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 11 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim to “porsitioned" is not acceptable. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument regarding 35 USC 112 Claim 1-16: Examiner does not find the arguments persuasive or the amendment sufficient. The negative and positive terminals are clearly electrically exposed to outside the cell.
Argument regarding 35 USC 112 Claim 5, Claim 7-13, Claim 8, : Amendment overcomes rejection.
Arguments pertaining to Ching: Not persuasive. Element 12 has a sidewall 18, 24 that are in a position to cover the terminals and terminal extension part. The feature “the extension wire” is indefinite as amended since it lacks antecedent basis in the claims is unclear where this feature is located or how it is configured to restrict all electrical exposure of the terminals to the outside of the battery.
Argument on Pg 9 pertaining to Ching’s cover plate, specifically that the “terminal body integral with the top of the battery housing” is not persuasive because the instant claim is silent to require an integral connection. Additionally, the features of the prior art are located in the same stack configuration as claimed. Applicant goes on to argue on pg 10 additional features recited in the instant specification which are not positively claimed. These arguments are spurious.
Argument spanning pg 10-11 recite applicant disagreeing with Young teaching a battery cell, first and second electrode with separator, case, cap plate, and first and second terminals whereby the finality of the electrical connection is on the outer surfaces of the case. This is not a valid argument because it is clear Young teaches this. Applicant’s disagreement to the teachings presented in the prior art without substantially more are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “terminal extension” but such term lacks antecedent basis. Additionally, this feature is likely a subsect of the electrical pathway from the terminal of the battery to the outer wall. The prior art teaches such structural features located in the same location and therefore meets the claimed invention as recited. Applicant subsecting a feature and calling it many variable names does not differentiate the actual structure – an electrical piece having a 90degree term can equally be called one element or three elements (top run, corner, side run).
Applicant argues Young does not teach the terminal body part that covers the electrical pathway – this is correct, Young is modified by Ching to do this.
Applicant argues Ching’s cover is a protective housing that does not teach exposing terminal extensions parts at the side surface: Please look at Modified Fig 4 of Ching provided by the examiner, it is clear there are terminal extension parts outside the cover. Additionally, if someone did cover the terminal extension parts on the side, this would make the system inoperable as Young and Ching both intended; applicant’s argument is not founded in engineering principles. En arguendo, the cover of Ching does not allow the terminal side connection pieces of Young to be electrically connectable because they are covered – this would actually align with the words recited by the instant claim 1 to not have the terminals physically or electrically connected to the outside word, “not exposed”.
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 1-7, 9-11, 14-16 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. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the extension wire". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 1-7, 9-11, 14-16 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 “such that the respective positive electrode terminal or the negative electrode terminal is not exposed to outside of the terminal body part.” Support for this language is recited in instant paragraph [0043] so it does have written support, however it is very clear that the negative and positive electrode terminals are electrically exposed to outside the terminal body part whereby the recitation of “not exposed” is unclear. Specific features of the wire make it such that electrical exposure is specifically possible and that the resin caps of the instant invention aren’t to protect the terminals from exposure to the outside, such as like a shipping solution to protect the terminal and the corners of the cell from being damaged in transport, removed prior to discharging. A temporary resin cover most reads on the recitation of “not exposed to outside”, but that is not what the instant specification teaches.
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, 14-16 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.
Newly amended Modified Figure 4 shows applicant’s terminal body part that provides a physical barrier located to cover the electrode terminals, “extension wires”, and
PNG
media_image1.png
667
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 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) 1-7, 9-11, 14-16 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 prior art and the instant claim share the electrical connection from the terminal to the outside and therefore it is unclear (indefinite rejection above) how the prior art is cut off from being exposed to the outside.
PNG
media_image2.png
436
439
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ching teaches a battery and a cover to shield the top surface of the battery when it is attached thereto [Abstract; Modified Fig 4 by Examiner Yanchuk]. 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) [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 first terminal structure connected to the positive electrode terminal, and second terminal structure connected to the negative electrode terminal [Fig 2].
Claim 7: Young teaches a first extension terminal of the first terminal structure coupled to the positive electrode terminal on a first surface and a second extension terminal of the second terminal structure coupled to the negative electrode terminal on a second surface [Fig 2].
Claim 9,11: Young teaches a first surface to be opposite the second surface [Fig 2], but is silent to teach a terminal on adjacent sidewalls or same wall. This rearrangement of parts would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention in order to have electrical connection be optimized for various intended uses of different electrically connected features.
When looking to the specification for specifics of this embodiment, no figures or disclosure of mere recitation it can be done is provided – this militates in finding of obviousness. If argued to be substantially more, arguments would militate in favor of requiring a 112 enablement rejection based on the lack of examples and clarity as to how Fig 1-4 are adapted to the embodiment recited. Relying on mere recitation as provided in instant application [0031] for allowability would not be appropriate in light of adequate disclosure provided by the prior art in light of the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art and MPEP 2144.04.
Claim 10: Young teaches a first surface to be opposite the second surface [Fig 2].
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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
/STEPHEN J YANCHUK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights