DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 6/23/2026.
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
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 7, 9 – 11, 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon (US 8287313).
Regarding claim 1, Kwon teaches (figures 8 – 10) an electrical contact pad, comprising: a conductive component (100) including at least one surface discontinuity (see surface discontinuity near 110) configured to enhance an electrical connection therewith (i.e. surface discontinuity near 110 is capable of enhancing an electrical connection; column 5, lines 9 – 17), the at least one surface discontinuity (surface discontinuity near 110) being an opening (see opening near 110 in figure 8) in a surface of the conductive component (100), the opening (see opening near 110 in figure 8) having a shape of a circle (see circular shape in figure 8) with a diameter (i.e. diameter of the opening near 110) between 0.3 mm to 0.5 mm.
Although Kwon does not expressly disclose that the circle has a diameter between 0.3 mm to 0.5 mm, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the diameter of the circular opening in Kwon to be between 0.3 mm to 0.5 mm as a matter of routine optimization depending on design requirements such as structural integrity. The selection of a specific dimension from a finite range of sizes would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art when the results of such modification are predictable (MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding claim 2, Kwon teaches (figures 8 – 10) the electrical contact pad of claim 1, wherein the conductive component (100) has a planar section (see figure 8) with the at least one surface discontinuity (surface discontinuity near 110).
Regarding claim 3, Kwon teaches (figures 8 – 10) the electrical contact pad of claim 1, wherein the at least one surface discontinuity (surface discontinuity near 110) includes one or more structurally-vulnerable portions (150) configured to serve as focused points of contact during an establishment of the electrical connection (i.e. 150 is a point of contact during establishment of the electrical connection).
Regarding claim 4, Kwon teaches (figures 8 – 10) the electrical contact pad of claim 3, wherein the one or more structurally-vulnerable portions (150) are configured to physically yield during the establishment of the electrical connection (i.e. 150 is capable of physically yielding during establishment of the electrical connection; see figure 7, showing 150 yielding towards 304).
Regarding claim 5, Kwon teaches (figures 8 – 10) the electrical contact pad of claim 1, wherein the at least one surface discontinuity (surface discontinuity near 110) includes one or more edges (see figure 8).
Regarding claim 6, Kwon teaches (figures 8 – 10) the electrical contact pad of claim 1,
wherein the at least one surface discontinuity (surface discontinuity near 110) includes a rim (see rim where 144 is extending from).
Regarding claim 7, Kwon teaches (figures 8 – 10) the electrical contact pad of claim 1, wherein the at least one surface discontinuity (surface discontinuity near 110) is a machined portion of the conductive component (100) that is configured to receive an electric current (i.e. column 22, lines 34 – 41).
Regarding claim 9, Kwon teaches (figures 8 – 10) the electrical contact pad of claim 1, wherein the opening (see opening near 110a in figure 10) is a recess (i.e. 120a; Definition of recess in Google “the term recess in the context of connector structures and architectural/mechanical design refers to an indentation, inset, hollow, or set-back area.”).
Regarding claim 10, Kwon teaches (figures 8 – 10) the electrical contact pad of claim 9, wherein the recess (120a) is a dimple (i.e. 120a is an upward protruding part, 134a is considered a dimple).
Regarding claim 11, Kwon teaches (figures 8 – 10) the electrical contact pad of claim 1, wherein the opening (see opening near 110 in figure 8) is a through hole (opening near 110 is a through hole) in the conductive component (100).
Regarding claim 14, Kwon teaches (figures 8 – 10) the electrical contact pad of claim 1, wherein the at least one surface discontinuity (surface discontinuity near 110) is a chamfer (160a) on a surface of the conductive component (100).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 6/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “Kwon is being relied upon as the primary reference and is directed to a connection member for batteries. In contrast, the electrical contact pad of claim 1 is configured for engagement with a connector pin”. This argument is not persuasive because claim 1 does not require that the electrical contact pad is configured for engagement with a pin. Rather, claim 1 recites “An electrical contact pad, comprising: a conductive component including at least one surface discontinuity configured to enhance an electrical connection therewith, the at least one surface discontinuity being an opening in a surface of the conductive component, the opening having a shape of a circle with a diameter between 0.3 mm to 0.5 mm.”. Thus, the alleged configuration for engagement with a pin is not a limitation of claim 1 and cannot be relied upon to distinguish the claimed electrical contact pad from the connection member of Kwon. See MPEP §2145 (VI).
Further, Applicant argues that “one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been objectively motivated to just arbitrarily change the dimensions of the connection member of Kwon such that it would no longer be suitable for its application with batteries”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth in the rejection, the proposed modification is not based on an arbitrary change to Kwon, but rather the routine optimization of the diameter of the opening based on design requirements, including structural integrity. Kwon itself illustrates and describes different configurations of the opening, including different opening shapes, and indicates that the connection member and coupling parts may be formed according to the shape of the opening (column 26, lines 37 – 46). Further, Kwon discloses that the configuration of their invention makes it possible to “achieve stable coupling between the electrode terminals of the battery cells” (column 14, lines 44 – 53). Thus, Kwon demonstrates that the geometry of the opening is a design configuration that may be varied while retaining the connection member’s electrical connection function. Further, Applicant has not provided persuasive evidence establishing that selecting an opening diameter between 0.3 mm and 0.5 mm would prevent Kwon’s connection member from performing its intended electrical connection function or otherwise render Kwon unsuitable for battery applications. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 is maintained.
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 Carlos E. Lopez-Pagan whose telephone number is (703)756-5734. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30a - 5:00p.
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, Tulsidas Patel can be reached at (571) 272-2098. 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.
/CARLOS E LOPEZ-PAGAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/THO D TA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights