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 07/31/2026 has been entered. Support for claims 1 and 8 amendment is found in at least Figure 3. Support for claim 2 amendment is found in previous claim set(s).
The 35 USC 112(b) and (d) rejections of the 05/26/2026 Office action have been overcome by the amendments and are now withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 7-8, filed 07/31/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 8, and their dependent claims relying on the Cho primary reference have been fully considered and are persuasive, as applicant effectively points to differences in positioning of the elastic deformation groove in Cho versus the instant amended claims. The 35 USC 102 rejections of 05/26/2026 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/31/2026, with respect to amended claim 2, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With claim 2 now being independent of claim 1, requiring the snapping portion to comprise a riveting protrusion, the limitations of claim 2 are still met by the Cho reference of record and as applied in the below rejection.
In response to applicant's argument pg. 9 that Oya and Cho have different functions/effect, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant's argument on pg. 8 that Oya and Cho are non-analogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both Oya and Cho are pertinent to the problem of electrical/mech.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 5. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cho et al. (US 2023/0012811 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Cho teaches an internal connection structure of a battery terminal (terminal 160, Fig. 1; internal connection within can 120, Fig. 1), comprising:
a roll core (electrode assembly 110, Fig. 1; wound in a jelly-roll shape per [0039]) provided with a first electrode tab and a second electrode tab (positive electrode non-coating portion of positive electrode plate, and negative electrode non-coating of negative electrode plate; [0037, 0036]);
a first current collector connected to the first electrode tab (collector plate 180 electrically connected to positive electrode plate, [0042]) and provided with a hole (through-hole in the center of collector plate 180, [0042] and Fig. 1); and
a snapping portion (coupling parts 162 protruding from lower/inner end of 160, Fig. 1; mechanical/clinching bonding method – without welding/heat – per [0056-0059]),
wherein the snapping portion is disposed on an inner side of the battery terminal (162 on inner side of 160, Fig. 1), the snapping portion passes through the hole and is snapped with the hole (162 is through the central hole in collector plate 180, shown in Fig. 1; see also [0043]),
the battery terminal passes through the hole (vertical portion of 160 through central hole of 180, Fig. 1) and is snapped and assembled with the first current collector via the snapping portion (via coupling part 162, [0043] and Fig. 1), and the battery terminal is configured to enable a positive end of the roll core to extend outwards (terminal 160 is electrically connected to core 110 via plate 180 per [0044], which is positive per [0042] such that terminal 160 has positive polarity per [0044], and 160 extends outwardly from battery can 120 per Fig. 1);
wherein the snapping portion comprises a riveting protrusion portion (160 may be in form of a rivet, [0055]).
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US 2023/0012811 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Oya (US 2012/0082886 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Cho teaches the limitations of claim 2 above and wherein the riveting protrusion portion is disposed with a riveting notch (central portion of 160 where 200 inserts, Figs. 3-4), but fails to teach the riveting notch is configured to separate the riveting protrusion portion into a plurality of independent riveting protrusions.
Oya is analogous in the art of battery terminals and pertinent to the problem of said battery terminals being connected through holes in conductive plates (4 connected through 5, [0033] and Figs. 2-6). Oya teaches terminals 4 having grooves 12 formed therein which separate 4 into a plurality of segments 4c ([0036] and Fig. 2). Oya [0036] also teaches that since the electrode terminal 4 is elastically deformable, when the force applied from the outer periphery 4b of the electrode terminal 4 is released, the four segmented portion 4c move away from each other so that the width of the groove 12 can be returned to the original value “d”. Oya teaches in [0051] that such achieves tight mechanical connection between conductive plate 5 and the terminal 4. Oya teaches in [0008] that conventional connection method of welding has problems of being permanent and the potential for unwanted cracking, but teaches in [0011-0016] that the inventive connection method including inserting plurality of terminal segments through a through-hole within the conductive connection plate is beneficial to solve these problems by allowing for easy fixation as well as maintaining reliable connection over a long period of time.
It would have been obvious, at the time of filing, for a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the Cho terminal with the groove forming a plurality of segmented protrusions to utilize the connection technique as taught by Oya with the motivation of achieving easy, reliable, and tight connection of the terminal through the collector plate through-hole of modified Cho. Applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results supports a conclusion of obviousness per MPEP 2143 I D.
Thus, the instant claim 3 is rendered obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 5-6, 8-15, and 17 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: independent claims 1 and 8 now require "the snapping portion is disposed on an inner side of the battery terminal ... the battery terminal passes through the hole and is snapped and assembled with the first current collector via the snapping portion ... the snapping portion comprises a snapping protrusion portion; and an end face of the snapping protrusion portion facing towards the roll core and away from an outermost end of the battery terminal is provided with an elastic deformation groove."
As noted in the response to arguments above, the amended limitations differentiate from the closest prior art of record, Cho. A thorough, updated search in light of the amendment was performed, and the closest prior art is now Zhu which is cited below as pertinent prior art but remains deficient for reasons explained below. Zhu nor any combination of Zhu, Cho, or other prior art found would satisfy all limitations of instant claims 1 and 8 in an obvious manner. Namely, the claimed combination of the snapping protrusion portion positioning and elastic deformation groove positioning along with the structural relationship between the snapping portion and first current collector as instantly claimed yield the instant invention novel over the prior art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's: disclosure.
Zhu (US 20240178531 A1) teaches terminal 24 with an internal connection structure including the first limiting portion 246, the terminal body 245, and the second limiting portion 247 jointly defining a limiting groove, such that the stop portion 232 is snap-fitted in the limiting groove to limit movement of the electrode terminal 24 ([0139] and Fig. 6). Therefore, 247 reads on “snapping protrusion portion”. Zhu further teaches the battery terminal passes through the hole of a first current collector (end cap 23 connected to first tab 222 at portion 234, [0165] and Fig. 6) and is snapped and assembled with the first current collector via the snapping portion (since the stop portion 232 which is snap-fitted into the groove is part of the end cap 23 within Zhu as cited above). However, Zhu fails to teach that an end face of the snapping protrusion portion facing towards the roll core and away from an outermost end of the battery terminal is provided with an elastic deformation groove (since the limiting groove of Zhu is formed between 246 and 247, and extends toward 245 in the radial direction, instead of opening vertically to face toward the roll core).
Hideki et al. (JP 2015097174 A, see attached translation for paragraph citations) teaches a battery roll core (Fig. 3) and terminal connection structure (12A, [0034] and Fig. 4) wherein the positive electrode portion 32c is connected to 12A to extend outward via 8A (Figs. 3-4 and [0017, 0025]), and wherein battery lid 6 and current collector plate 4A are held by the protrusion 14A (Fig. 4) which faces the roll core (Fig. 2) and which passes through holes within 6 and 4A. Hideki also teaches an embodiment in which connection structure 12A holds the lid 6 in one recess near 13A while holding the collector plate 4A in a more inward recess near 14A (Fig. 7). However, Hideki fails to teach that protrusion 14A is a snapping protrusion and instead teaches such as a caulking portion ([0036]), such that the lid and collector plate are held by the internal terminal connection structure via caulking/riveting, instead of snapping as required by the instant claim 1. Hideki therefore fails to meet the claimed “a snapping portion, wherein the snapping portion is disposed on an inner side of the battery terminal … wherein the snapping portion comprises a snapping protrusion portion; and an end face of the snapping protrusion portion facing towards the roll core and away from an outermost end of the battery terminal is provided with an elastic deformation groove.”
Hwangbo et al. (US 20220231345 A1) teaches a terminal connection structure 40 which connects internals to collector plate 60 on roll core 10 electrodes 11 (Fig. 7) and teaches an end face of a protrusion portion 42a facing towards the roll core and away from an outermost end of the battery terminal 41 is provided with an elastic deformation groove between 42a and 42b (Fig. 7), but teaches that such is for riveting connection ([0070, 0078, 0194-0195]). However, Hwangbo fails to teach any such portion/protrusion reading on “snapping portion” nor “snapping protrusion portion” since snap-fitting is not the technique taught toward by Hwangbo. Hwangbo further fails to teach that the first current collector is snapped or otherwise connected in the recess/held by a protrusion of the terminal, since Hwangbo Fig. 7 and [0197] teach current collector plate 60 being welded to 42 at 42a, not held by 42b.
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
