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 .
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) 24-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (US20050260491) in view of Lorenz (DE102020111765, see US National Stage Entry, US20230120705, for citations).
Regarding Claim 24, Cho discloses a stack (Fig. 4, [0047]) comprising:
At least two pouch cells (pouch cells, [006], first and second terminal lugs acts as positive and negative contact lugs, [009]), wherein the pouch cells are each equipped with a positive contact lug and a negative contact lug (first and second terminal lugs acts as positive and negative contact lugs, [009]), electrical contact and a charging and discharging achievable for the pouch via the positive and negative contact lugs (battery is rechargeable, [0015], terminals are coupled with electric connection to each other, [0051]), the pouch cells being of planar design defining a cell top side and a cell bottom side situated opposite the cell top side (Fig. 1 shows shape of pouch cell which has planar structure, with top side and bottom cell side, [0023]);
Complementary contact lugs of the at least two pouch cells respectively overlapping (Fig. 4 shows contact lugs of adjacent pouch cells overlap with each other, [0047]).
Cho does not directly disclose wherein the first of the at least pouch cells having a positive contact lug having a conductive coating on the cell top side and an insulating coating on the cell bottom side and the negative contact lug having an insulating coating on the cell top side and a conductive coating on the cell bottom side, or vice versa, the positive contact lug having an insulating coating on the cell top side and a conductive coating on the cell bottom side and the negative contact lug having a conductive coating on the cell top side and an insulating coating on the cell bottom side.
The examiner notes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, “a positive contact lug” and “a negative contact lug” can be defined as any connection lug that has the ability to be positively or negatively charged.
Lorenz discloses wherein the positive contact lug having a conductive coating on the cell top side and an insulating coating on the cell bottom side and the negative contact lug having an insulating coating on the cell top side and a conductive coating on the cell bottom side, or vice versa, the positive contact lug having an insulating coating on the cell top side and a conductive coating on the cell bottom side and the negative contact lug having a conductive coating on the cell top side and an insulating coating on the cell bottom side (conductive coating material on connection lug, [0040], insulating layer coating on connection lug, [0019]). Lorenz further discloses wherein the connection lugs are in electrical contact with a connecting element ([0077]). Lorenz teaches that this structure provides improved electrical contact with the connection lugs and connecting element ([0115]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Cho with the teachings of Lorenz to have wherein the positive contact lug having a conductive coating on the cell top side and an insulating coating on the cell bottom side and the negative contact lug having an insulating coating on the cell top side and a conductive coating on the cell bottom side, or vice versa, the positive contact lug having an insulating coating on the cell top side and a conductive coating on the cell bottom side and the negative contact lug having a conductive coating on the cell top side and an insulating coating on the cell bottom side. This modification would yield the expected result of improved electrical contact with connection lugs and connecting elements.
Regarding Claim 25, Cho in view of Lorenz discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Cho does not directly disclose wherein the second of the at least two pouch cells does not have the insulating and the conductive coatings of the first of the at least two pouch cells.
Lorenz further discloses wherein the outer portion may be insulated and/or coated and provided with terminals for contacting with other circuit elements ([0016]). Conductors can be partially coated ([0018]). Lorenz further discloses wherein the connection lugs may at least partially have an insulation layer on the outer portion and partially on the inner portion and may be at least partially stripped of insulation on the inner portion ([0019]).
The examiner notes that since Lorenz teaches that the insulation and conductive coating can be adjusted, that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that one pouch could have the insulating and conductive coating and an adjacent pouch does not.
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Cho with the teachings of Lorenz to have wherein the second of the at least two pouch cells does not have the insulating and the conductive coatings of the first of the at least two pouch cells. This modification would yield the expected result of improved electrical contact with connection lugs and connecting elements.
Regarding Claim 26, Cho in view of Lorenz discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Cho discloses wherein the plurality of first and second pouch cells are provided and are stacked alternately (Fig. 4 shows the pouch cells are stacked alternatively).
Regarding Claim 27, Cho in view of Lorenz discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Cho discloses wherein the pouch cells are electrically contact-connected to one another via respective contact lugs (connect member-20 connects contact lugs together from adjacent pouch cells, Fig. 4, [0049]).
Regarding Claim 31 & 32, Cho in view of Lorenz discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Cho does not directly disclose wherein the insulating coating comprises ceramic.
Lorenz discloses wherein the insulating coating can be formed of ceramic materials ([0123]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Cho with the teachings of Lorenz to have wherein the insulating coating comprises ceramic. This modification would yield the expected result of improved electrical contact with connection lugs and connecting elements.
Regarding Claim 33 & 34, Cho in view of Lorenz discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Cho does not directly disclose wherein the conductive coating consists of a tin alloy.
Lorenz discloses wherein the conductive coating comprises tin ([0040]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Cho with the teachings of Lorenz to have wherein the conductive coating consists of a tin alloy.
Regarding Claim 35, Cho in view of Lorenz discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Cho does not directly disclose wherein the conductive coating comprises aluminum.
Lorenz discloses wherein the conductive coating comprises aluminum ([0040]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Cho with the teachings of Lorenz to have wherein the conductive coating comprises aluminum.
Regarding Claim 36, Cho in view of Lorenz discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Cho does not directly disclose wherein the conductive coating comprises nickel.
Lorenz discloses wherein the conductive coating comprises nickel ([0040]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Cho with the teachings of Lorenz to have wherein the conductive coating comprises nickel.
Regarding Claim 37, Cho in view of Lorenz discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Cho does not directly disclose wherein the conductive coating or the insulating coatig consists of a material different to that of the contact lugs.
Lorenz discloses wherein the conductive coating can be formed of tin, or nickel ([0040]), wherein the insulating material can be a ceramic material ([0123]), Lorenz further discloses wherein the contact lugs can be formed of copper or aluminum ([0023]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Cho with the teachings of Lorenz to have wherein the conductive coating or the insulating coating consists of a material different to that of the contact lugs.
Regarding Claim 40, Cho in view of Lorenz discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Cho discloses wherein the cell top side and the cell bottom side are flat (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 41, Cho in view of Lorenz discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Cho does not directly disclose wherein the insulating coating on the positive contact lug and the insulating coating on the negative contact lug are of a same material.
Lorenz discloses wherein insulating coating on the positive contact lug and the insulating coating on the negative contact lug can both be formed of ceramic materials ([0123]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Cho with the teachings of Lorenz to have wherein the insulating coating on the positive contact lug and the insulating coating on the negative contact lug are of a same material.
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (US20050260491) in view of Lorenz (DE102020111765, see US National Stage Entry, US20230120705, for citations) further in view of Frick (US20220158307).
Regarding Claim 38, Cho in view of Lorenz discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Cho does not directly disclose wherein conductive coating or the insulating coating is provided on a self-adhesive carrier material.
Frick discloses an insulating coating that is formed of a ceramic ([0013]). Frick further discloses wherein the insulating layer has an adhesive ([0019]). Frick teaches that this structure provides improved cell durability ([0021]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Cho with the teachings of Frick to have wherein conductive coating or the insulating coating is provided on a self-adhesive carrier material.
Claim(s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (US20050260491) in view of Lorenz (DE102020111765, see US National Stage Entry, US20230120705, for citations) further in view of Schaefer (US20140087231).
Regarding Claim 39, Cho in view of Lorenz discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Cho discloses wherein the positive contact lug the negative contact lug are each flat (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “flat” can mean any structure with a horizontal planar section that can be pressed or soldered, Cho discloses a flat contact lug, Fig. 1, [0038]).
Cho does not directly disclose wherein the positive contact lug and the negative contact lug are each flat and designed for contact connection via pressing or soldering.
Schaefer discloses a flat contact lug (pole contact lug-2.7, [0082]). Schaefer further discloses wherein the contact lugs are compression molded and welded ([0082]). Schaefer teaches that this structure provides improved electrical connection between the contact lugs ([0086]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Cho with the teachings of Schaefer to have wherein the positive contact lug and the negative contact lug are each flat and designed for contact connection via pressing or soldering. This modification would yield the expected result of improved electrical connection between the contact lugs.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 4th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Lorenz does not provide teachings or disclosure for “a first of the at least two pouch cells having the positive contact lug having a conductive coating on the cell top side and an insulating coating on the ell bottom side and the negative contact lug having an insulating coating the cell top side and a conductive coating on the cell bottom side, or vise versa”
Applicant argues that Lorenz discloses connection legs that are not positive and negative contact lugs and do not have conductive coating and insulating coatings.
The examiner notes that Lorenz discloses wherein the positive contact lug having a conductive coating on the cell top side and an insulating coating on the cell bottom side and the negative contact lug having an insulating coating on the cell top side and a conductive coating on the cell bottom side, or vice versa, the positive contact lug having an insulating coating on the cell top side and a conductive coating on the cell bottom side and the negative contact lug having a conductive coating on the cell top side and an insulating coating on the cell bottom side (conductive coating material on connection lug, [0040], insulating layer coating on connection lug, [0019]). Lorenz teaches that this structure provides improved electrical contact with the connection lugs and connecting element ([0115]).
The examiner further notes that Lorenz discloses wherein the connection lugs are in electrical contact with a connecting element ([0077]). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, “a positive contact lug” and “a negative contact lug” can be defined as any connection lug that has the ability to be positively or negatively charged. Therefore, since Lorenz discloses wherein the connection lugs have the ability to be electrically connected in an electric fuse device, that Lorenz discloses a positive contact lug and a negative contact lug.
Furthermore, the examiner notes that the benefits that are enjoyed by Lorenz’s connection lug through the implementation of a coating and insulating layer of improving electrical contact of the connection lug is a benefit that can be enjoyed by Cho’s contact lugs.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANKITH R SRIPATHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30 am - 5:00pm.
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.
/ANKITH R SRIPATHI/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights