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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claims 5 and 13-18 have been canceled as per Applicant’s request. Claims 19-23 have been added. Claims 1-4, 6-12, and 19-23 are pending with claims 2-3 and 11-12 withdrawn as being drawn to an unelected species.
The previous claim objections have been withdrawn in light of the amendment.
The previous 112 rejections have been withdrawn in light of the amendment (with the exception to the rejection regarding “both ends”; see rejection to claim 6, below).
The core of the prior art rejection is maintained with slight changes made in light of the amendment. All changes to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment. Thus, the action is final.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: stating “the thickness of the connecting bridge (lines 3-4), where correctly citing would be ‘the thickness of each one of the two connecting bridges’. 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 6 and 20 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 6 recites “both ends” (line 3). However, three-dimensional sides have 6 ends. Thus, it is unclear what both ends refers to. (Note: The use of “two opposing ends” can be used.)
Claim 20 recites “both ends” (line 2). However, three-dimensional sides have 6 ends. Thus, it is unclear what both ends refers to. (Note: The use of “two opposing ends” can be used.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 7-10, 19, and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2022/0231354 (Hwangbo et al.).
As to claim 1, Hwangbo et al. teach a current collector plate (first current collector [60]) comprising:
a jellyroll connection portion (uncoated region coupling portion [62]) being connected to a jellyroll of a battery (as it couples the uncoated region, and the battery is a jellyroll (para 0163, 0238);
a pole connection portion (terminal coupling portion [63]) being connected to a pole of the battery (para 0237);
the current collector plate [60] being separated by a dividing groove (empty space [S]) into the jellyroll connection portion (uncoated region coupling portion [62]) and pole connection portion pole connection portion (terminal coupling portion [63]); and
two connecting bridges (bridge portion [64]) symmetrically connecting the jellyroll connection portion and the pole connection portion (figs. 11-12 in view of para 0243, which states the presence of a plurality of bridge portions present between coupling portions [62] in regular intervals (not shown but taught); this teaching would result in either two bridges (fig. 12, wherein a second bridge would be across from the shown bridge [64] between adjacent uncoated region coupling portions [62]), or four bridges (in every space between two adjacent uncoated region coupling portions [62], as these are the only two options that maintain the plural bridges provided in “regular intervals” (para 0243)), wherein the two connecting bridges are provided to be fused to disconnect the jellyroll connection and the pole connection portion independently when a thermal runaway of the battery occurs (via either a sectional area adjustment or notching portion [N]) (para 0239, 0245; figs. 11-12). (Note: Independent action would occur, as each bridge is separate and thus would act separately/independently from one another.)
As to claim 4, Hwangbo et al. teach the pole connection portion (terminal coupling portion [63]) comprises a central portion and a plurality of radiation portions (plurality of bridge portions stated to be present between each pair of coupling portions; para 0243 applied to figs. 11-2 (not shown but taught));
the central portion is located in a central region of the current collector plate (figs. 11-12, where terminal coupling portion [63] is placed);
the plurality of radiation portions are provided around the central portion (plurality of bridge portions stated to be present between each pair of coupling portions; para 0243 applied to figs. 11-2 (not shown but taught); thus the two bridges placed next to the two uncoated region coupling portions [62] next to the shown bridge portion [64] of figs. 11-12)); and
one of the two connecting bridges is provided at a position between two adjacent radiation portions (bridge portion [64] placed next to two uncoated region coupling portions [62]); para 0243 applied to figs. 11-2 (not shown but taught)).
As to claim 6, Hwangbo et al. teach the pole connection portion (terminal coupling portion [63]) further comprises an outer peripheral portion spaced from the central portion (edge portion [61]) (figs. 11-12); and
both ends of at least one radiation portion are connected to the central portion and the outer peripheral portion, respectively (as it would have the same structure as bridge [62] as shown in figs. 11-12).
(Note: Reiterated from the rejection of claim 4 regarding the interpretation of the radiation portion: a plurality of bridge portions stated to be present between each pair of coupling portions; para 0243 applied to figs. 11-2 (not shown but taught); thus the two bridges placed next to the two uncoated region coupling portions [62] next to the shown bridge portion [64] of figs. 11-12)).
As to claim 7, Hwangbo et al. teaches a thickness of each one of the two connecting bridges (bridge portion [64], opposite one another) is less than a thickness of the jellyroll connection portion (first uncoated region coupling portion [62]) (figs. 11-12; para 0239, 0243) and the thickness of the connecting bridge is less than a thickness of the pole connection portion (terminal coupling portion [63]) (structurally impossible to fall outside of the claim language, given the proportional/relationship teachings in figs. 11-12).
As to claim 8, Hwangbo et al. teach the current collector plate is provided with a plurality of positioning grooves (positioning grooves defined by empty space [S], each one located between adjacent first uncoated region coupling portions [62] constituting one groove, the grooves extend to the portion where the edge portion [61] starts) (figs. 11-12). Office personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Also, limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. See In re Zletz, 893F.2d 319, 321-22,13 USPQ2d, 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
As to claim 9, Hwangbo et al. teach the plurality of positioning grooves (positioning grooves defined by empty space [S], each one located between adjacent first uncoated region coupling portions [62] constituting one groove) are provided at intervals along a profile direction of the current collector plate (figs. 11-12). Office personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Also, limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. See In re Zletz, 893F.2d 319, 321-22,13 USPQ2d, 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
As to claim 10, Hwangbo et al. teach a battery comprising:
a case (battery can [241]; fig. 4);
a jellyroll (electrode assembly [10]; para 0163, fig. 7); and
a current collector plate including
a jellyroll connection portion (uncoated region coupling portion [62]) being connected to a jellyroll of a battery (as it couples the uncoated region, and the battery is a jellyroll (para 0163, 0238);
a pole connection portion (terminal coupling portion [63]) being connected to a pole of the battery (para 0237);
the current collector plate [60] being separated by a dividing groove (empty space [S]) into the jellyroll connection portion (uncoated region coupling portion [62]) and pole connection portion pole connection portion (terminal coupling portion [63]); and
two connecting bridges (bridge portion [64]) symmetrically connecting the jellyroll connection portion and the pole connection portion (figs. 11-12 in view of para 0243, which states the presence of a plurality of bridge portions present between coupling portions [62] in regular intervals (not shown but taught); this teaching would result in either two bridges (fig. 12, wherein a second bridge would be across from the shown bridge [64] between adjacent uncoated region coupling portions [62]), or four bridges (in every space between two adjacent uncoated region coupling portions [62], as these are the only two options that maintain the plural bridges provided in “regular intervals” (para 0243)), wherein the two connecting bridges are provided to be fused to disconnect the jellyroll connection and the pole connection portion independently when a thermal runaway of the battery occurs (via either a sectional area adjustment or notching portion [N]) (para 0239, 0245; figs. 11-12). (Note: Independent action would occur, as each bridge is separate and thus would act separately/independently from one another.)
wherein the jellyroll is provided in the case; the jellyroll is connected to the jellyroll connection portion; and the pole is connected to the pole connection portion (figs. 4-7, 11-12; para 0236-0242).
As to claim 19, Hwangbo et al. teach the pole connection portion comprises a central portion (terminal coupling portion [63]) and a plurality of radiation portions (at least two uncoated region coupling portion [62]);
the central portion is located in a central region of the current collector plate (first current collector [60]);
the plurality of radiation portions (at least two uncoated region coupling portion [62]) are provided around the central portion (terminal coupling portion [63]); and
one of the two connecting bridges (bridge portion [64]) is provided at a position between two adjacent radiation portions (para 0243 as applied to figs. 11-12).
As to claim 21, Hwangbo et al. teach a thickness of each one of the two connecting bridges (bridge portion [64], opposite one another) is less than a thickness of the jellyroll connection portion (first uncoated region coupling portion [62]) (figs. 11-12; para 0239, 0243) and the thickness of the connecting bridge is less than a thickness of the pole connection portion (terminal coupling portion [63]) (structurally impossible to fall outside of the claim language, given the proportional/relationship teachings in figs. 11-12).
As to claim 22, Hwangbo et al. teach the current collector plate is provided with a plurality of positioning grooves (positioning grooves defined by empty space [S], each one located between adjacent first uncoated region coupling portions [62] constituting one groove, the grooves extend to the portion where the edge portion [61] starts) (figs. 11-12). Office personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Also, limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. See In re Zletz, 893F.2d 319, 321-22,13 USPQ2d, 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
As to claim 23, Hwangbo et al. teach the plurality of positioning grooves (positioning grooves defined by empty space [S], each one located between adjacent first uncoated region coupling portions [62] constituting one groove) are provided at intervals along a profile direction of the current collector plate (figs. 11-12). Office personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Also, limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. See In re Zletz, 893F.2d 319, 321-22,13 USPQ2d, 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwangbo et al. (The teachings of Hwangbo et al. as set forth above, i.e. applied to claims 1, 10, and 19, are incorporated herein but are not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake.)
As to claim 20, Hwangbo et al. teach the pole connection portion further comprises an outer peripheral portion (edge portion [61]) spaced from the central portion (terminal coupling portion [63]); and one of at least one radiation portion (uncoated region coupling portion [62]) is connected to the outer peripheral portion (edge portion [61]) (figs. 11-12).
Hwangbo et al.’s embodiment of figs. 11-12 do not teach that one end of at least one radiation portion is connected to the central portion.
However, Hwangbo et al. of another embodiment, wherein at least one radiation portion (connection portion [83]) is in contact with both a central portion (support portion [81]) as well as an outer peripheral portion (contact portion [83a]) (fig. 15). Substituting one radiation portion (that is only in contact with an edge portion) with another (that is in contact with both an edge portion and a central portion) would yield the predictable result of acting as a part of a current collector plate (substituted components and functions know in the art). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to substitute one radiation portion (that is only in contact with an edge portion) with another (that is in contact with both an edge portion and a central portion), as the substitution would yield the predictable result of acting as a part of a current collector plate (substituted components and functions know in the art). “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 13 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues all 112 issues have been addressed.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that the issue with claim 6 (set forth above) still remains.
Applicant argues that Hwangbo et al. do not teach “two connecting bridges symmetrically connecting…wherein the two connecting ridges are provided…to disconnect the jellyroll connection and the pole connection portion independently when a thermal runaway occurs (as in claims 1 and 10).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although figs. 11-12 only show one bridge [64], para 0243 sets forth the presence of a plurality of bridge portions present between coupling portions [62] in regular intervals (not shown but taught); this teaching would result in either two bridges (fig. 12, wherein a second bridge would be across from the shown bridge [64] between adjacent uncoated region coupling portions [62]), or four bridges (in every space between two adjacent uncoated region coupling portions [62], as these are the only two options that maintain the plural bridges provided in “regular intervals”. Disconnection is found in para 0239, 0245; figs. 11-12. Additionally, independent action would occur, as each bridge is separate and thus would act separately/independently from one another. Thus, the argument is not persuasive, and the rejection of record is maintained.
Applicant argues that the dependent claims are distinct from the prior art of record for the same reason as the independent claim.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection with respect to the independent claim has been maintained, and thus the rejections to the dependent claims are maintained as well.
Conclusion
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 EUGENIA WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4942. The examiner can normally be reached a flex schedule, generally Monday-Thursday 5:00 -7:30 (AM) and 9:45-3:15 ET.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/EUGENIA WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights