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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7 and 10-18 are pending.
Claims 8 and 9 are cancelled.
Claim 1 is amended.
Claims 12-18 are added.
Status of Amendment
The amendment filed on July 27th, 2026 has been fully considered but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
Status of Objections and Rejections Pending Since the Office Action of April 28th, 2026
The 103 rejections of claims 1-7, 10, and 11 have been withdrawn in view of the Applicant's amendment.
The 112(b) rejections of claims 1-7, 10, and 11 are withdrawn in view of the Applicant's amendment.
All rejections of claims 8 and 9 are moot because those claims have been cancelled.
The objection to the application’s title has been withdrawn in view of the Applicant's amendment.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 8th, 2026 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final Office Action on April 28th, 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-7 and 10-18 refer to a “first sub-portion”, a “second sub-portion”, an “area of the first sub-portion”, an “area of a second sub-portion”, a “first fusion depth”, a “second fusion depth”, a “first width”, a “second width”, and/or a “third width”. The “a depth” and “a width” can be interpreted arbitrarily based on how they are written. In other words, it is not required that what may be considered the “entirety” of a parameter necessarily be the magnitude of the claimed parameter.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutsumi (US 2015/0318519 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tsutsumi discloses a battery comprising a terminal [0065] which comprises a rivet member, a first conductive member (Fig. 12, 29; [0103]). The top of the conductive member is plate-shaped (Fig. 12). Tsutsumi also discloses an “external terminal”, a second conductive member (Fig. 12, 30; [0077], [0103]). The second conductive member includes a flange that is electrically connected to the first conductive member at a fitted portion. This fitted portion comprises a recess in the first conductive member and a constricted portion of the second conductive member where the constricted portion is fitted into the recess of the first conductive member (see the figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
529
610
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Tsutsumi continues to disclose a fused and solidified metal joint between the first conductive member and second conductive member [0103] that is depicted by the dotted trapezoid in the figure below. Furthermore, this metal joint comprises a first sub-portion and a second sub-portion. When viewed in cross-section, an area of the second portion is 35% or less of an area of the first sub-portion. As mentioned in the previous Office Action, the size of these areas may be chosen arbitrarily. See the figure below for an example of where an area of the second sub-portion is 35% or less of an area of the first sub-portion.
PNG
media_image2.png
699
1002
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Tsutsumi continues to disclose that the first conductive member and second conductive member are fixed together by friction stir welding and that the conductive members are different from each other [0012]. Tsutsumi teaches that the first conductive member, the rivet member may be formed of aluminum, aluminum alloy, copper, or copper alloy [0074]. Tsutsumi continues to teach that the second conductive member, the “external terminal” may be formed of aluminum or aluminum alloy [0077] and does not explicitly teach that the second conductive member may be made of copper. However, Tsutsumi’s disclosure suggests that it is more important that the “external terminal” formed from a metal material that is different from the rivet member (abstract, [0012], [0042], [0060], and [0077]). Furthermore, Tsutsumi also teaches that these materials “may be arbitrarily selected as long as they are conductive metal materials corresponding to the type of the battery cell” [0108]. Therefore, absent an objective showing to the contrary, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success if the second conductive member comprises copper and the first conductive member comprises aluminum. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use a second conductive material that is made of copper because copper is suitable for Tsutsumi’s intended use. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, when viewed in a cross-section, lengths of the first and second widths may be selected such that the ratio of the second width to the first width is 2/3 or less (as required by claim 3). When this ratio is satisfied, the first width must also be greater than the second width (as required by claim 2). See the figure below:
PNG
media_image3.png
699
1002
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, arbitrary widths can be selected such that the ratio of the first width to the third width is within the range of 0.6 to 0.9. See the figure below:
PNG
media_image4.png
699
1002
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 6 and 7, arbitrary fusion depths of the first sub-portion and the second sub-portion may be selected such that the ratio of the second fusion depth to the first fusion depth is 2/3 or less as required by claim 7. When that ratio is achieved, the first fusion depth will be greater than the second fusion depth as required by claim 6.
Regarding claim 10, the metal joint is disposed closer to a center of a flange than the fitted portion in a plan view. Although this view is from the side, the relative spacing remains the same if view from above, i.e., the plan view. See the figure immediately below.
PNG
media_image5.png
699
1002
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, the center of Tsutsumi’s first conductive member and a center of the flange of the second conductive member are located at different positions of the first conductive member. See the figure below:
PNG
media_image6.png
529
610
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, it is not immediately clear whether or not the recess, the constricted portion on the side surface of the flange, and the constricted portion have an annular shape based on the rectangular terminal seen below. However, even if the shape of the terminal is rectangular, changing the shape of the prior art is an obvious modification, absent objective evidence of unexpected results due to the different shape. See MPEP 2144.4 (IV) (B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use an annularly shaped recess and constricted portion because changing the shape of a component is an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 13, Tsutsumi discloses that the metal joint part has an annular shape [0082].
Regarding claim 15, Tsutsumi discloses a battery comprising a terminal [0065] which comprises a rivet member, a first conductive member (Fig. 12, 29; [0103]). The top of the conductive member is plate-shaped (Fig. 12). Tsutsumi also discloses an “external terminal”, a second conductive member (Fig. 12, 30; [0077], [0103]). The second conductive member includes a flange that is electrically connected to the first conductive member at a fitted portion. This fitted portion comprises a recess in the first conductive member and a constricted portion of the second conductive member where the constricted portion is fitted into the recess of the first conductive member.
PNG
media_image1.png
529
610
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Tsutsumi continues to disclose a fused and solidified metal joint between the first conductive member and second conductive member [0103] that is depicted by the dotted trapezoid in the figure below. Furthermore, this metal joint comprises a first sub-portion and a second sub-portion (see the figure below). When viewed in cross-section, an area of the second portion is 35% or less of an area of the first sub-portion. As set forth in the Claim Interpretation section above, the size of these areas may be chosen arbitrarily. The boundary between the first sub-portion and the second sub-portion may be arbitrarily chosen such that there is a step different formed between a width of the first sub-portion and a second sub-portion. See the figure below for an example of where an area of the second sub-portion is 35% or less of an area of the first sub-portion. This example also demonstrates the step that is formed by a difference between the width of the first sub-portion and a width of a second sub-portion.
PNG
media_image7.png
699
1002
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, the example above satisfies the limitations of claims 16 and 17. The width of the first sub-portion in contact with the second conductive member has a width that is greater than a width of an end of the second sub-portion that is in contact with the first conductive member.
Tsutsumi continues to disclose that the first conductive member and second conductive member are fixed together by friction stir welding and that the conductive members are different from each other [0012]. Tsutsumi teaches that the first conductive member, the rivet member may be formed of aluminum, aluminum alloy, copper, or copper alloy [0074]. Tsutsumi continues to teach that the second conductive member, the “external terminal” may be formed of aluminum or aluminum alloy and does not explicitly teach that the second conductive member may be made of copper. However, Tsutsumi’s disclosure suggests that it is more important that the “external terminal” formed from a metal material that is different from the rivet member (abstract, [0012], [0042], [0060], and [0077]). Furthermore, Tsutsumi also teaches that these materials “may be arbitrarily selected as long as they are conductive metal materials corresponding to the type of the battery cell” [0108]. Therefore, absent an objective showing to the contrary, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success if the second conductive member comprises copper and the first conductive member comprises aluminum. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use a first conductive member comprising aluminum and a second conductive member comprising copper because both materials are suitable for the intended purpose as functioning as conductive members. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claims 16, the figure set forth in the rejection of claim 15 satisfies the limitations of claim 16. The width of the first sub portion in contact with the second conductive member (a first width) is greater than a width of an end of the second-sub portion that is in contact with the first conductive member (a second width).
Regarding claim 17, the figure set forth in the rejection of claim 15 satisfies the limitations of claim 17. The widths may be arbitrarily chosen such that a ratio of the second width to the first width is 2/3 or less.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutsumi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jiao (CN 113403512 A). Tsutsumi does not teach the composition of the metal joint part. Tsutsumi is analogous art to Jiao because both discuss the material properties of aluminum (Tsutsumi, [0108]; Jiao, first page). Jiao teaches that a binary aluminum-copper alloy has good thermal stability when the copper content is greater than 3% (page 2, first paragraph). This range of 3% or greater overlaps with the claimed range of 30% or less. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use an aluminum-copper alloy with a copper content of 3% or greater in order to achieve good thermal stability.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutsumi as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Jiao. Tsutsumi does not teach the composition of the metal joint part. Jiao teaches that a binary aluminum-copper alloy has good thermal stability when the copper content is greater than 3% (page 2, first paragraph). This range of 3% or greater overlaps with the claimed range of 30% or less. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use an aluminum-copper alloy with a copper content of 3% or greater in order to achieve good thermal stability.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: it is not obvious to change the positioning of the metal joint demonstrated in the embodiment of Tsutsumi’s Fig. 12 (the embodiment closest to the claimed subject matter) such that it is closer to the center of the inner circumference of the flange. None of the other embodiments disclosed in Tsutsumi render this position obvious.
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 RYAN K BLACKWELL-RUDASILL whose telephone number is (571)270-0563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/R.B.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights