And updatingPTODETAILED 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
Claims 1-7, 9, 11, and 16-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, it is suggested that the terms “two electrode terminals” in lines 4, 6, and 10 be changed to “two plate-like electrode terminals” to be consistent with the prior recitation in the claim. Similarly, the term “electrode terminal” in lines 7 and 9 should be changed to “plate-like electrode terminal.”
In claim 2, it is suggested that the term “electrode terminal” in line 2 should be changed to “plate-like electrode terminal” to be consistent with the prior recitation in the claim.
In claim 4, it is suggested that the term “electrode terminal” in line 1 should be changed to “plate-like electrode terminal” to be consistent with the prior recitation in the claim.
In claim 5, it is suggested that the term “electrode terminal” in line 3 should be changed to “plate-like electrode terminal” to be consistent with the prior recitation in the claim.
In claim 7, it is suggested that the term “electrode terminal” in line 1 should be changed to “plate-like electrode terminal” to be consistent with the prior recitation in the claim. Similarly, the term “two electrode terminals” in line 2 should be changed to “two plate-like electrode terminals.”
In claim 11, it is suggested that the term “electrode terminal” in line 3 should be changed to “plate-like electrode terminal” to be consistent with the prior recitation in the claim.
In claim 17, it is suggested that the term “electrode terminal” in line 2 should be changed to “plate-like electrode terminal” to be consistent with the prior recitation in the claim.
In claim 18, it is suggested that the term “two electrode terminals” in line 2 should be changed to “two plate-like electrode terminals” to be consistent with the prior recitation in the claim.
In claim 19, it is suggested that the term “two electrode terminals” in lines 5, 7, and 11 should be changed to “two plate-like electrode terminals” to be consistent with the prior recitation in the claim. Similarly, the term “electrode terminal” in line 10 should be changed to “plate-like electrode terminal.”
In claim 20, it is suggested that the term “electrode terminal” in line 2 should be changed to “plate-like electrode terminal” to be consistent with the prior recitation in the claim.
Claims 3, 6, 9, and 16 are similarly objected to as they incorporate all of the limitations of at least one of the above claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claim 6 under 35 USC 112 is withdrawn in view of the amended claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 1 Jun, 2026, with respect to the claim rejections under 35 USC § 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. In particular, the Examiner submits that the limitations
“wherein the electrode terminal comprises: a stack portion configured to enable stacking of the two electrode terminals,
wherein the stack portion 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, and
wherein the first stack portion is staggered from the second stack portion along the thickness direction.”
which have been added to the amended claim 1 are taught by the prior art reference Park et al. (KR 101074992B1) as set forth in the claim rejections below.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 9, 11, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn et al. (KR 20090051870A, as read via machine translation) in view of Park et al. (KR 101074992B1, 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, Ahn et al.: [0045] and Fig. 4), wherein a plate-like electrode terminal (see e.g. cathode lead 132 and anode lead 122, Ahn et al.: [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, Ahn et al.: 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. Ahn et al.: 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, Ahn et al.: [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, Ahn et al.: [0050] and Fig. 5),
wherein the electrode terminal comprises: a stack portion configured to enable stacking of the two electrode terminals, (see e.g. the outermost region of anode lead 122 or cathode lead 132 where the two leads are stacked, Ahn et al.: Fig. 5 and see Illustration 1 below).
Ahn et al. does not disclose the following limitations:
wherein the stack portion 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, and
wherein the first stack portion is staggered from the second stack portion along the thickness direction.
Park et al., also working on the problem of terminal connections for batteries, teaches a battery having an electrode terminal that comprises a stack portion (see e.g. terminal portion 20, Park et al.: [0024] and Fig. 8a). Park et al.’s stack portion 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, and (see e.g. Park et al.: Fig. 8a and Illustration 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
408
599
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Illustration 1: reproduction with annotation of Fig. 8a of Park et al..
Additionally, the stack portions of Park et al. are bent in order to form connections with adjacent battery terminals such that the first stack portion is staggered from the second stack portion along the thickness direction (see e.g. Park et al.: [0028] and Fig. 5). Park et al. also teaches that this staggered configuration allows the battery to be connected to adjacent battery modules in series, and can allow for one of the stack portions to serve as a separate electrical connection (see e.g. Park et al.: [0002], [0043], and Figs. 6 and 9).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stack portion of Ahn et al. in the manner taught by Park et al., such that the stack portion 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, and wherein the first stack portion is staggered from the second stack portion along the thickness direction. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to allow the battery to be connected to adjacent battery modules in series, and/or to provide a separate terminal connection, as taught by Park et al..
As to Claim 2, Ahn et al. in view of Park et al. teaches the battery according to claim 1, characterized in that the electrode terminal comprises an extension portion, (see e.g. the innermost region of anode lead 122 or cathode lead 132 shown in Ahn et al.: Fig. 5 and Illustration 2 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 2 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_image2.png
633
1060
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Illustration 2: reproduction with annotation of Fig. 5 of Ahn et al..
As to Claim 3, Ahn et al. in view of Park et al. teaches 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. in view of Park 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.
As to Claim 7, Ahn et al. in view of Park et al. teaches the battery according to claim 1, characterized in that the electrode terminal is in a flat plate shape (see e.g. leads 132/122, Ahn et al.: Fig. 5, and Illustration 2 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, Ahn et al.: Fig. 5 and see Illustration 2 above), which are disposed opposite to each other along the first direction, are staggered from each other along the thickness direction (see e.g. Ahn et al.: Fig. 5 and Illustration 2 above, showing leads 132/122 staggered from each other along the thickness direction such that they overlap.
As to Claim 9, Ahn et al. in view of Park et al. teaches the battery according to claim 1, in which a gap is present between the first stack portion and the second stack portion (see e.g. Park et al.: Fig. 6 and Illustration 1 above) but 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, it has been held that a change in the shape or scaling of a claimed invention does not patentably distinguish the invention from a prior art device when the change in shape or scaling does not perform significantly different from the prior art device (see MPEP § 2144.04). In the instant case, absent any evidence of the criticality of the instantly-claimed gap width ratio, modifying the battery of Ahn et al. in view of Park et al. such 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, would fail to patentably alter the performance of the battery and therefore would have been an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention.
As to Claim 11, Ahn et al. in view of Park et al. teaches the battery according to claim 10.
Ahn et al. in view of Park 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 Park 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 Park 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.
As to Claim 16, Ahn et al. in view of Park et al. teaches an electrical device (see e.g. secondary battery pack, Ahn et al.: [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. Ahn et al.: [0003], the secondary battery pack is used to power electronic devices).
As to Claim 17, Ahn et al. in view of Park et al. teaches 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, Ahn et al.: Fig. 5 and see Illustration 2 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 Ahn et al.: Fig. 5 and Illustration 2 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 2 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. Ahn et al.: [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, Ahn et al.: [0045] and Fig. 4), wherein a plate-like electrode terminal (see e.g. cathode lead 132 and anode lead 122, Ahn et al.: [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. Ahn et al.: 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, Ahn et al.: [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, Ahn et al.: [0050] and Fig. 5).
Ahn et al. does not disclose the following limitations:
wherein the stack portion 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, and
wherein the first stack portion is staggered from the second stack portion along the thickness direction.
Park et al., also working on the problem of terminal connections for batteries, teaches a battery having an electrode terminal that comprises a stack portion (see e.g. terminal portion 20, Park et al.: [0024] and Fig. 8a). Park et al.’s stack portion 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, and (see e.g. Park et al.: Fig. 8a and Illustration 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
408
599
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Illustration 1: reproduction with annotation of Fig. 8a of Park et al..
Additionally, the stack portions of Park et al. are bent in order to form connections with adjacent battery terminals such that the first stack portion is staggered from the second stack portion along the thickness direction (see e.g. Park et al.: [0028] and Fig. 5). Park et al. also teaches that this staggered configuration allows the battery to be connected to adjacent battery modules in series, and can allow for one of the stack portions to serve as a separate electrical connection (see e.g. Park et al.: [0002], [0043], and Figs. 6 and 9).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stack portion of Ahn et al. in the manner taught by Park et al., such that the stack portion 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, and wherein the first stack portion is staggered from the second stack portion along the thickness direction. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to allow the battery to be connected to adjacent battery modules in series, and/or to provide a separate terminal connection, as taught by Park et al..
As to Claim 20, Ahn et al. in view of Park et al. teaches the battery according to claim 1, characterized in that the electrode terminal comprises an extension portion, (see e.g. the innermost region of anode lead 122 or cathode lead 132 shown in Ahn et al.: Fig. 5 and Illustration 2 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 2 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(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) in view of Park et al. (KR 101074992B1, 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. in view of Park et al. teaches the battery according to claim 2, characterized in that the electrode terminal further comprises a connecting portion (see e.g. Ahn et al.: Fig. 5 and Illustration 2 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. in view of Park 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 3 below), a stack portion (see e.g. Yoshiro et al.: Fig. 4 and Illustration 3 below), and a connecting portion (see e.g. Yoshiro et al.: Fig. 4 and Illustration 3 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 3 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
707
628
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Illustration 3: 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. in view of Park 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. in view of Park 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 Park et al. and Yoshiro et al. teaches the battery according to claim 4.
However, Ahn et al. in view of Park et al. and 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 Park et al. and 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 Park et al. and 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 Park et al. and 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) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn et al. (KR 20090051870A, as read via machine translation) in view of Park et al. (KR 101074992B1, 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. in view of Park et al. discloses the electrical device according to claim 16.
Ahn et al. in view of Park 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 3 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 3 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. in view of Park 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. in view of Park 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
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.
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
/CHRISTIAN ROLDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights