DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4 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 Suzuki (JP2005-100707; machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki teaches a battery comprising a positive electrode mixture 12, a separator 13, a negative electrode mixture 14, and negative electrode current collector 25 (these elements collectively taken to be the claimed electrode body), a negative electrode terminal plate 21 (taken to be the claimed current collector terminal) disposed on a side surface portion of the electrode body, the current collector terminal including a first surface facing the electrode body (bottom surface of plate 21 in figure 1(a) extending to the left and right sides in the figure including the bent portion), an entirety of the first surface overlapping the side surface portion of the electrode body, a second surface facing the first surface (only the center portion of the top surface of plate 21), a third surface extending from an outer edge of the first surface toward the second surface side (right hand side surface of plate 21 extending straight up), and a first connecting surface connecting the third surface and the second surface (right hand side top surface of plate 21 extending left, as well as extending up and to the left), and a heat-shrinkable exterior material 15, which is configured in one embodiment using a PET resin as a base material, covering the electrode body and the current collector terminal and covering the third surface and the first connecting surface, and a boundary B2 is located inward of a boundary B1 in the thickness direction (machine translation at pages 4-5; figure 1(a)). Either the heat-shrinkable exterior material with PET resin as a base material is laminate film, thus anticipating the claim, or it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make this element a laminate film, because multiple bonded materials can provide more and varied protection than a single material.
Regarding claim 2, the claimed locations B1 and B2 set forth above are connected by two straight lines (see figure 1(a)).
Regarding claim 3, Suzuki teaches a symmetric configuration with fourth and second connecting surfaces opposite to the third and first connecting surfaces set forth above, and with boundaries B3 and B4 similarly configured but on the opposite side, such that B4 is located inward of B3 in the thickness direction, and the laminate film 15 covers the fourth and second connecting surfaces.
Regarding claim 4, the claimed locations B3 and B4 set forth above are connected by two straight lines (see figure 1(a)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chaloner-Gill (US Pat. No. 5,445,856).
Regarding claim 5, Suzuki teaches an adhesive 16 disposed between the current collector terminal and the laminate film, and that an end portion of the adhesive protrudes form an end portion of the laminate film (machine translation at page 5; figure 1(a)), but does not specifically disclose that the adhesive is a resin film. Chaloner-Gill teaches that a preferred adhesive in a battery is LDPE resin (column 7, lines 15-60). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an LDPE resin film as an adhesive as taught by Chaloner-Gill in the battery of Suzuki because such an adhesive has outstanding electrical characteristics, essentially impermeability to water as well as being generally resistant to organic solvents and chemicals, particularly acids, alkalis and oxygenated solvents, and remain flexible at low temperatures (see Chaloner-Gill at column 7, lines 32-37).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that Suzuki does not teach or suggest that an entirety of the first surface overlapping the side surface portion of the electrode body. However, as is set forth above, using the
positive electrode mixture 12, separator 13, negative electrode mixture 14, and negative electrode current collector 25 collectively as the claimed electrode body, results in a configuration where an entirety of the first surface is overlapping the side surface portion of the electrode body as claimed. It is noted that this is taken to fall within the broadest reasonable interpretation of what is encompassed by the claimed electrode body – see instant Specification at paragraph [0032]).
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 PHILIP N SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1612. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/P.N.S/ Examiner, Art Unit 1749 September 30, 2026
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights