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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A, claims 1-11 and 16-20 in the reply filed on 21 Jan 2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 6 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.
Regarding claim 6, the term “arcuate in shape” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how this term is intended to be understood, and the instant specification fails to provide any further guidance as to how to interpret the claimed arcuate shape. For examination purposes, it is understood that any shape with a curve can reasonably be interpreted as being arcuate in shape.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ahn et al. (KR 20090051870A, as read via machine translation).
As to Claim 1, Ahn et al. discloses a battery, characterized in that the battery comprises:
a plurality of battery cells arranged along a first direction (see e.g. jelly-roll electrode assemblies 110, 120, and 130, arranged along direction L, which corresponds to the claimed first direction, [0045] and Fig. 4), wherein a plate-like electrode terminal (see e.g. cathode lead 132 and anode lead 122, [0050] and Fig. 5) is disposed on each end face of each of the battery cells along a first direction (see e.g. direction L, Fig. 4), so that two electrode terminals of two battery cells are disposed between two end faces opposite to each other along the first direction (see e.g. Fig. 5, showing leads 132/122 disposed between each end face of assemblies 120/130 opposite to each other along the first direction); and
the two electrode terminals are configured to be at least partly stacked and fixedly connected (see e.g. leads 132/122, which are stacked and are spot welded together, and thereby are fixedly connected, [0050] and Fig. 5) between the two end faces along a thickness direction of the electrode terminal to enable electrical connection between the two battery cells (see e.g. leads 132/122, which are spot welded together, and thereby enable an electrically connection between assemblies 120 and 130, [0050] and Fig. 5).
As to Claim 2, Ahn et al. discloses the battery according to claim 1, characterized in that the electrode terminal comprises:
a stack portion (see e.g. the outermost region of anode lead 122 or cathode lead 132 where the two leads are stacked, Fig. 5 and see Illustration 1 below), configured to enable stacking of the two electrode terminals; and
an extension portion, (see e.g. the innermost region of anode lead 122 or cathode lead 132 shown in Fig. 5 and Illustration 1 below), configured to be connected to the stack portion, wherein the extension portion protrudes from the end face by a preset length (see e.g. the extension region highlighted in Illustration 1 below, which is connected to the stack portion and can reasonably be said to protrude from the end face of assembly 120 by a preset length).
PNG
media_image1.png
633
1060
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Illustration 1: reproduction with annotation of Fig. 5 of Ahn et al..
As to Claim 7, Ahn et al. discloses the battery according to claim 1, characterized in that the electrode terminal is in a flat plate shape (see e.g. leads 132/122, Fig. 5, and Illustration 1 above, showing leads 132/122 having a flat plate shape), and the two electrode terminals of the two battery cells (see e.g. leads 132/122, Fig. 5 and see Illustration 1 above), which are disposed opposite to each other along the first direction, are staggered from each other along the thickness direction (see e.g. Fig. 5 and Illustration 1 above, showing leads 132/122 staggered from each other along the thickness direction such that they overlap.
As to Claim 16, Ahn et al. discloses an electrical device (see e.g. secondary battery pack, [0010] and Fig. 1), characterized in that the electrical device comprises the battery according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1, set forth above), and the battery is configured to provide electrical energy (see e.g. [0003], the secondary battery pack is used to power electronic devices).
As to Claim 17, Ahn et al. discloses the electrical device according to claim 16, characterized in that the electrode terminal of the battery comprises:
a stack portion (see e.g. the outermost region of anode lead 122 or cathode lead 132 where the two leads are stacked, Fig. 5 and see Illustration 1 above), configured to enable stacking of the two electrode terminals; and
an extension portion, (see e.g. the innermost region of anode lead 122 or cathode lead 132 shown in Fig. 5 and Illustration 1 above), configured to be connected to the stack portion, wherein the extension portion protrudes from the end face by a preset length (see e.g. the extension region highlighted in Illustration 1 below, which is connected to the stack portion and can reasonably be said to protrude from the end face of assembly 120 by a preset length).
As to Claim 19, Ahn et al. discloses a method for manufacturing a battery (i.e., connecting, stacking, and welding see e.g. [0004] and [0050]), characterized in that the method comprises:
providing a plurality of battery cells arranged along a first direction (see e.g. jelly-roll electrode assemblies 110, 120, and 130, arranged along direction L, [0045] and Fig. 4), wherein a plate-like electrode terminal (see e.g. cathode lead 132 and anode lead 122, [0050] and Fig. 5) is disposed on each end face of each of the battery cells along a first direction, so that two electrode terminals of two battery cells are disposed between two end faces opposite to each other along the first direction (see e.g. Fig. 5, showing leads 132/122 disposed between each end face of assemblies 120/130 opposite to each other along the first direction); and
stacking at least partly and connecting fixedly the two electrode terminals (see e.g. leads 132/122, which are stacked and are spot welded together, and thereby are fixedly connected, [0050] and Fig. 5) between the two end faces along a thickness direction of the electrode terminal to enable electrical connection between the two battery cells (see e.g. leads 132/122, which are spot welded together, and thereby enable an electrically connection between assemblies 120 and 130, [0050] and Fig. 5).
As to Claim 20, Ahn et al. discloses the method for manufacturing the battery according to claim 19, characterized in that the electrode terminal of the battery comprises:
a stack portion (see e.g. the outermost region of anode lead 122 or cathode lead 132 where the two leads are stacked, Fig. 5 and see Illustration 1 below), configured to enable stacking of the two electrode terminals; and
an extension portion, (see e.g. the innermost region of anode lead 122 or cathode lead 132 shown in Fig. 5 and Illustration 1 below), configured to be connected to the stack portion, wherein the extension portion protrudes from the end face by a preset length (see e.g. the extension region highlighted in Illustration 1 below, which is connected to the stack portion and can reasonably be said to protrude from the end face of assembly 120 by a preset length).
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 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) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn et al. (KR 20090051870A, as read via machine translation).
As to Claim 3, Ahn et al. discloses the battery according to claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose that the ratio of the preset length to a length of the stack portion along the first direction is 0.25 to 1.
However, the ratio of the preset length to a length of the stack portion along the first direction is a function of the design requirements of the battery, including the length of the terminals and the arrangement, shape and size of the battery cells. Absent any evidence of the criticality of the instantly-claimed range, one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention would therefore have found it obvious to modify the battery of Ahn et al. such that a ratio of the preset length to a length of the stack portion along the first direction is 0.25 to 1 in order to satisfy the design requirements of the battery.
Claim(s) 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn et al. (KR 20090051870A, as read via machine translation) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Yoshiro et al. (KR 20090062794, as read via machine translation).
As to Claim 4, Ahn et al. discloses the battery according to claim 2, characterized in that the electrode terminal further comprises a connecting portion (see e.g. Fig. 5 and Illustration 1 above, the joint where the extension portion and stack portions connect can reasonably be said to be the connecting portion), configured to connect the stack portion and the extension portion.
However, Ahn et al.’s connection portion is not configured such that the stack portion is staggered from the extension portion along the thickness direction.
Yoshiro et al., also working on the problem of battery terminal connectors, teaches an analogous battery system in which two batteries (see e.g. unit cells 11 and 14, Yoshiro et al.: [0026] and Fig. 4) are electrically connected via an electrode terminal (see e.g. positive electrode 12, Yoshiro et al.: Fig. 4) that comprises an extension portion (see e.g. Yoshiro et al.: Fig. 4 and Illustration 2 below), a stack portion (see e.g. Yoshiro et al.: Fig. 4 and Illustration 2 below), and a connecting portion (see e.g. Yoshiro et al.: Fig. 4 and Illustration 2 below) wherein the connection portion is configured such that the stack portion is staggered from the extension portion along the thickness direction (see e.g. Yoshiro et al.: Fig. 4 and Illustration 2 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
707
628
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Illustration 2: reproduction with annotation of Fig. 4 of Yoshiro et al..
Yoshiro et al. further teaches that this electrode terminal configuration allows for the batteries to be electrically connected via a hook-shaped coupling that reliably performs an electrode joining operation with a short time and low manufacturing costs (see e.g. Yoshiro et al.: [0009]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to replace the electrode terminals of Ahn et al. with electrode terminals comprising a connecting portion, configured to connect the stack portion and the extension portion, so that the stack portion is staggered from the extension portion along the thickness direction as taught by Yoshiro et al.. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification to Ahn et al.’s battery because Yoshiro et al. teaches that this electrode terminal design allows for the batteries to be electrically connected via a hook-shaped coupling that reliably performs an electrode joining operation with a short time and low manufacturing costs.
As to Claim 5, Ahn et al. in view of Yoshiro et al. teaches the battery according to claim 4.
However, Ahn et al. in view of Yoshiro et al. is silent as to the distance by which the stack portion is staggered from the extension portion, and does not teach that this distance is not greater than 1/2 of a thickness of the electrode terminal.
However, absent any evidence to the contrary, the use of a battery characterized in that a distance by which the stack portion is staggered from the extension portion is not greater than 1/2 of a thickness of the electrode terminal would fail to produce any new or unexpected benefit and would fail to patentably distinguish the instantly-claimed invention from the battery taught by Ahn et al. in view of Yoshiro et al.. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the battery of Ahn et al. in view of Yoshiro et al. such that a distance by which the stack portion is staggered from the extension portion is not greater than 1/2 of a thickness of the electrode terminal.
As to Claim 6, Ahn et al. in view of Yoshiro et al. teaches the battery according to claim 4, characterized in that a cross section of the connecting portion is linear in shape (see e.g. Yoshiro et al., Fig. 4, which shows a connecting portion having a linear cross-sectional shape).
Claim(s) 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn et al. (KR 20090051870A, as read via machine translation) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2017/0054126).
As to Claim 8, Ahn et al. discloses the battery according to claim 2.
However, Ahn et al.’s stack portion only comprises a first stack portion (see e.g. Fig. 5 and Illustration 1 above) and does not disclose a stack portion that comprises a first stack portion and a second stack portion that are separated from each other along a second direction, the second direction being perpendicular to the thickness direction.
Kim et al., also working on the problem of connecting battery terminals, teaches batteries (see e.g. 110d, 120a, Kim et al.: [0032] and Fig. 12) connected by electrode terminals (see e.g. busbars 510, 520, Kim et al.: [0075], Figs. 12-13). Kim et al.’s electrode terminals comprise analogous extension portions and stack portions (see e.g. Kim et al.: Fig. 13 and Illustration 3 below) characterized in that the stack portion comprises a first stack portion and a second stack portion (see e.g. first and second stack portions indicated in Illustration 3 below) that are separated from each other along a second direction, the second direction being perpendicular to the thickness direction.
PNG
media_image3.png
334
508
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Illustration 3: reproduction with annotation of Fig. 13 of Kim et al..
Kim et al.’s electrode terminal performs an analogous function of establishing an electrical connection between adjacent battery cells, which is the same problem addressed by Ahn et al.’s electrode terminals (see e.g. Kim et al.: [0076]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to replace the electrode terminals of Ahn et al. with electrode terminals comprising a stack portion that comprises a first stack portion and a second stack portion that are separated from each other along a second direction, the second direction being perpendicular to the thickness direction as taught by Kim et al.. Said artisan would have found such a substitution to be obvious because Kim et al. teaches that this stack design is a functional equivalent to Ahn et al.’s stack design.
As to Claim 9, Ahn et al. in view of Kim et al. teaches the battery according to claim 8.
Ahn et al. in view of Kim et al. does not teach the battery characterized in that, along the second direction, a ratio of a width of a gap between the first stack portion and the second stack portion to a width of the stack portion is 0 to 1/3.
However, Fig. 13 of Kim et al. depicts an embodiment of the stack portion wherein, along the second direction, a ratio of a width of a gap between the first stack portion and the second stack portion to a width of the stack portion appears to be roughly ¼ (see e.g. Illustration 3 above), which lies within the instantly-claimed range of 0 to 1/3.
While Kim et al.’s figures are not necessarily drawn to scale, they would nonetheless have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that a ratio of a width of a gap between the first stack portion and the second stack portion to a width of the stack portion is 0 to 1/3. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention would therefore have found it obvious to design the battery of Ahn et al. in view of Kim et al. such that a ratio of a width of a gap between the first stack portion and the second stack portion to a width of the stack portion is 0 to 1/3, because this ratio is suggested by Kim et al.’s disclosure.
As to Claim 10, Ahn et al. in view of Kim et al. teaches the battery according to claim 8.
Ahn et al. in view of Kim et al. does not teach a battery characterized in that the first stack portion is staggered from the second stack portion along the thickness direction.
However, it has been held that when the only difference between a prior art device and a claimed device is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and when a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see MPEP § 2144.04, Part IV). In the instant case, modifying the battery of Ahn et al. in view of Kim et al. such that the first stack portion is staggered from the second stack portion along the thickness direction would fail to patentably distinguish the operation of the instantly-claimed device from that of Ahn et al. in view of Kim et al.. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the battery of Ahn et al. in view of Kim et al. such that that the first stack portion is staggered from the second stack portion along the thickness direction.
As to Claim 11, Ahn et al. in view of Kim et al. teaches the battery according to claim 10.
Ahn et al. in view of Kim et al. does not teach a battery characterized in that a distance by which the first stack portion is staggered from the second stack portion is not less than a thickness of the electrode terminal.
However, it has been held that when the only difference between a prior art device and a claimed device is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and when a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see MPEP § 2144.04, Part IV). In the instant case, modifying the battery of Ahn et al. in view of Kim et al. such that a distance by which the first stack portion is staggered from the second stack portion is not less than a thickness of the electrode terminal direction would fail to patentably distinguish the operation of the instantly-claimed device from that of Ahn et al. in view of Kim et al.. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the battery of Ahn et al. in view of Kim et al. such that a distance by which the first stack portion is staggered from the second stack portion is not less than a thickness of the electrode terminal.
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn et al. (KR 20090051870A, as read via machine translation) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Yoshiro et al. (KR 20090062794, as read via machine translation).
As to Claim 18, Ahn et al. discloses the electrical device according to claim 16.
Ahn et al. does not disclose a battery that is characterized in that two adjacent stack portions are configured to enable stacking of the two electrode terminals by snap- fitting into each other.
Yoshiro et al., also working on the problem of battery terminal connectors, teaches an analogous battery system in which two batteries (see e.g. unit cells 11 and 14, Yoshiro et al.: [0026] and Fig. 4) are electrically connected via an electrode terminal (see e.g. positive electrode 12, Yoshiro et al.: Fig. 4) wherein two adjacent stack portions (see e.g. extension portions 12c and 16c, Yoshiro et al.: [0053], Fig.5 and Illustration 2 above) are configured to enable stacking of the two electrode terminals by snap-fitting into each other (see e.g. Yoshiro et al.: Fig. 5 and Illustration 2 above, which show 12c and 16c snap-fitting into each other in a manner that is analogous to what is shown in Fig. 12 of the Instant Application).
Yoshiro et al. further teaches that this electrode terminal configuration allows for the batteries to be electrically connected via a hook-shaped coupling that reliably performs an electrode joining operation with a short time and low manufacturing costs (see e.g. Yoshiro et al.: [0009]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to replace the electrode terminals of Ahn et al. with electrode terminals comprising two adjacent stack portions that are configured to enable stacking of the two electrode terminals by snap-fitting into each other, as taught by Yoshiro et al.. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification to Ahn et al.’s battery because Yoshiro et al. teaches that this electrode terminal design allows for the batteries to be electrically connected via a hook-shaped coupling that reliably performs an electrode joining operation with a short time and low manufacturing costs.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Roepke (US 2005/0014423) teaches an alternative terminal arrangement that comprises a stack portion and an extension portion and allows for electrical contact between two battery cells.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERT HILTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571)-272-3066. 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.
/A.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/TONG GUO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723