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
Acknowledgment is made to applicant’s amendment filed 01/20/2026 amending claims 1, 5 and 10-13 as well as adding claims 21-23 and cancelling claims 3, 6-9, 14, 16 and 19-20. Currently claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10-13, 15, 17, 18 and 21-23 are pending with claims 13 and 15 withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed first connector extending from the first current collector to the first terminal, second connector extending from the second current collector to the second terminal and third connector coupling a first conductive member disposed within the cavity between the electrodes and at least one of the one or more walls and at least one of the first electrodes must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the specification does not provide antecedent basis for a third connector.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10-12, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With regards to claim 1, applicants have amended claim 1 to now positively recite a first connector extending the first current collector to the first terminal, a second connector extending the second current collector to the second terminal and a third connector that couples at least one of the first electrodes to a first conductive member. Applicants reply filed 01/20/2026 states that support for the amendment can be found at least in ¶ 0038 of the specification which states that elements 120 and 130 (the first and second connector) “may be” coupled to electrical connections (terminals) and may be connected to the conductive member. This language of “may be” coupled does not provide sufficient support to demonstrate that at the time of filing the inventors were in possession of explicitly a first and second connector from the current collectors to the terminals as well as a third connector from at least one of the electrodes to the conductive member. There does not appear to be a passage in the specification discussing a third connector and none of applicant’s figures demonstrate a connection from the current collectors to the terminals as well as additional connectors to conductive members. As discussed in MPEP 2163.02, the standard for determining compliance with the written description requirement is whether the disclosure reasonably conveys to the artisan that the inventor had possession at that time of the later claimed subject matter. Applicant’s specification does not reasonably convey support for the amended particularly claimed arrangement.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 10-12, 17, and 18 depend upon claim 1 and are therefore also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10-12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regards to claims 10-12 and 18, the claims depend upon claim 1 which establishes first and second current collectors as well as a first conductive member. However, claim 1 does not establish a second conductive member. Therefore the phrase “the second conductive member” in claims 10-12 and 18 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 10 be found allowable, claim 18 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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, 2, 11, 17, 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen (US 2022/0006115).
With regards to claims 1 and 11, Chen teaches a battery cell (Abstract) comprising a container (60) with one or more walls that defines a cavity as seen in Figure 1. Chen teaches first and second terminals or posts (70, 71) as seen in Figures 4 and 7a-c. Chen teaches that a power unit comprises a first electrode (10) comprising a first current collector coupled to an active material (40), a second electrode (20) comprising a second current collector coupled to a second active material (40) and a separate (30) therebetween (¶ 0071, Fig. 1). Chen teaches that a plurality of the power unit arrangements may be present in the battery in which each current collector (10) is connected to the terminal (¶ 0063, 0081). Chen teaches that for each power unit a first connector (10) extends from the first current collector to the first terminal (70) and a second connector (20) extends to the second terminal (71). Chen additionally teaches a first conductive member (heat sink) coupled to at least one of the first electrodes by a third connector in order to distribute heat in which the heat sink is in contact with an inner surface of the battery housing outer casing and the electrode is in contact with the heat sink (¶ 0012-0013, 0113-0115) as disclosed in the arrangement of Figure 9.
With regards to claim 2, Chen teaches each current collector (10) contacts the heat sink (¶ 0063).
With regards to claim 17, Chen teaches a rectangular cross-section (Fig. 9).
With regards to claim 21, Chen teaches a battery cell (Abstract) comprising a container (60) with one or more walls that defines a cavity as seen in Figure 1. Chen teaches first and second terminals or posts (70, 71) as seen in Figures 4 and 7a-c. Chen teaches that a power unit comprises a first electrode (10) comprising a first current collector coupled to an active material (40), a second electrode (20) comprising a second current collector coupled to a second active material (40) and a separate (30) therebetween (¶ 0071, Fig. 1). Chen teaches that a plurality of the power unit arrangements may be present in the battery in which each current collector (10) is connected to the terminal (¶ 0063, 0081). Chen teaches that for each power unit a first connector (10) extends from the first current collector to the first terminal (70) and a second connector (20) extends to the second terminal (71). Chen additionally teaches a first conductive member (heat sink) coupled to at least one of the first electrodes by a third connector in order to distribute heat in which the heat sink is in contact with an inner surface of the battery housing outer casing and the electrode is in contact with the heat sink (¶ 0012-0013, 0113-0115) as disclosed in the arrangement of Figure 9. Each respective connector (10) in contact with the heat sink functions as a thermal tab.
With regards to claim 22, Chen teaches that the heat sink is a metal sheet (interpreted to read upon a metal foil, ¶ 0113).
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.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 10, 12, 18 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2022/0006115) in view of Fogaing et al. (US 2005/0026014).
With regards to claims 4 and 12, Chen teaches connecting the current collectors of a first polarity to a heat sink in order to distribute heat as heat dissipation improves the performance of a battery and prevents thermal runaway (¶ 0003-0004). While Chen does not explicitly teach connecting the second current collectors to a heat sink, it was generally known in the art to provide heat sink connections on both sides of the battery as discussed in Fogaing (Abstract, Fig. 1-5, ¶ 0007). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effective filed to connect the second electrodes to a heat sink as well in order to provide additional thermal management. Chen teaches that the connection between a first electrode and a heat sink is a predictable arrangement reinforced by the teaching in Fogaing in which heat is conducted presenting a reasonable expectation of success for the duplication of parts, and the mere duplication of parts presents a case of prima facie obviousness in the absence of new or unexpected results as discussed in MPEP 2144.04.
With regards to claims 5 and 23, Chen shows the metal heat sink spanning the entire wall of the battery (Fig. 9). While a depth dimension is not shown in the figures it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have the heat sink be as large as possible such as the entire area of the wall as the purpose is to conduct heat and transfer the heat away from the cell. The larger the area of the heat sink the more heat sink capacity it has. As modified in claim 4 it would be obvious to have two such large heat sinks.
With regards to claims 10 and 18, Chen teaches that the current collectors are made of metal as is the heat sink (¶ 0083, 0113) and metal being a material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 GALEN H HAUTH whose telephone number is (571)270-5516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM to 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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights