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. Claim Objections Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Instant claim recites a single feature – terminal structure- which is connected to the positive electrode terminal and negative electrode terminal. The claim is definite because all the features exist on a single battery structure and are therefore connected together even if additional elements are present such as the upper surface of the battery. The terminal structure is NOT in electrical connection to each of the positive and negative electrode terminals and the claim does NOT recite there are two terminal body parts, one associated to the positive and one to the negative. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-16 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. Instant claim recites “not exposed” as it pertains to the negative and positive electrode terminal, however there is no clause modifying what these features are not exposed to making the claims indefinite. The negative and positive electrode terminals inside the casing are exposed to the internal environment of the battery and therefore they are exposed to something. Even a sandwiched layer is exposed to the surface interface of the material upon which it is sandwiched by; no material has absolutely no exposure to all things, thus a modifying clause of what the features are not exposed to would be needed. Even if the interpretation of “atmosphere” were taken, when the instant claim vent is activated, the internal features of the battery are exposed to the atmosphere, thus the claims would not be met by the embodiments of the instant invention in that structural sense during activation of the vent. Further, the terminal extension part includes ‘exposed’ and ‘not exposed’ limitations without further modification – these features are exposed to the battery casing due to direct contact while having atmospheric exposure differences; claim is indefinite because it is unclear what the features are exposed and not exposed relative to. Claim 5 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. Instant claim recites “at least one of the positive electrode terminal and negative electrode terminal … Is inactivated.” There is no scope to determine what “active” versus “inactive” are and there is nothing in the instant claim that would show how a resin layer could stop electric flow from occurring in the electrically connected features of the battery. For the purposes of examination, the “resin” material will be interpreted as something that electrically separates the positive electrode terminal and the negative electrode terminal – each terminal is still active as it pertains to electrically being connected thereto for conducting electricity and operating. Even if you dipped the whole battery casing in an electrically insulating resin, the internal features would still be active, thus the claims are indefinite as the term “inactivated” creates an unclear scope. Claim s 7-13 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. Claim 7 recites the limitation "the extension terminal of the terminal structure coupled to the positive electrode terminal” and “the extension terminal of the terminal structure coupled to the negative electrode terminal". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim only recites a single “extension terminal” and fails to recite two, specifically two wherein one is attached to a first electrode and one to a second. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.— Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends , or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant identifies a first and second surface in claim 7. Claim 8 is redundant to claim 7 and fails to further limit the scope of the claim. Claim s 11 -13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends . Instant claim recites a first side and a second side in claim 7 and then states these first and second sides are the same side in claim 11 – this is an indefiniteness situation since the dependent claim 11 modifies the structural elements to be the same element of claim 7. En Arguendo a claim 2 that structurally requires 100 sidewalls could not be further modified by a claim 3 that depends on claim 2 that says the 100 sidewalls are the same sidewall – this is what is happening in this combination of claim 7 and 11 and is indefinite . Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. 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) 1-7, 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ching (USPAT 5283173) . Claim 1: Ching teaches a battery and a cover to shield the top surface of the battery when it is attached thereto [Abstract]. Ching teaches internal cells (76) are electrically connected to an upper surface (84) through posts (86, 88) and comprise a terminal structure having a terminal body part (98, 100) and terminal extension part (94, 96) which is exposed on a sidewall of the case (66) [Fig 4]. Ching’s element 82 is analogous to the applicant’s cap plate, Ching’s element 40 is analogous to applicant’s case that holds electrochemical cells, Ching’s plate 13 teaches the structural feature to restrict atmospheric exposure to the upper surface of the terminal body part while allowing exposure to the atmosphere of side surface part. The specific claim mapping of the prior art features to the instant claim recitation can be found in Modified Fig 4. The location of the features and their function meet the instant claim structural claim recitation and corresponding functional language as well as “connected to” language found therein. Claim 2: Ching teaches the case to substantially have 6 sides and therefore is a hexahedral battery case. Claim 3: Ching teaches an electrical connection from battery cells through internal electrical connections to a post and to ultimately to side terminal posts (94, 95). An extension wire is a feature which conducts electricity along the pathway such the terminal extension part and at least one of the positive electrode terminals and negative electrode terminals are connected wherein the extension wire is covered by the terminal body part [Modified Fig 4]. Claim 4: Ching teaches an insulating protection cap (106, 108) to read on applicant’s insulating resin material whereby electrical connection is made inactivated therethrough. [Fig 5]. Claim 5: Ching teaches the terminal body part is coupled to the upper surface of the battery case and a side surface such that the terminal extension part is exposed to the atmosphere on the side surface [Modified Fig 4, Fig 6]. Claim 6: Ching teaches a structure that has a terminal structure, positive electrode terminal, and negative electrode terminal in physical connection with each other as they exist in the same invention. Claim 7, 11: Ching teaches the positive electrode terminal and negative electrode terminal are such that the first surface and second surface are a common surface [Modified Fig 4]. Claim 12: Ching teaches a vertical direction as a non-structural, imaginary line, that can be utilized to show the separation between the first surface and second surface features [Fig 6]. Claim 13: Ching teaches a horizontal direction as a non-structural, imaginary line, that can be utilized to show the separation of the first surface and second surface features [Fig 6]. Claim 14: Ching teaches a vent (90) which corresponds to a hole through the cover (12) such that the venting part is positioned on the surface of the battery case and terminal extension part (94, 96) is positioned on surface other than the surface of the venting port [Fig 5]. Claim 15: Ching teaches a venting port and venting cavity within the battery cell that is located between the positive electrode terminal and negative electrode terminal on the upper surface of the battery case [Fig 5]. Claim 16: Ching teaches a terminal structure of a casing [Fig 5], the structure is capable of being detachable with enough force applied thereto. 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(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young et al (KR 10-2016-0150405) and further in view of Ching (USPAT 5283173) Claim 1: Young teaches a secondary battery cell comprising a first and second electrode with separator therebetween and a case for receiving the electrode assembly, a cap plate for sealing the opening of the case, a first terminal including a first part positioned in one end unit of the cap plate and a second part integrally formed with the first part and positioned at an end unit of an outer surface of the case and a second end unit with similar construction to the first [Abstract]. The features of the instant claims are mapped to the prior art in Modified Fig 2. The claim limitation of “not exposed” is interpreted to be to the external environment outside of the battery casing; Young teaches a terminal structure where the positive and the negative terminals are on a top surface and extend to opposite side surfaces of a prismatic battery . The terminal extension part on one or more side surfaces are taught to be EXPOSED TO THE ATMOSPHERE. The terminal extension part at an upper surface of the terminal body part is NOT EXPOSED TO THE ELECTROLYTE ENVIRONMENT OF THE BATTERY. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim is met by the prior art, but taking into consideration the instant specification inventive concept, the claims are rejected by Ching for teaching the exposure scope in consideration to the atmosphere. Ching teaches a battery and a cover to shield the top surface of the battery when it is attached thereto [Abstract]. Ching teaches internal cells (76) are electrically connected to an upper surface (84) through posts (86, 88) and comprise a terminal structure having a terminal body part (98, 100) and terminal extension part (94, 96) which is exposed on a sidewall of the case (66) [Fig 4] . Ching’s element 82 is analogous to the applicant’s and Young cap plate, Ching’s element 40 is analogous to applicant’s and Young’s case that holds electrochemical cells, Ching’s plate 13 teaches the structural feature to restrict atmospheric exposure to the upper surface of the terminal body part while allowing exposure to the atmosphere of side surface part. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the battery cap and terminals of Young to include the plate (13) of Ching to cover the terminals on the top surface while allowing exposure to the terminal on the sidewall in order to shield the top surface of the battery [Col 1 Ln 57 – Col 2 Ln 13]. Claim 2: Young teaches the case to have 6 sides and therefore is a hexahedral battery case [Fig 3] . Claim 3: Young teaches an electrical connection from battery cells through internal electrical connections to a post and to ultimately to side terminal posts [Fig 2] . An extension wire is a feature which conducts electricity along the pathway such the terminal extension part and at least one of the positive electrode terminals and negative electrode terminals are connected wherein the extension wire is covered by the terminal body part [Modified Fig 2 ]. Claim 4: Young teaches an insulating material (32) to read on applicant’s insulating resin material whereby electrical connection is made inactivated therethrough [ Modified Fig 2 ]. Claim 5: Young teaches the terminal body part is coupled to the upper surface of the battery case and a side surface such that the terminal extension part is exposed to the atmosphere on the side surface [Modified Fig 4]. Claim 6: Young teaches a structure that has a terminal structure, positive electrode terminal, and negative electrode terminal in physical connection with each other as they exist in the same invention [Fig 2] . Claim 7 -13: Young teaches an extension terminal as defined in claim 1 whereby such is electrically coupled to an electrode of the body and physically coupled to the second electrode through common element connection. This feature is in physical connection with all side surfaces of the body and therefore meets the claim scope as recited. Alternatively, the prior art teaches two extension terminal features whereby one is directly coupled to a first sidewall that is opposite a second sidewall. Configurations to change the sidewall would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art in order to control the packing dimensions of the battery for utilization within various electronic device size constraints. Claim 14: Young teaches a vent ( 24 ) which corresponds to a hole through the cover ( 20 ) such that the venting part is positioned on the surface of the battery case and terminal extension part 21cb, 22cb ) is positioned on surface other than the surface of the venting port [ Modified Fig 2 ]. Claim 15: Young teaches a venting port and venting cavity within the battery cell that is located between the positive electrode terminal and negative electrode terminal on the upper surface of the battery case [Fig 2 ]. Claim 16: Young teaches a terminal structure of a casing [Fig 3 ], the structure is capable of being detachable with enough force applied thereto. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT STEPHEN J YANCHUK whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7343 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-Th 10a-8p . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Nick Smith can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-8760 . 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. /STEPHEN J YANCHUK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752