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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
1. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/09/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
2. Applicant’s amendments with respect to claims filed on 04/28/2026 have been entered. Claims 11-19 and 27 remain pending in this application and are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. Claims 20-26 have been cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claim(s) 11-14, 16-19, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda et al. (Pub. No. US 20200273635 A1) in view of Lobert (Pub. No. US 20180019459 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Maeda teaches a method for producing a lithium-ion battery cell (10, Fig. 1, see [0037], a description of 10 and how it is made is detailed by Maeda making it a method of producing), the method comprising: providing a connecting pin (210, Fig. 3, see [0049]) and a connection plate (201, Fig. 3, see [0052]) of a battery cell housing (100, Fig. 1, see [0037] wherein 100 comprises 101 and 110) of the lithium-ion battery cell (10, Fig. 1, see [0037]), the connection plate (201, Fig. 3, see [0052]) having an opening (through-hole, see [0060]) for the connecting pin (210, Fig. 3, see [0049], see [0061] where 210 is inserted into the through-hole of 201) and comprising a higher coefficient of thermal expansion than the connecting pin (210, Fig. 3, see [0049], see [0059] where 201 is made of aluminum, and 210 is made of copper, and as evidenced by *The Engineering Toolbox, aluminum has a coefficient of thermal expansion of 23.6*10---6m/(m*oC) while copper has a coefficient of thermal expansion of 17.6*10---6m/(m*oC)), wherein, at room temperature, the opening (through-hole, see [0060]) in the connection plate (201, Fig. 3, see [0052]) is smaller than the diameter of the connecting pin (210, Fig. 3, see [0049], see [0074] where the connection joint is done by press-fitting and the outer diameter of 210 is larger than the inner diameter of the hole in 201), inserting the connecting pin (210, Fig. 3, see [0049]) into the opening (through-hole, see [0060]) in the connection plate (201, Fig. 3, see [0052], see [0061] where 210 is inserted into the through-hole of 201); passing the connecting pin (210, Fig. 3, see [0049]) through an opening (112, Fig. 3, see [0053] where 210 is inserted through 112) in the battery cell housing (100, Fig. 1, see [0037] wherein 100 comprises 101 and 110, see in Fig. 3 where 112 is in 110); and connecting the connecting pin (210, Fig. 3, see [0049]) to a current collector (120, Fig. 3, see [0052] where 120 is electrically connected to 210) of at least one negative electrode (negative electrode plate, see [0042], see [0047] where 120 is connected to negative electrode side end portion) of the lithium-ion battery cell (10, Fig. 1, see [0037]), thereby electrically connecting the current collector (120, Fig. 3, see [0052] where 120 is electrically connected to 210) to the connection plate (201, Fig. 3, see [0052] where 201 is electrically connected to 120 using 210) but, Maeda fails to teach heating the connection plate and cooling the connection plate, thereby fixing the connecting pin in the connection plate.
However, Lobert teaches heating the connection plate (90, Fig. 6, see [0056] wherein the diameter of 90 is increased before positioning during press fitting, and wherein the diameter is manipulated by heating, note this is a press fitting process) and cooling the connection plate (90, Fig. 6, see [0056] wherein the diameter of 90 is reduced after being pressed into place and wherein the diameter is manipulated by cooling), thereby fixing the connecting pin (84, Fig. 6, see [0056]) in the connection plate (90, Fig. 6, see [0056] where diameter of 90 is reduced causing it to press into 84 fixing it in place, and see in Fig. 6 where 84 is fixed in 90).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Maeda such that 201 is heated to increase diameter prior to press fitting and cooled to decrease diameter to press 201 around 210 as taught by Lobert to improve coupling of terminals having dissimilar materials (see [0032] of Lobert). Further Maeda teaches that modifications can be made (see [0101] of Maeda).
*Additional Evidence Provided by The Engineering Toolbox (Metals – Temperature Expansion Coefficients, 2005) which shows gives the thermal expansion coefficient of aluminum and copper.
Regarding claim 13, Maeda in view of Lobert teaches wherein the current collector (120, Fig. 3, see [0052]) of the at least one negative electrode (negative electrode plate, see [0042], see [0047] where 120 is connected to negative electrode side end portion) comprises copper (copper, see [0058] where 120 is made of copper).
Regarding claim 14, Maeda in view of Lobert fails to teach wherein the connection plate is heated to a temperature in a range from 250oC. to 550oC.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Maeda in view of Lobert such that 201 is heated to a temperature in a range of 2500C to 5500C as temperature of 201 is a result effective variable of change in diameter of the opening in 201 as evidenced by **The Engineers Toolbox (see explanation below). Further Maeda in view of Lobert teaches that modifications can be made (see [0101] of Maeda).
**Additional Evidence provided by The Engineers Toolbox (circular ring – temperature expansion, 2010) and shows it is known that the thermal expansion of a circular ring is represented by equation: d1 = d0 (dt*a + 1), wherein d1 is diameter of opening, dt is change in temperature, and a is the thermal expansion coefficient of the metal. Therefore, given that the components begin at room temperature, dt would be heating temperature minus room temperature, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art can see the heating temperature of the metal is a result effective variable of final diameter of an opening.
Regarding claim 16, Maeda in view of Lobert fails to teach in this embodiment wherein a current collector of at least one positive electrode of the lithium-ion battery cell is connected to a further connecting pin.
However, Maeda further teaches in a different embodiment wherein a current collector (130, Fig. 2, see [0029]) of at least one positive electrode (positive electrode, see [0045] where 130 is connected to the positive electrode) of the lithium-ion battery cell (10, Fig. 1, see [0037]) is connected to a further connecting pin (shaft portion, see [0103] wherein 300 includes a shaft portion, see [0046] wherein 300 300 is connected to 130, therefore the shaft portion is connected to 130), wherein the further connecting pin (shaft portion, see [0103]) is integrally formed with a further connection plate (terminal body, see [0103] where the terminal body and the shaft portion ore integrated by applying press working to an aluminum bar), wherein the further connecting pin (shaft portion, see [0103]) and the further connection plate (terminal body, see [0103]) comprise aluminum (aluminum, see [0103]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the embodiment of Claim 11 to include a shaft portion integrally formed with a terminal body formed of aluminum and connected to 130 as taught by the embodiment of [0103] of Maeda. Further, it has been held that combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness and involves only routine skill in the art. Further Maeda in view of Lobert teaches that modifications can be made (see [0101] of Maeda).
Regarding claim 17, Maeda in view of Lobert teaches wherein the further connecting pin (shaft portion, see [0103]) is integrally formed with a further connection plate (terminal body, see [0103] where the terminal body and the shaft portion ore integrated by applying press working to an aluminum bar, see modification above).
Regarding claim 18, Maeda in view of Lobert teaches wherein the further connecting pin (shaft portion, see [0103]) and the further connection plate (terminal body, see [0103]) comprise aluminum (aluminum, see [0103], see modification above).
Regarding claim 19, Maeda in view of Lobert teaches wherein the current collector (130, Fig. 2, see [0029]) of the at least one positive electrode (positive electrode, see [0045] where 130 is connected to the positive electrode) comprises aluminum (aluminum, see [0046] where 130 is formed of aluminum).
Regarding claim 27, Maeda in view of Lobert teaches wherein no further component parts beyond the connection plate (201, Fig. 3, see [0052]) and the connecting pin (210, Fig. 3, see [0049]) are utilized to make the connection (see [0074] for the press-fitting, see Fig. 3 where there are no other components used to make the connection between the connection plate and connecting pin).
5. Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda et al. (Pub. No. US 20200273635 A1) in view of Lobert (Pub. No. US 20180019459 A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Wakimoto et al. (Pub. No. US 20160293928 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Maeda in view of Lobert fails to teach wherein the connecting pin is connected to the current collector by welding.
However, Wakimoto teaches a connecting pin (9, Fig. 1, see [0038]) is connected to the current collector (8, Fig. 1, see [0038]) by welding (welded, see [0038]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Maeda in view of Lobert such that 210 is welded to 120 as taught by Wakimoto to provide excellent resistance against vibration (see [0017] of Wakimoto). Further Maeda in view of Lobert teaches that modifications can be made (see [0101] of Maeda).
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments filed 04/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicants’ argument that Maeda in view of Lobert fails to teach wherein the opening in the connection plate is smaller than the diameter of the connecting pin. The Examiner respectfully disagrees as seen in [0074] of Maeda the connection is performed by press-fitting and the outer diameter of 210 is larger than the inner diameter of the hole in 201.
Regarding applicant’s arguments that Lobert fails provides no teaching of joining a connection plate to a connecting pin and fails to teach the newly added feature of claim 11. The examiner respectfully disagrees as first, Lobert is not relied upon by itself to teach a connecting plate of the current invention and rather the metal structure in which a pin is pressed into is related to the similar structural components of Maeda and the combination uses heating and cooling techniques taught by Lobert to further improve the connection of components in Maeda. And Lobert is not relied upon alone to teach the newly added features of claim 1 and one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
Regarding applicants’ arguments that Lobert fails to teach the newly amended claim limitations of claim 27, the examiner respectfully disagrees as one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Further, the examiner does not rely on the multiple component system of Lobert to teach the connection between the connection plate and connecting pin and rather uses Lobert to teach a technique to increase the strength of the connection between the connecting plate and connecting pin taught by Maeda.
Regarding applicants’ argument that the plastic deformation joining method such as spin swaging inherently involves tooling beyond just the two component parts. The Examiner respectfully disagrees as first the rejection does not rely on the spin swaging method and rather a press fitting method. Second a method of connection does not inherently include more components beyond the two component parts as the connection is a plastic joint deformation between the pin and the plate, therefore the actual connection is between only the two components.
Conclusion
7. 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 DOUGLAS CALEB MARROQUIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5:00 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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at 571-270-7078. 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.
/DOUGLAS C MARROQUIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights