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 Interpretation
The claims include the term “connected”. “Connected” can be reasonably interpreted as “indirectly connected” where elements are not disposed immediately adjacent to each other without another portion or element between them. The Applicant’s specification explicitly supports this interpretation. “[t]he terms ‘mounted,’ ‘interconnected,’ and ‘connected’ are to be understood broadly” (page 2, lines 22 -23), including an interpretation such as “indirectly connected through an intermediate medium” (page 2, lines 25 and 25).
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5, 7-13, 15, and 16 are pending.
Claims 6 and 14 have been cancelled.
Claims 9-13, 15, and 16 are still withdrawn.
Claims 1, 7, 8, 15, and 16 have been amended.
Status of Amendment
The amendment filed on June 1st, 2026 has been fully considered but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
Status of Objections and Rejections Pending Since the Office Action of March 12th, 2026
The 102 rejections of claims 1-5, 7, and 8 over Kim (US 2005/0260487 A1) are withdrawn in view of the Applicant's amendment.
The 102 rejection of claim 6 is moot because claim 6 has been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed June 1st, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that contacting regions of Kim (Fig. 2, 54) are not the same as the claimed arc-shaped protrusion that is connected to a support foot.
The Applicant also mentions a concave portion between two adjacent support feet that is not explicitly found in Kim. The Examiner takes the position that such a concave portion is an aesthetic design choice to accommodate certain structural battery designs. The Applicant may reasonably rebut that position with the following portion of their specification: “A circumferential side surface of the welding disk 1 is provided with a concave portion between two adjacent arc-shaped protrusions…so that the current collector disk can be prevented from being deformed…caused by a problem of machining precision” (page 4, lines 20-22). The Examiner, however, still maintains the position that it is an aesthetic design choice to accommodate specific battery designs.
Satoh (US 2002/0004162 A1), prior art which is already on the record, teaches a current collecting plate (abstract). Satoh’s disk has a portion (Fig. 1, 55; [0022]) that connects to a portion of the electrode terminal (Fig. 1, 92; [0076]). The cylinder wall of the battery (Fig. 1, 11) is clearly not in contact with the electroconductive strip 55.
PNG
media_image1.png
751
677
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Examiner notes that figures in the prior art have relative dimensions and are not necessarily drawn to scale, however, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that said electroconductive strip should not contact the cylinder wall for safety purposes. Furthermore, since the base of the electroconductive element 55 is on the edge of the current collecting disk, it is necessary that the diameter of the current collecting device be small enough such that it would not contact the cylinder walls. The Applicant cites that a problem may arise from issues involving “machining precision”, yet Satoh has a design wherein no amount of machining imprecision or error would allow the battery to leave the manufacturing facility. Furthermore, any facility that would manufacture Satoh’s disk would likely set the maximum engineering limits such that an inappropriately sized current collector disk would be impossible to manufacture. Therefore, although the concave feature may help with specific battery constructions, it is ultimately a design choice and does not render the claimed material nonobvious over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04 (I).
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2005/0260487 A).
Regarding claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 8 Kim discloses a current collecting plate comprising a main disk, a plurality of support feet (the contacting regions (52); [0035]), and a plurality of through holes (the electrolyte passage regions (53); [0035]). The support feet are integrally connected to the main disk (as required by claim 3), are connected to the lower end surface of the disk (as required by claim 5), and are vertically disposed in the same direction as the lower end surface (as required by claim 1 and 4). See the annotated figure below:
PNG
media_image2.png
466
746
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, the sidewall of the disk comprises a plurality of arc-shaped protrusions and the four support feet are connected to said protrusions (as required by claim 8). These four protrusions (required by claim 8) are circumferentially and uniformly distributed around a central axis of the disk (as required by claim 7). A gap is located between adjacent support feet (also required by claim 7). See the annotated figure below:
PNG
media_image3.png
478
774
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The claimed “concave portion” of the circumferential side surface of the disk is a design choice in order to accommodate specific battery structures. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to include a concave portion in the sidewall if it fit the design of the overall battery. See MPEP 2144.04 (I).
Regarding claim 2, the claimed method of connecting the support feet to the welding disk (i.e., “in a welded fixation manner”), is a product-by-process limitation. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113.
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 RYAN K BLACKWELL-RUDASILL whose telephone number is (571)270-0563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/R.B.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights