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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 02/03/2026 has been entered. Support is found in at least [0044] and Figs. 1-3 of the 12/26/2022 original disclosure.
The 11/03/2025 Claim Objections are overcome by the amendment and are now withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks at pages 6-7, filed 02/03/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and its dependent claims under 35 USC 102 relying on Lim have been fully considered and are persuasive, because Applicant persuasively argues that the Lim reference in the rejection of record does not satisfy the amended limitations of at least “at an edge of the battery cell in a cross-sectional view of the current collecting plate, the electrode tab protruding end overlaps the battery cell” and “an isolation space between the electrode tab protruding end and the battery cell in a perpendicular direction of the current collecting plate perpendicular to the plan view, and wherein the isolation space is an empty space”. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the updated search conducted in view of the amendment.
However, in response to Applicant's argument on Remarks pages 7-8 directed to “the problem the present application tends to solve”, 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). Thus, this line of argument is not found persuasive, such that the newly-applied Park reference below (although similar to the previously-applied Kim reference) sufficiently meets instantly claimed limitations (as cited in the below rejection).
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 2024/0136674 A1, having priority dates in 2021).
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a current collecting plate (176, Figs. 20 and 27), comprising: an electrode tab connector configured to be electrically connected to a battery cell (uncoated portion coupling portion 176b of collector 176 is coupled to uncoated portion 146b of electrode assembly 141 at welding pattern 176h, Figs. 20 and 27),
wherein a plurality of battery cell escaping slots are provided on an outer peripheral wall of the electrode tab connector (spaces/slots aligned with/recessed from housing coupling portions 176c in height direction, along perimeter of 176; Fig. 27 – annotated below),
and the plurality of battery cell escaping slots are spaced from each other (spaced from one another in four quadrants along perimeter of 176, Fig. 27 – annotated below),
wherein an electrode tab protruding end is provided between adjacent two ones of the battery cell escaping slots in a plan view of the current collecting plate (four coupling portions 176b provided alternatingly between the four cell escaping slots, Fig. 27 – annotated below),
PNG
media_image1.png
549
763
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein at an edge of the battery cell in a cross-sectional view of the current collecting plate (at outer circumference edge of 141 in X-direction, Fig. 20), the electrode tab protruding end overlaps the battery cell (176b toward perimeter edges of 176 overlaps electrode assembly 141 along Y-axis, Fig. 20 in view of Fig. 27) with an isolation space between the electrode tab protruding end and the battery cell (90-degree cutout within uncoated portion 146b vertically between 141 and 176b in Fig. 20 – annotated below; corresponds to B3 region at outer circumference of uncoated portion as shown in Fig. 11) in a perpendicular direction of the current collecting plate perpendicular to the plan view (B3 region is between 141/176 in Y-direction, perpendicular to the plan view of 176 is within an X-plane; see Fig. 20 in view of Figs. 11 and 27), and
wherein the isolation space is an empty space (empty B3, see Fig. 20 in view of Fig. 11, and as annotated below).
PNG
media_image2.png
631
724
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
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(s) 2-7 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2024/0136674 A1, having priority dates in 2021) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Akita et al. (US 2004/234849 A1, as cited in the 11/03/2025 Office action).
Regarding claim 2, Park teaches the limitations of claim 1 above but fails to teach wherein the electrode tab connector is recessed towards a direction away from the battery cell to form one or more reinforcing protrusions.
Park does teach central region 176a of current collector 176 serving as a support portion ([0705] and Fig. 27). Park also teaches in [0618] that current collector 176 may include a plurality of unevenness (not shown) radially formed on a surface facing the second uncoated portion 146b, and when the unevenness is formed, the unevenness may be press-fitted into the second uncoated portion 146b by pressing the current collector 176.
Akita is analogous in the art of current collectors, teaching current collector plate (50 with flat body 51, [0039] and Figs. 1-3) having electrode tab connectors (protrusions 52 joined to an edge of the electrode unit, Abstract) that are recessed towards a direction away from the battery cell (52 convex downward from electrode edge 48 toward flat 51, thus each edge of 52 is away from electrode assembly 4; Figs. 1, 3) to form a reinforcing protrusion (52 bite into edge portions 48 of electrode assembly and ensure satisfactory contact; [0017, 0045] and Figs. 6-8 in view of Figs. 1, 3). Akita [0017] teaches the protrusions being arc-shaped to beneficially bite into and allow shape conformity between the tab portions at the edge of electrodes, thus ensuring the desired electrical contact therebetween.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Park to include these convex protrusions on the electrode tab connectors to be recessed towards a direction away from the battery cell, thus acting as reinforcing protrusions to reinforce the contact between the electrode tab connectors and the electrode tabs within the cell by biting into the tabs and allowing shape conformity therebetween, as taught toward by Akita (to similarly be press-fitted into 146b like the uneven portions of 176 of Park [0618]).
Thereby, claim 2 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 3, modified Park teaches the limitations of claim 2 above and teaches each of the one or more reinforcing protrusion is arc-shaped (circular-arc protrusions 52, Akita [0039] and Fig. 3), the one or more reinforcing protrusions comprise a plurality of reinforcing protrusions (plurality of 52 shown in Akita Fig. 2; plurality of unevenness on surface of 176 per Park [0618]), and the plurality of reinforcing protrusions are spaced from each other along the peripheral direction (four 52’s spaced approx. 90-degrees from one another in Akita Fig. 2; since 52 are elongated radially per Akita [0015, 0039], and the plurality of unevenness are also radially formed on the surface of 176 per Park [0618]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Park teaches the limitations of claim 2 above and further comprising: a housing connector connected to the electrode tab connector (housing coupling portion 176c may include a contact portion 176e coupled onto the inner surface of the battery housing 171 and a connection portion 176f for connecting the support portion 176a and the contact portion 176e; Park [0711] and Fig. 27 in view of Fig. 20), wherein the housing connector is provided on a side of each of the plurality of battery cell escaping slots away from the battery cell (housing coupling portion of 176 against 180 of housing 171 is downward/away from electrode assembly 141, Park Fig. 20) and directly faces the battery cell escaping slots (slots under 176c/e, Park Fig. 27).
Regarding claim 5, modified Park teaches the limitations of claim 4 above and wherein the outer peripheral wall of the electrode tab connector is stamped and bent towards the direction away from the battery cell to form the housing connector (176e bent downwardly away from 176a/b and 141, at bend in 176f; Park Fig. 27 in view of 20; bending point per Park [0713]), and the battery cell escaping slot is provided on a side of the housing connector towards the battery cell (above 176c/e, toward 141; Park Fig. 20 in view of Fig. 27). Examiner notes that “stamped” is a product-by-process limitation which is met by the resultant product of Park Fig. 27 where 176c appear cut-out or stamped-out from 176, and are taught to be bent (Park [0713] cited above). Though Park does not explicitly disclose a stamping process to achieve the bent portions of current collector 176, the patentable weight is given to the resultant product, such that Park satisfies the instantly claimed structure.
Regarding claim 6, modified Park teaches the limitations of claim 4 above but fails to explicitly teach a height of the reinforcing protrusion in the direction away from the battery cell is less than a height of the housing connector in the direction away from the battery cell.
However, when modifying Park in view of Akita in regards to claim 2 above, arc-shaped 52 from Akita were applied as reinforcing protrusions from surface of 176b of Park, like the unevenness of Park [0618]. As shown in Akita Figs. 3 and 6 in view of Akita Figs. 7-8 and Akita [0017, 0039], the portion 51 recessed from 52 is close to the battery cell body 4 so that 52 can closely contact tabs 48. Thus, when applied to 176 within Park, such protrusions would need to be close – in the vertical/height-wise direction – to the uncoated tabs 146b of the Park electrode assembly 141 to ensure electrical contact/press-fitting/biting into (see above teaching of Park [0618] and modification per Akita [0017]). Contrastingly, Park teaches that a height in the Y-direction, between the plane of 176a/b contacting tabs 146b and the plane of housing connector 176e (Park Fig. 20 in view of Fig. 27), is relatively large since 176e needs to be positioned below beading portion 180 of housing 171 (as shown in Park Fig. 20).
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that in the vertical height direction, a height of the reinforcing protrusion in a direction away from the battery cell was less than a height of the housing connector in a direction away from the battery cell so that the housing connector – and not the reinforcing protrusion – would connect to the housing, while the electrode tab connector with its reinforcing protrusion connected to the electrode body there-above.
Thereby, claim 6 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 7, modified Park teaches the limitations of claim 4 above and wherein a buffer corrugation (bending point in 176f - buffers the pressure (force) applied in the vertical direction of the battery housing; Park [0713] and Fig. 27 in view of Fig. 20) is provided on the housing connector (176f within 176c, Park [0711] and Fig. 27).
Regarding claim 13, Park teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and the current collecting plate further comprises a housing connector connected to the electrode tab connector (housing coupling portion 176c may include a contact portion 176e coupled onto the inner surface of the battery housing 171 and a connection portion 176f for connecting the support portion 176a and the contact portion 176e; Park [0711] and Fig. 27 in view of Fig. 20), wherein the housing connector is provided on a side of each of the plurality of battery cell escaping slots away from the battery cell (housing coupling portion of 176 against 180 of housing 171 is downward/away from electrode assembly 141, Park Fig. 20) and directly faces the battery cell escaping slots (slots under 176c/e, Park Fig. 27) and directly faces the battery cell escaping slots (see Park Fig. 27 annotation above in regards to claim 1, slots are under/facing 176c);
but fails to teach: wherein the electrode tab connector is recessed towards a direction away from the battery cell to form one or more reinforcing protrusions; each of the one or more reinforcing protrusions is arc-shaped, the one or more reinforcing protrusions comprise a plurality of reinforcing protrusions, and the plurality of reinforcing protrusions are spaced from each other along the peripheral direction of the electrode tab connector.
Park does teach central region 176a of current collector 176 serving as a support portion ([0705] and Fig. 27). Park also teaches in [0618] that current collector 176 may include a plurality of unevenness (not shown) radially formed on a surface facing the second uncoated portion 146b, and when the unevenness is formed, the unevenness may be press-fitted into the second uncoated portion 146b by pressing the current collector 176.
Akita is analogous in the art of current collectors, teaching current collector plate (50 with flat body 51, [0039] and Figs. 1-3) having electrode tab connectors (protrusions 52 joined to an edge of the electrode unit, Abstract) that are recessed towards a direction away from the battery cell (52 convex downward from electrode edge 48 toward flat 51, thus each edge of 52 is away from electrode assembly 4; Figs. 1, 3) to form a reinforcing protrusion (52 bite into edge portions 48 of electrode assembly and ensure satisfactory contact; [0017, 0045] and Figs. 6-8 in view of Figs. 1, 3). Akita [0017] teaches the protrusions being arc-shaped to beneficially bite into and allow shape conformity between the tab portions at the edge of electrodes, thus ensuring the desired electrical contact therebetween.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Park to include these convex protrusions on the electrode tab connectors to be recessed towards a direction away from the battery cell, thus acting as reinforcing protrusions to reinforce the contact between the electrode tab connectors and the electrode tabs within the cell by biting into the tabs and allowing shape conformity therebetween, as taught toward by Akita (to similarly be press-fitted into 146b like the uneven portions of 176 of Park [0618]).
Thereby, claim 13 is rendered obvious.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Jessie Walls-Murray whose telephone number is (571)272-1664. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, typically 10-4.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/JESSIE WALLS-MURRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728