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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/17/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment received 06/25/2026 (“Amendment”) has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12 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 § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20130196220A1 (Okutani) and further in view of US20090169989A1 (Morikawa).
Regarding claim 1, Okutani teaches a prismatic secondary battery [abs]; comprising: a battery case [#12, 0079] that comprises a terminal attachment hole [#17b; 0090] and is configured to accommodate an electrode body; a terminal member [#17;0090] that is attached to the terminal attachment hole and comprises an opposed surface opposed to a surface of the battery case at a periphery of the terminal attachment hole; and an insulating member [#20a] and is disposed between the battery case and the terminal member [depicted below in annotated fig 2].
Okutani is silent with respect to wherein the opposed surface of the terminal member comprises a rough surface area on at least a part of a portion contacting with the insulating member, and an arithmetic average roughness Sa of the rough surface area is equal to or more than 1µm.
Okutani does not explicitly teach the insulating member is made of resin #20a. However, Okutani does teach other insulating members i.e. #34 is made of resin [0108], therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a resin material for insulating member #20a of Okutani, as doing so would achieve a predictable result. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Morikawa teaches a terminal of a rechargeable battery [abs] and teaches where in n surface roughness (Ra) of the opposed surface of the terminal as claimed [0097; The surfaces of terminals 28 and 29 are roughened to have a surface roughness (Ra) more than 0.05 μm to be adhered to outer resin 30] Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have to modify the terminal structure of Okutani to have a surface roughness of more than 0.05 μm as taught by Morikawa so the adhesion is improved [0097].
PNG
media_image1.png
456
793
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Okutani teaches wherein the terminal member comprises an outside terminal part [part of the terminal that is exposed to the outside of the case as noted in instant spec 0021] comprising: a shaft part that is inserted into the terminal attachment hole [17b]; and a flange part that is formed in a plate shape and extends from the shaft part along an outer surface of the battery case at an outside of the battery case, the insulating member comprises a gasket [#20a] that is disposed between the outer surface of the battery case and an opposed surface of the flange part [depicted in claim 1]. Okutani is silent with respect to the outer surface of the battery case and/or the opposed surface of the flange part comprises the rough surface area on at least a part of a portion contacting with the gasket. Morikawa teaches where in n arithmetic surface roughness (Ra) of the terminals which contacts the resin, [i.e. claimed gasket in 0097] and has roughness Ra within a range more than 0.05μm [0097]. It is noted, the claimed flanged part is part of the terminal, and Morikawa teaches the whole terminal has the roughness as claimed, thus it Okutani in view of Morikawa teach the roughness as required in the regions as claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have to modify the flange area of the terminal which comprises the rough surface area on at least a part of a portion contacting with the gasket of Okutani to have a surface roughness as taught by Morikawa so the adhesion is improved between the electrode terminal and the battery case [0116].
Regarding claim 3, Okutani teaches wherein the terminal member further comprises an inside plate-shaped part [as defined in the instant spec para 0016, it’s a plate shaped conductive member- part of #32 of Okutani is conductive-0090] connected to the outside terminal part inside the battery case and extending along an inner surface of the battery case, the insulating member comprises an insulating plate disposed between the inner surface of the battery case and an opposed surface of the inside plate-shaped part [depicted in claim 1]. Okutani is silent with respect to the inner surface of the battery case and/or the opposed surface of the inside plate-shaped part comprises the rough surface area on at least a part of a portion contacting with the insulating plate. Morikawa teaches where in an arithmetic surface roughness (Ra) of the terminal to be more than 0.05 μm [0097]. It is noted, the claimed inside plate shaped part is part of the terminal, and Morikawa teaches the whole terminal has the roughness as claimed, thus it Okutani in view of Morikawa teach the roughness as required in the regions as claimed [i.e. the opposed surface of the inside plate shaped part which is part of the terminal]. It would have been obvious to modify the inside plate shaped area of the terminal of Okutani to comprise a surface roughness as taught by Morikawa so the adhesion is improved between the electrode terminal and the battery case [0116].
Regarding claim 4, Okutani teaches wherein the inside plate-shaped part is a long plate-shaped member [#32] arranged along the inner surface of the battery case and is a plate-shaped electrical collector part whose one end part is connected to the outside terminal part and whose another end part is connected to the electrode body [0090; The conductive member 32 has a tubular portion 32 a formed at its battery interior end, while at its battery exterior end—that is, sealing body 13 end, where the diameter narrows—there is formed opening 32 b into which the tubular portion 17 a of the positive electrode external terminal 17 is inserted].
Regarding claim 5, Okutani teaches wherein the terminal member comprises: a current interrupt device [0100-#35] that is connected to the outside terminal part inside the battery case and is configured to interrupt an electrically conductive passage when an internal pressure of the battery case exceeds a predetermined pressure [0103; Okutani teaches - If counter-electromotive current is generated in the state in which the nonaqueous electrolyte is present in the second through-hole 34 e immediately after the battery internal pressure increases to bring the current interruption mechanism 35 into operation and the inversion plate 33 is deformed to cut off the electrical connection between the inversion plate 33 and the positive electrode collector 16, sparks may occur in the second through-hole 34 e, and the heat therefrom may fuse and carbonize the second insulating member 34 around the second through-hole 34 e.] and an electrical collector part [0101-#16] that is connected between the current interrupt device and the electrode body [seen in fig 2 and para 0103], the current interrupt device comprises: a sealing tab comprising: a base part that is connected to the outside terminal part inside the battery case and is arranged along the inner surface of the battery case; and a ring-shaped protruding part that protrudes from the base part to the electrode body [0112]; and an inversion plate [#33- the periphery of the inversion plate 33 is hermetically welded and sealed on the inner surface side of the flange portion 32 c. The inversion plate 33 is shaped to slightly protrude toward the battery interior side from the periphery toward the center; that is, arranged to be in a slanted positional relationship with the sealing body 13] that is connected to the protruding part of the sealing tab, is connected to the electrical collector part, and is configured to be deformed and spaced away from the electrical collector part when an internal pressure of the battery case rises to a value equal to or more than a predetermined value, and the inside plate-shaped part is the base part of the sealing tab [0091 -Okutani teaches The inversion plate 33 contains a conductive material and has a function as a valve that is deformed toward the outer side of the battery when the pressure in the battery outer casing 12 increases].
Regarding claim 6, Okutani teaches wherein the terminal member comprises: an outside terminal part whose one part is exposed to an outside of the battery case; and an inside plate-shaped part [as defined in the instant spec para 0016, it’s a plate shaped conductive member- part of #32 of Okutani is conductive-0090] that is connected to the outside terminal part inside the battery case and extends along an inner surface of the battery case, the insulating member [depicted in claim 1, i.e. #20a] comprises an insulating plate disposed between the inner surface of the battery case and an opposed surface of the inside plate-shaped part. Okutani is silent with respect to the inner surface of the battery case and/or the opposed surface of the inside plate-shaped part comprises the rough surface area on at least a part of a portion contacting with the insulating plate.
Morikawa teaches where in an arithmetic surface roughness (Ra) of the terminal to be more than 0.05 μm [0097]. It is noted, the claimed inside plate shaped part is part of the terminal, and Morikawa teaches the whole terminal has the roughness as claimed, thus it Okutani in view of Morikawa teach the roughness as required in the regions as claimed [i.e. the opposed surface of the inside plate shaped part which is part of the terminal]. It would have been obvious to modify the inside plate shaped area of the terminal of Okutani to comprise a surface roughness as taught by Morikawa so the adhesion is improved between the electrode terminal and the battery case [0116].
Regarding claim 7, Okutani teaches wherein a projection part [depicted below] protruding toward the insulating member and surrounding the terminal attachment hole in a plane view is formed on the surface of the battery case and/or the opposed surface of the terminal member.
PNG
media_image2.png
456
793
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Okutani is silent with respect to wherein the surface of the battery case and/or the opposed surface of the terminal member comprises the rough surface area on a part equal to or more than 5% of the portion contacting with the insulating member. Morikawa teaches a terminal of a rechargeable battery [abs] and teaches where in n surface roughness (Ra) of the opposed surface of the terminal as claimed [0097; The surfaces of terminals 28 and 29 are roughened to have a surface roughness (Ra) more than 0.05 μm to be adhered to outer resin 30] Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have to modify the terminal structure of Okutani to have a surface roughness of more than 0.05 μm as taught by Morikawa so the adhesion is improved [0097].
Morikawa does not explicitly teach the surface area on a part equal to or more than 5%. However, it is noted: Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to modify the battery case of Okutani to have the rough surface area on a part equal to or more than 5% of the portion contacting with the insulating member as taught by Morikawa so the adhesion is improved between the electrode and the battery case [0097].
Regarding claim 9, Okutani is silent with respect to wherein the arithmetic average roughness Sa of the rough surface area is equal to or less than 100 µm. Morikawa teaches a terminal of a rechargeable battery [abs] and teaches where in n surface roughness (Ra) of the opposed surface of the terminal as claimed [0097; The surfaces of terminals 28 and 29 are roughened to have a surface roughness (Ra) more than 0.05 μm to be adhered to outer resin 30] Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have to modify the terminal structure of Okutani to have a surface roughness of more than 0.05 μm as taught by Morikawa so the adhesion is improved [0097].
Regarding claim 10, Okutani in view of Morikawa teaches wherein the surface of the battery case comprises the rough surface area on at least the part of the portion contacting with the insulating member. As noted above in claim 1, Okutani teaches the battery case [fig. 1a #12 that has a sealing body #13 which is welded to the casing, which covers the entire periphery of the external portion of the assembly [0079, 0090], including the top assembly (which is part of the claimed battery casing) and as seen in fig. 1 the battery casing/sealing body is in contact with the insulating member [20a] and the opposed surface of the terminal member [#17] [0090]. Okutani does not teach the rough surface area for the battery case. Morikawa teaches a terminal of a rechargeable battery [abs] and teaches where in n surface roughness (Ra) of the opposed surface of the terminal as claimed [0097; The surfaces of terminals 28 and 29 are roughened to have a surface roughness (Ra) more than 0.05 μm to be adhered to outer resin 30]. Although Morikawa does not teach the battery case has the roughness as claimed, a skilled artisan would easily be able to understand that roughening the areas of the battery case would improve adhesion as this is considered a known technique in this field of endeavor with a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have to modify the battery case of Okutani to have a surface roughness as taught by Morikawa so the adhesion is improved [0097]. Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
Regarding claim 11, Okutani in view of Morikawa teaches wherein the opposed surface of the terminal member comprises the rough surface area on at least the part of the portion contacting with the insulating member. Please refer to the rejection of claims 1 and 10, as the limitations recited herein are rejected above.
Regarding claim 12, Okutani in view of Morikawa teaches wherein the surface of the battery case and the opposed surface of the terminal member comprises the rough surface area on at least the part of the portion contacting with the insulating member. Please refer to the rejection of claims 1 and 10, as the limitations recited herein are rejected above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARIKA GUPTA whose telephone number is (571)272-9907. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
/S.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights