DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims Status.
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 10/29/2025. Claims 1-1 were pending. Claims 6 has been cancelled. Claims 1,3, and 5 have been amended. Claims 11-20 have been added. Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are now pending. Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are presented for examination. Applicant's arguments have been considered.
Response to Amendment
Objection to Drawing set forth in the Office Action from 07/30/2025 is withdrawn in response to Remarks/Amendments from 10/29/2025.
Rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the Office Action from 07/30/2025 is withdrawn in response to Remarks/Amendments from 10/29/2025.
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.
Claims 11 and 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claims 11 and 12 it is not clear what kind of structural limitation described by terms “ move or moves” . It sound as a functional language describing some sort of motion?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2001256954 to Sakai (machine translation).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Sakai discloses a secondary battery (para 28) comprising: an electrode assembly; (Fig. 1), a case accommodating the electrode assembly (Fig. 1, claim 1), a cap plate sealing the case (Fig. 1), and a current collector plate (24, Fig. 1) welded between the electrode assembly and the case (part 21a, Fig. 6), the current collector plate a U-shaped slit (re claim 2, Fig. 5, 11). Sakai does not expressly disclose wherein forming an electrode welding portion partitioned by the slit, the electrode assembly being welded to the electrode welding portion of the current collector plate.
However, Sakai teaches an embodiment (Fig. 8), wherein the electrode portion welded to fixing ring 43, which in turn welded to electrode welding portion partitioned by the slit (27, Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was file to make the ring 43 integral with the electrode welding portion, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993)( : MPEP 2144.04 (V-B)).
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3 , Sakai discloses wherein the current collector plate has a disc-shaped body and an electrode welding portion partitioned inside the body by the slit and welded to the electrode assembly (para 4, 5, Fig. 6, 10).
Regarding claim 4 , Sakai discloses wherein the electrode welding portion is separated from a central region of the body of the current collector plate by the slit (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 5 , Sakai discloses wherein a periphery of the body and the electrode welding portion are maintained at a connected state: since current collector plate connected to the electrode assembly all parts of the current collector are inherently electrically connected. MPEP 2112 V states that "once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the Examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to show inherency, the burden shifts to the Applicant to show an unobvious difference."
Regarding claim 7 , Sakai discloses wherein the current collector plate has a plurality of the slits, and wherein the slits are arranged at an angle with respect to a center of the current collector plate (Fig. 9B).
Regarding claim 8 , Sakai discloses wherein the current collector plate has an even number of the slits, and wherein the slits are symmetrically arranged with respect to the center of the current collector plate (Fig. 9A).
Regarding claim 13 , Sakai discloses wherein the current collector plate is a positive electrode (Fig. 7).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2001256954 to Sakai (machine translation) in view of JP 2002170543 to Sato (Sato, machine translation).
Regarding claim 9 , Sakai discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 1 and incorporated therein. Sakai does not expressly disclose a first terminal, wherein the case has an opening sized to accommodate the electrode assembly, wherein the case has a hole in a surface facing the opening, and wherein the first terminal is electrically coupled to the current collector plate through the hole in the case.
Sato teaches a secondary battery (claim, 1) comprising a case having an opening and accommodating electrode assembly (claim 1, Fig. 10). Sato also current collectors’ plates comprising slits (Fig. 6) and a hole in through which the first terminal (21) is electrically coupled to the current collector plate (3). Therefore, such structural design is well known in the art., It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the secondary battery of Sakai with the terminal structure case has a hole in a surface facing the opening, and wherein the first terminal is electrically coupled to the current collector plate through the hole in the case , as taught by Sato because the use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.) and would provide reliable connection of the terminal with terminal plate and as such input to the external device.
Regarding claim 10, modified Sakai discloses wherein the first terminal has a head part outside the case and a fastening part (Fig. 1, para 5, para 23). In addition, Sakai discloses welding (para 28). It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use welding to couple a fastening part to the central region of the current collector in order to provide secure attachment and reliable electric conductivity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 14 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The closest prior art of record JP 2001256954, JP 2001256954 each and every limitation of claims 11 and 14.
Claims 15-20 depend from claim 14 and objected as well.
Claims 11 and 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Sakai teaches an embodiment (Fig. 8), wherein the electrode portion welded to fixing ring 43, which in turn welded to electrode welding portion partitioned by the slit (27, Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was file to make the ring 43 integral with the electrode welding portion, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993)( : MPEP 2144.04 (V-B)).
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Decision of KPO to grant a Patent for KR 1020220008442.
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 ALEXANDER USYATINSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-7703. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.
/Alexander Usyatinsky/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751