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 Election/Restrictions Claims 8-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 27, 2026. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 5-7 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 5 recites the limitation “a slit width of each of the plurality of slits is twice a wavelength of infrared light of less.” It is unclear what range the phrase “a wavelength of infrared light” refers to . For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted the phrase “ a wavelength of infrared light ” as the range from 780 nm to 1 mm. Claim 6 recites the limitation "the electrode plate" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1, which claim 6 depends on, recites “a plurality of electrode plates” in line 2, but it is unclear whether “the electrode plate” of claim 6 refers to the “a plurality of electrode plates” of claim 1. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted “the electrode plate” of claim 6 as at least one of the “a plurality of electrode plates” of claim 1. Claim 7, which depends on claim 6, is similarly rejected. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 2018/0212210 A1) in view of Takahashi (US 2013/0045402 A1). Regarding claim 1, Suzuki discloses a power storage module (paragraph 0075 and Fig. 1, all-solid-state battery 100) comprising: an electrode assembly (paragraph 0075, all-solid-state battery element 70) including a plurality of electrode plates stacked in a stacking direction (paragraphs 0076-0079 and Fig. 1, unit cells 60a-60d) ; a resin sealing body for sealing an internal space formed between two adjacent electrode plates of the plurality of electrode plates (paragraphs 0075 and 0099 and Fig. 1, resin sealing body 80) ; and a terminal member provided to each of the plurality of electrode plates so as to protrude from the resin sealing body toward outside (paragraphs 0100-0102 and Figs. 1 and 2, negative electrode current collector layer protrusions 14a-14e and positive electrode current collector layer protrusions 54a-54 d) . Suzuki does not disclose wherein a portion of the terminal member protruding from the resin sealing body is provided with one or more through holes penetrating along the stacking direction. Takahashi discloses wherein a portion of the terminal member protruding from the resin sealing body is provided with one or more through holes penetrating along the stacking direction (paragraph 0071 and Fig. 5, slits 153 formed on negative electrode tab 15 and paragraph 0068, joint part between positive electrode tab 14 and positive electrode collectors 11a and joint part between negative electrode tab 15 and negative electrode collectors 13a have similar structures) . Suzuki and Takahashi are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of power storage modules. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the terminal member of Suzuki with the teachings of Takahashi, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Doing so would allow for the relief of expansion and contraction of the current collectors during welding (Takahashi paragraph 0071). Regarding claim 2, modified Suzuki discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the one or more through holes are configured in the form of a plurality of slits ( Takahashi paragraph 0071 and Fig. 5, slits 153) . Regarding claim 3, modified Suzuki discloses the limitations of claim 2, and further discloses wherein the plurality of slits, when viewed in the stacking direction, are aligned in a direction crossing the protruding direction ( Takahashi paragraph 0071 and see Takahashi Annotated Fig. 5 below, slits 153 aligned in a direction perpendicular to the protruding direction ) . Takahashi Annotated Fig. 5 Regarding claim 4, modified Suzuki discloses the limitations of claim 2, and further discloses wherein the plurality of slits are provided so as to, when viewed in the stacking direction, extend along a protruding direction in which the terminal member protrudes from the resin sealing body and also be aligned in a direction crossing the protruding direction (Takahashi paragraph 0071 and see Annotated Fig. 5 above , slits 153 extend along protruding direction and aligned in a direction perpendicular to the protruding direction ) , and each end of the plurality of slits that is located closer to the electrode assembly in the protruding direction is embedded inside the resin sealing body (Takahashi paragraph 0071 and see Annotated Fig. 5 above , slits 153 and embedded slit portion overlapping negative electrode collector 13a) . The corresponding electrode current collectors 10a-10e and 50a-50 d of Suzuki are partially buried in resin sealing member 80 (Suzuki paragraphs 0100-0101 and Fig. 1) . T he combination of Suzuki and Takahashi would result in each end of the plurality of slits that is located closer to the electrode assembly in the protruding direction being embedded inside the resin sealing body . Regarding claim 5, modified Suzuki discloses the limitations of claim 2 . Suzuki discloses that the length of the negative electrode current collector layer protrusions 14a-14e and positive electrode current collector layers 54a-54d is preferably in the range of 0.3 mm to 3 mm (paragraphs 0123-0124). Takahashi discloses that the corresponding negative electrode tab 15 and positive electrode tab 14 may (paragraphs 0055 and 0059) may be extended to an arbitrary length, and that the width of slits 153 is preferably made greater than or equal to one-half of the distance between the conductors of conducting portion 153 and smaller than the length of the conductors of conducting portion 153 in the width direction (paragraph 0071). T he combination of Suzuki and Takahashi would result in a slit width of each of the plurality of slits from 0.3 mm to 3 mm . In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 21 44.05(I)). Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 2018/0212210 A1) in view of Takahashi (US 2013/0045402 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miyazaki et al. (US 2013/0130082 A1). Regarding claim 6, modified Suzuki discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the electrode plate is a bipolar electrode (Suzuki paragraph 00 77-00 80 and Fig. 1, all-solid-state battery element 70 is bipolar and each unit cell 60a-60d is bipolar comprising both negative electrode active material layers and positive electrode material active layers) . Modified Suzuki does not disclose that the terminal member is a voltage detection terminal for detecting voltage between the two adjacent electrode plates. Miyazaki et al. discloses that the terminal member is a voltage detection terminal for detecting voltage between the two adjacent electrode plates (Fig. 1, voltage detection terminals 21a-21d protruding from seal member 11) . Miyazaki et al. is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of power storage modules. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the terminal member of modified Suzuki with the teachings of Miyazaki et al., and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Doing so would allow the voltage of each unit cell to be measured and adjusted, preventing deterioration and extending battery life (Miyazaki et al. paragraphs 0002-0003). Regarding claim 7, modified Suzuki discloses the limitations of claim 6, and further discloses wherein the voltage detection terminal provided to one of the two adjacent electrode plates and the voltage detection terminal provided to the other one of the two adjacent electrode plates are positioned in such a manner that overlapping is avoided when viewed in the stacking direction (Suzuki paragraph 0102 and Fig. 2, negative electrode current collector layer protrusions 14a-14d and positive electrode current collector layer protrusions 54a-54d are arranged alternately) . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Jackie Liang whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)-272-0880 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8:30AM - 4:30PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)-272-1307 . 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. /J.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 1726 /JEFFREY T BARTON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 2 April 2026