sheets (first and second collectors)[0096].
Regarding claim 9, combined Ueda teaches the aluminum battery according to claim 1.
Further Ueda teaches wherein the number of the joints penetrating the pole lug and the pole tab is greater than or equal to one (34)(38)[fig. 3].
Regarding claim 10, combined Ueda teaches the aluminum battery according to claim 1.
Further Ueda teaches wherein the joint (34)(38) is not in direct contact with the shell (14)[fig. 2].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-1340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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 (571)270-5256. 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.
/PATRICK MARSHALL GREENE/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights