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 .
Applicant’s response to Election/Restriction has been submitted on 1/22/26 has been considered.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office Action.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Fig. 2, claims 1,4-14,16-20 in the reply filed on 1/22/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
There are no Information Disclosure Statement submitted of record.
Drawings
The Drawings submitted on 12/29/22 has been accepted.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the inconsistent terminology of being bendable but also bend resistant was not specify in the Applicant’s specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 4-7, 16 are 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. Specifically, the limitation discloses, “bend-resistant portion is a bendable metal wavy plate” appears to contradict the claimed invention. If it is bend resistant, it won’t be bendable. Appropriate corrections or further clarification is required.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the bendable resistant portion is interpreted as capable of bending at certain impact. It bears noting that limitations "bendable" in the present claims, as instantly recited, simply require that Applicant's portion be capable of bending when subject to compressive stress or pressures acting in the portion. Since both bendable degree of the portion as well as the magnitude of the compressive stress or pressures are unclaimed and unknown, it is noted that the bend-resistant portion meets the claimed requirement of being bendable. In this regard, it is pointed out that the above-mentioned limitations can be relative term, and neither the present claims nor the specification provides the standard for ascertaining the requisite degree of the portions bendability.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being Fang et al. by (CN213584082).
Regarding claim 1, the Fang et al. reference discloses a current collector, comprising a first connection portion, a bending-resistant portion, and a second connection portion, wherein the first connection portion and the second connection portion are connected through the bending-resistant portion (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, the Fang et al. reference discloses wherein the bend-resistant portion is capable of being bendable metal wavy plate at a certain pressure. A first end of the metal wavy plate is connected to the first connection portion, and a second end of the metal wavy plate is connected to the second connection portion (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, the Fang et al. reference discloses wherein peaks and valleys on the metal wavy plate are alternately arranged from the first connection portion to the second connection portion (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, the Fang et al. reference discloses wherein the metal wavy plate, the first connection portion, and the second connection portion are in a one-piece structure (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, the Fang et al. reference discloses wherein an outer side of the bending-resistant portion is covered with an insulating layer (plastic sheet 6).
Regarding claim 9, the Fang et al. reference discloses wherein the first connection portion and the second connection portion are metal sheets with smooth surfaces (seen in Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Su et al. (CN214336804).
Regarding claim 1, the Su et al. reference discloses a current collector, comprising a first connection portion, a bending-resistant portion (with reinforcement), and a second connection portion, wherein the first connection portion and the second connection portion are connected through the bending-resistant portion (Fig. 11-13).
Regarding claim 4, the Su et al. reference discloses wherein the bend-resistant portion is capable of being bendable metal wavy plate at a certain pressure. A first end of the metal wavy plate is connected to the first connection portion, and a second end of the metal wavy plate is connected to the second connection portion (Fig. 11-13).
Regarding claim 5, the Su et al. reference discloses wherein peaks and valleys on the metal wavy plate are alternately arranged from the first connection portion to the second connection portion (Fig. 11-13).
Regarding claim 7, the Su et al. reference discloses wherein the metal wavy plate, the first connection portion, and the second connection portion are in a one-piece structure (Fig. 11-13).
Regarding claim 8, the Su et al. reference discloses wherein an outer side of the bending-resistant portion is covered with an insulating layer (245 with insulating layer).
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang et al. by (CN213584082).
Regarding claim 6, the Fang et al. reference discloses a length of the metal wavy plate is a length of the current collector (Fig. 1). However, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to change the size of the metal wavy plate relative to the current collector, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04 (IV)).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al. by (CN213584082).
Regarding claim 9, the Su et al. reference discloses wherein the first connection portion and the second connection portion are smooth surfaces (seen in Fig. 13, tabs can be copper). The Su et al. reference is silent in disclosing metal sheets however, the Su et al. reference discloses the adapter to be electrically connected to the metal electrode tabs, therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the adapter wherein the pieces that are meant to transfer electricity, metal also to insure efficiency electrical flow in a battery. The substitution of known equivalent structures involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Fout 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Susi 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971); In re Siebentritt 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958). When a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result. KSR v. Teleflex
Claim(s) 10-14, 16- 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinghua et al. (CN210272526) in view of Su et al. by (CN213584082)
Regarding claims 10 and 20, the Pinghua et al. reference discloses a battery cover plate (10), comprising a current collector (tab; not shown), an electrode post (31), comprising an electrode post holder (313) and an electrode post body (311), a top cover plate (10), defining a top cover through hole (110); and a terminal (top of electrode post body); wherein the electrode post body is connected to the terminal through the top cover through hole (Fig. 8); the terminal is disposed on a side of the top cover plate, and the current collector (pole piece connector) is disposed on another side, opposite to the side, of the top cover plate. The current collector comprises first connection portion of the current collector is connected to the electrode post holder. The Pinghua reference is silent in specifying the configuration of the current collector (pole piece connector), however, the Su et a. reference discloses a current collector (an adaptor to transfer electricity from electrode tab to the outside of the battery, same function as the pole piece connector disclosed by the Pinhua). The Su et al. reference discloses the current collector comprising a first connection portion, a bending-resistant portion, and a second connection portion; wherein the first connection portion and the second connection portion are connected through the bending-resistant portion. The current collector is to maintain the electrical connection form the battery to an external source to supply steady electricity. A patent for a combination, which only unites old elements with no change in their respective functions, obviously withdraws what is already known into the field of its monopoly and diminishes the resources available to skillful men. Where the combination of old elements performed a useful function, but it added nothing to the nature and quality of the subject matter already patented, the patent failed under §103. When a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious. KSR v. Teleflex
Regarding claim 11, the Pinghua et al. reference discloses wherein the top cover plate comprises a recessed portion, an upper plastic is arranged in the recessed portion, and the upper plastic defines an upper plastic hole communicated with the top cover through hole; the electrode post body penetrates the upper plastic hole to be connected to the terminal; the upper plastic is arranged with a plastic protrusion abutting against the terminal (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 12, the Pinghua et al. reference discloses the battery cover plate according to claim 11, wherein the upper plastic is circumferentially arranged with a plastic raised portion along an outer end of the upper plastic, and an inner wall of the plastic raised portion abuts against a circumferential outer wall of the terminal (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 13, the Pinghua et al. reference disclsoes further comprising a lower plastic (60), arranged between the top cover plate and the current collector; wherein the lower plastic defines a lower plastic hole, and the electrode post body is connected to the terminal through the lower plastic hole (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 14, the Pinghua reference discloses the lower plastic further defines a passage port on a side wall of the lower plastic. However, the Pinghua reference does not specify the current collector to pass through the passage port and the second connection portion pass through the passage port to be connected to a winding core. However, the Su et al. reference discloses the current collector must connect the electrode assembly tabs to the terminal. the current collector passes through the passage port and the second connection portion pass through the passage port to be connected to a winding core. The current collector is to maintain the electrical connection form the battery to an external source to supply steady electricity. A patent for a combination, which only unites old elements with no change in their respective functions, obviously withdraws what is already known into the field of its monopoly and diminishes the resources available to skillful men. Where the combination of old elements performed a useful function, but it added nothing to the nature and quality of the subject matter already patented, the patent failed under §103. When a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious. KSR v. Teleflex
Regarding claims 16 and 18, the Pinghua et al. in view of Su et al. reference (herein referred to as modified Pinghua et al. reference) discloses the bend-resistant portion is a bendable wavy plate a first end of the wavy plate is connected to the first connection portion, and a second end of the wavy plate is connected to the second connection portion. The modified Pinghua et al. reference is silent in disclosing wavy plate is metal, however, the Su et al. reference discloses the wavy plate as current collectors (adapter) is to be electrically connected to the metal electrode tabs, therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the current collector wherein the pieces that are meant to transfer electricity are metal to insure efficiency electrical flow in a battery. The substitution of known equivalent structures involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Fout 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Susi 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971); In re Siebentritt 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958). When a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result. KSR v. Teleflex
Regarding claim 17, the modified Pinghua et al. reference discloses wherein an outer side of the bending-resistant portion is covered with an insulating layer.
Regarding claim 19, the modified Pinghua et al. reference further comprising: a sealing ring, sleeved on and connected to the electrode post body; wherein the sealing ring comprises a ring body and a protruding portion perpendicular to the ring body; the protruding portion is arranged in the top cover through hole, arranged between the electrode post body and the top cover through hole, and held by the electrode post body and a side wall of the top cover through hole; the ring body is arranged between the electrode post holder and a bottom surface of the top cover plate and is held by the electrode post holder and the top cover plate (Fig. 8).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN OI CONLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5162. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Nicholas Smith can be reached at 5712728760. 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.
/Helen Oi K CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights