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 and Claim Status
The amendment filed 26 January 2026 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection set forth in the Office Action mailed 16 December 2025. Claims 2 and 5 are canceled. Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6–14 are pending in the application.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0051] contains several instances of “rivet groove 125c” which should instead read “rivet groove 125d” as first recited in the same paragraph.
[0062], [0065], and [0067] contain several instances of “first terminal plate 167” which should instead read “first electrode terminal plate 167” as first recited in [0054].
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because: FIG. 3 does not appear to match the description in [0061] of the specification. [0061] discloses that the end portion 164d is coupled into the rivet groove 125d, however it is 164b in FIG. 3 that appears to be coupled to the rivet groove 125d. 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the Remarks filed 26 January 2026 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.
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 7 is 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.
Claim 7 is indefinite because it recites the limitation “wherein a center of a welding beam used for the welding is positioned inside the coupling protrusion” as it is unclear what is meant by the term “inside”, e.g. is “inside” meant to refer to a side of the coupling protrusion which is proximal to the hole, the actual geometric center of the coupling protrusion itself, the rivet groove (formed in the coupling protrusion as set forth in e.g. Claim 1), etc. For the purposes of this office action, the above limitation has been interpreted as “wherein a center of a welding beam used for the welding is positioned on a side of the coupling protrusion proximal to the hole” which appears to have support in e.g. FIG. 3 of the specification.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6–8, and 11–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoshida et al. (US 2016/0372722 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Yoshida discloses a secondary battery (see prismatic secondary battery, [0031], FIG. 1) comprising:
a case (see prismatic outer body 2, [0032], FIG. 1) having an accommodating space therein ([0032], FIG. 1);
an electrode assembly (see rolled electrode assembly 1, [0032], FIG. 1) accommodated in the case (2) ([0032], FIG. 1) and having an uncoated portion (see negative electrode substrate exposed portion 5, [0033], FIG. 1) on one end thereof ([0033], FIG. 1);
a current collector plate (see negative electrode collector 8, [0033], FIG. 1–7) electrically connected to the uncoated portion (5) of the electrode assembly (1) ([0033]);
a cap plate (see sealing plate 3, [0032], FIG. 1, 2) sealing the case ([0032]); and
an electrode terminal (see negative electrode terminal, [0033], FIG. 1, 2, 5–7) outside the cap plate (3) and electrically connected to the current collector plate (8),
wherein the current collector plate (8) has a hole (see through-hole 8d, [0041], FIG. 2–5) through which the electrode terminal (9) passes (FIG. 2, 5), a coupling protrusion (see protrusion formed between countersunk hole 8e and groove 8f, [0041], FIG. 3–5, 7, which has a width of distance W1, [0051], FIG. 7) protruding from a lower surface of the current collector plate (8) toward the electrode assembly (1) (FIG. 4, 5, 7) and extending along a periphery of the hole (8d) (FIG. 3–5), the coupling protrusion having a rivet groove therein (see countersunk hole 8e, [0041], FIG. 3–5, 7), and
wherein a lower portion of the electrode terminal (9) (see insertion portion 9b, [0043], FIG. 2, 5, 7) is riveted into the rivet groove (8e) ([0043] and [0046] disclose that the lower portion of the electrode terminal (9b) is crimped into the rivet groove (8e), which can be considered as analogous to riveted), and is welded (see welded portion 50, [0046], FIG. 5, 6) to the coupling protrusion ([0046], FIG. 5, 6).
Regarding Claim 4, Yoshida discloses the secondary battery of Claim 1. Yoshida further discloses wherein the rivet groove (8e) in the coupling protrusion has a height in a range of 0.2 mm to 0.4 mm in a direction perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the electrode assembly (1) (see depth D1, [0051], FIG. 7).
Regarding Claim 6, Yoshida discloses the secondary battery of Claim 1. Yoshida further discloses wherein a welding beam used for the welding is irradiated upwardly from a lower surface of the coupling protrusion (FIG. 5 shows “LB” which one of ordinary skill in the art will understand to be a “laser beam”, i.e. welding beam, irradiating from a lower surface (the upper side of FIG. 5 being the inner side of the secondary battery, as disclosed in [0046]) of the coupling protrusion).
Furthermore, it is noted that these limitations are considered to be product-by-process limitations, and even 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, 227 USPQ 964,966).
Regarding Claim 7, Yoshida discloses the secondary battery of Claim 1. Yoshida further discloses wherein a center of a welding beam used for the welding is positioned on a side of the coupling protrusion proximal to the hole (8d) (see edge of the countersunk hole 8e, [0046], FIG. 5; FIG. 5 shows “LB” which one of ordinary skill in the art will understand to be a “laser beam”, i.e. welding beam, irradiating on a side of the coupling protrusion proximal to the hole (8d)).
Furthermore, it is noted that these limitations are considered to be product-by-process limitations, and even 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, 227 USPQ 964,966).
Regarding Claim 8, Yoshida discloses the secondary battery of Claim 1. Yoshida further discloses wherein the current collector plate (8) has a terminal connection portion (see terminal connection portion 8a + lead portion 8b, [0035], FIG. 1–5, 7) and an electrode connection portion (see connection portion 8c, [0035], FIG. 1),
wherein the terminal connection portion (8a + 8b) has a plate portion (see specifically terminal connection portion 8a, [0035], FIG. 1–5, 7) extending in a direction parallel to the electrode assembly (1) (FIG. 1, 2), and
wherein the coupling protrusion is formed on a lower surface of the plate portion (8a) (FIG. 3–5; note [0046] discloses that the upper side of FIG. 5 is the inner side of the secondary battery).
Regarding Claim 11, Yoshida discloses the secondary battery of Claim 1. Yoshida further discloses wherein the current collector plate (8) comprises an electrode connection portion (see connection portion 8c, [0035], FIG. 1) and a terminal connection portion (see terminal connection portion 8a + lead portion 8b, [0035], FIG. 1–5, 7),
wherein the electrode connection portion (8c) is coupled to the uncoated portion (5) ([0035], FIG. 1), and
wherein the terminal connection portion (8a + 8b) is coupled to the electrode terminal (9) ([0035], FIG. 1–3, 5–7).
Regarding Claim 12, Yoshida discloses the secondary battery of Claim 11. Yoshida further discloses wherein the terminal connection portion (8a + 8b) is disposed between the electrode assembly (1) and the cap plate (3) (FIG. 1).
Regarding Claim 13, Yoshida discloses the secondary battery of Claim 11. Yoshida further discloses wherein the terminal connection portion (8a + 8b) comprises a plate portion (see specifically terminal connection portion 8a, [0035], FIG. 1–5, 7) and a bent portion (see specifically lead portion 8b, [0035], FIG. 1–3) bent from the plate portion (8a) (FIG. 1–3), and
wherein the bent portion (8b) is coupled to the electrode connection portion (8c) ([0035], FIG. 1).
Regarding Claim 14, Yoshida discloses the secondary battery of Claim 1. Yoshida further discloses wherein the rivet groove (8e) has a ring shape (FIG. 3).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (US 2016/0372722 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, in view of Muroya et al. (US 2020/0274189 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Yoshida discloses the secondary battery of Claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the rivet groove (8e) in the coupling protrusion has a width in a range of 0.1 mm to 0.2 mm in a direction parallel to a longitudinal direction of the electrode assembly (1).
Muroya teaches a secondary battery (see quadrangular secondary battery 100, [0031], FIG. 1, 2) wherein a lower portion of an electrode terminal (see positive electrode terminal 7, [0035]) is riveted into a rivet groove (see spot-faced hole 6d, [0047], FIG. 8) formed in a current collector plate (see positive electrode current collector 6, [0035], FIG. 1, 4, 5–10). Muroya teaches ([0008], FIG. 15) that the nature of this rivet coupling (e.g. the shape and size of the electrode terminal and rivet groove, as shown in FIG. 15) affects the reliability of the connection between the electrode terminal and current collector plate.
A result-effective variable is a variable which achieves a recognized result. The determination of the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable is routine experimentation and therefore obvious (MPEP § 2144.05.II). In the instant case, the nature of the rivet coupling is a variable that achieves the recognized result of affecting reliability of the connection between the electrode terminal and current collector plate, as taught by Muroya, thus making the nature of the rivet coupling a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the width of the rivet groove such that it has a width in a range of 0.1 mm to 0.2 mm in a direction parallel to a longitudinal direction of the electrode assembly via routine experimentation, for the purpose of optimizing the reliability of the connection between the electrode terminal and current collector plate.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (US 2016/0372722 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Yoshida discloses the secondary battery of Claim 8. Yoshida further discloses wherein a height (h) of the coupling protrusion below the lower surface of the plate portion (8a) is in a range of 0.11*t1 ≤ h ≤ 4*t1, wherein t1 is a thickness of the plate portion (8a) adjacent to the coupling protrusion, which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.2*t1 ≤ h ≤ t1 (as shown in FIG. 7, the height (h) of the coupling protrusion below the lower surface of the plate portion (8a) is analogous to D1, disclosed in [0051] to range from 0.2 mm to 0.4 mm; as also shown in FIG. 7, the thickness t1 of the plate portion (8a) adjacent to the coupling protrusion is analogous to the thickness of the plate portion (8a) at the rivet groove (8e), and can be calculated by subtracting h from the thickness of the plate portion (8a) where the hole (8d) and rivet groove (8e) are not formed, disclosed in [0053] to range from 0.5 mm to 2 mm; thus t1 can be understood to range from a minimum of 0.1 mm to a maximum of 1.8 mm, and the range of h as a function of t1 is 0.11*t1 (in the case that h = 0.2 mm and t1 = 1.8 mm) ≤ h ≤ 4*t1 (in the case that h = 0.4 mm and t1 = 0.1 mm)).
Note that when the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I).
Regarding Claim 10, Yoshida discloses the secondary battery of Claim 8. Yoshida further discloses wherein a width (see distance W1, [0051], FIG. 7) of the coupling protrusion from an inner edge at the hole (8d) and an outer edge thereof along the lower surface of the plate portion (8a) is in a range of 0.25*t1 ≤ t2 ≤ 1.6*t1, wherein t1 is a thickness of the plate portion (8a) and t2 is the width (W1) of the coupling protrusion, which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.2*t1 ≤ t2 ≤ t1 ([0051] discloses that the width t2 (W1) of the coupling protrusion ranges from 0.5 to 0.8 mm, and [0053] discloses that a thickness t1 of the plate portion (8a) ranges from 0.5 to 2 mm; as such, it can be understood that the range of t2 as a function of t1 is 0.25*t1 (in the case that t2 = 0.5 and t1 = 2 mm) ≤ t2 ≤ 1.6*t1 (in the case that t2 = 0.8 mm and t1 = 0.5 mm)).
Note that when the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA MARIE FEHR, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-0860. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, BASIA RIDLEY can be reached at (571)272-1453. 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.
/J.M.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/GREGG CANTELMO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725