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 on 05/26/2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
In view of the amendment to claim 1, the rejections under U.S.C 102 and 103 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues newly amended claim 1 recites “the relieved weld plate is planar” and Nishiyama has a lead piece 34 which is folded in the final battery construction and therefore the plate is not planer. Upon review of the instant specification planer can be understood to include a tab which may be bent to contact a terminal cap(¶[0035]) and other surface irregularities such as a weld detent(¶[0038]) and therefore the plate of Nishiyama is planer as manufactured and does include a tab which may be bent for electrical contact.
Applicant also argues the slit 35 of Nishiyama cannot act as a interstitial pathway as its intended use is to facilitate bending of the lead piece, however the slit structure is still capable of providing an opening to the electrode core and providing ingress and egress.
Applicant also argues Takagaki does not have interstitial pathways and therefore does not teach a tab within interstitial pathways, however as can be seen in figures 8 and 9 of Takagaki, conductive members 3a, 3b, and 3c are arranged as conductive pathways and between these members are openings corresponding to interstitial pathways between two of which a lead/tab 2 is located.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-10, 12, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiyama et. al. (JP2000058024A, reference made to English translation) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Takagaki (US4554227A).
Regarding claim 1, Nishiyama discloses a relieved weld plate for affixing to a battery core to provide an electrical connection between the battery core and a terminal of a battery, the relieved weld plate comprising:
a conductive face (i.e. current collector 30) configured for affixing to an electrode of the battery core(¶[0017]); and one or more interstitial pathways(i.e. slits 33,Fig. 2) disposed in the conductive face and configured to facilitate at least one of ingress of a first material into the battery core or egress of a second material out of the battery core, in this case one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize a cut out portion would allow material to ingress and egress of the conductive face wherein
the one or more interstitial pathways are each formed from a relief area disposed within the conductive face of the relieved weld plate and defining interstitial space comprising an opening between a battery housing of the battery and regions of the conductive face of the relieved weld plate forming portions of the interstitial pathways(see Fig. 1 where the pathways leave an opening between the case which surrounds the plate and the portion of the plate interior to the pathway) and the relieved weld plate is planar(Fig. 2), but does not disclose wherein a tab located in at least one of the interstitial pathways configured to electrically connect the relieved weld plate to the terminal of the battery.
Takagaki, related to batteries, teaches a connecting piece including current collecting members 3A, 3B and 3C spaced apart by interstitial pathways and a lead 2 which connects to the positive or negative terminal in one of the interstitial pathways (Fig. 8, col. 5 paragraph 6). This connecting piece design provides a battery which is stable in performance, has good operating characteristics, and is high in reliability (col. 4, paragraph 1).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized placing the tab in an interstitial pathway according to Takagaki in the battery of Nishiyama would lead to improved battery characteristics.
Therefore it would have been obvious to have placed the tab according to Takagaki to improve battery characteristics.
Regarding claim 2, modified Nishiyama discloses a relieved weld plate of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the electrode of the battery core comprises a cathode electrode(i.e. positive electrode plate) of a cathode of the battery core(cylindrical battery, ¶[0007]), wherein the relieved weld plate is a cathode relieved weld plate(¶[0033.
Regarding claim 3, modified Nishiyama discloses a relieved weld plate of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the electrode of the battery core comprises an anode electrode (i.e. negative electrode plate) of an anode of the battery core, wherein the relieved weld plate is an anode relieved weld plate(¶[]0033]), and wherein the anode relieved weld plate further comprises a weld detent (i.e. contact portion 36, ¶[0018], see where the contact portion covers the center hole 32 and extending therefrom and acting as a weld detent) configured to electrically connect the anode relieved weld plate to the terminal of the battery.
Regarding claim 4, modified Nishiyama discloses a relieved weld plate of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the relived weld plate further comprises one or more full pathways(i.e. slits 37) each formed from a respective relief area disposed radially inboard within the conductive face of the relieved weld plate(Fig. 2), and wherein a relief area of each full pathway of the one or more pathways is configured to facilitate contact between the conductive face and inner concentric areas of the electrode in this case the hole provided would facilitate this use. The claim recites intended use limitations. Intended use limitations are given weight to the extent that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, in this case the slits leave an opening which can facilitate contact. See MPEP § 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115. These limitations will be treated alongside structural limitations for compact prosecution.
Regarding claim 6, modified Nishiyama discloses a relieved weld plate of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the relief area of each interstitial pathway of the one or more interstitial pathways is configured to facilitate contact between the conductive face and inner concentric areas of the electrode and outer concentric areas of the electrode. The claim recites intended use limitations such as facilitating contact between inner and outer areas. Intended use limitations are given weight to the extent that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, in this case the provided opening is capable of providing access. See MPEP § 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115. These limitations will be treated alongside structural limitations for compact prosecution.
Regarding claim 8, modified Nishiyama discloses a relieved weld plate of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the relief areas disposed within the conductive face of the relieved weld plate form a plurality of members within the conductive face (See Fig. 2 where the conductive face remaining between the slits 33 are a plurality of members).
Regarding claim 9, modified Nishiyama discloses a relieved weld plate of claim 8 and further discloses wherein a member of the plurality of members extends radially outward from a center of the relieved weld plate( see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, modified Nishiyama discloses a relieved weld plate of claim 9 and further discloses wherein a width of each of the plurality of members increases as a distance of a radius of the relieved weld plate from a center of the relieved weld plate increases(See Fig. 2 where the member between relief areas is wider at the outer edge than the center).
Regarding claim 12, modified Nishiyama discloses a relieved weld plate of claim 8 and further discloses wherein a member of the plurality of members is semi-circular (Fig. 2 where the edge of the member is curved into a semi-circle) but does not disclose an approximately circular shape. However a claimed device is not patently distinct from a prior art device where the only difference is a change in shape. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood to select a shape appropriate to the desired battery construction for a functional battery. Therefore it would have been obvious to have selected an approximately circular shape to provide a desired functional battery. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 21, modified Nishiyama discloses a relieved weld plate of claim 1 and Nishiyama further discloses wherein the interstitial pathways have approximately equal areas(see Fig. 2).
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiyama et. al. (JP2000058024A, reference made to English translation) in view of Takagaki (US4554227A) and further in view of Fujita et. al. (JP2002151047, reference made to English translation).
Regarding claim 5, modified Nishiyama discloses a relieved weld plate of claim 4 and further discloses wherein the one or more full pathways(i.e. slits 37) are disposed within the relieved weld plate to divide the relieved weld plate into quarters(see Fig. 2), but does not disclose wherein a cumulative relief area of the full pathways is between 40 mm2 and 60 mm2.
Fujita, related to battery manufacturing, teaches a current collector terminal 1 with slits 15 (Fig. 3, ¶[0033]) which may have a width of 2-7 mm (¶[0032]) and a length of up to 10 mm depending on the size of the battery selected and these slits improve welding during battery construction(¶[0031]).
One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the size of the relief area is dependent on the size of the battery constructed and Fujita teaches batteries with slits within the claimed range to improve the welding process.
Therefore it would have been obvious to have selected relief area according to the sizes taught by Fujita to improve weldability.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding claim 7, Nishiyama discloses a relieved weld plate of claim 1 but does not disclose wherein a cumulative relief area of the one or more interstitial pathways is between 88 mm2 and 143 mm2.
Fujita, related to battery manufacturing, teaches a current collector terminal 1 with slits 15 (Fig. 4, ¶[0033]) which may have a width of 2-7 mm (¶[0032]) and a length of up to 10 mm depending on the size of the battery selected and these slits improve welding during battery construction(¶[0031]).
One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the size of the relief area is dependent on the size of the battery constructed and Fujita teaches batteries with slits within the claimed range to improve the welding process.
Therefore it would have been obvious to have selected relief area according to the sizes taught by Fujita to improve weldability.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2144.05.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiyama et. al. (JP2000058024A, reference made to English translation) in view of Takagaki (US4554227A) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Kiyama (US20110027644A1).
Regarding claim 11, modified Nishiyama discloses a relieved weld plate of claim 9 but does not disclose wherein a surface area of the member decreases as a distance of a radius of the relieved weld plate from the center of the relieved weld plate increases.
Kiyama, related to battery manufacturing, teaches a current collecting plate with cutouts 22 in a fan shape which form members 26 where the base of the member near the center of the current collector is wider than the outer end(¶[0036], Fig. 2) and these wide fan shape leads to the ability to add electrolyte to the electrode body. Note that the surface area of a member is a set value and does not change for a particular embodiment, based on the paragraph [0079] and Fig. 5 of the instant specification the width of the member decreases as a distance of a radius of the relieved weld plate from a center of the relieved weld plate increases and this understanding is used for purposes of examination)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized using the fan shape of Kiyama in the weld plate of Nishiyama would lead to the ability to add electrolyte thought the cutouts.
Therefore it would have been obvious to use the fan shape of Kiyama to easily add electrolyte to battery of Nishiyama.
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 KAREN J. ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (703)756-1243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am-6 pm EST.
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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/K.J.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1726 /RYAN S CANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights