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. 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 1 -20 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 1 recites both “a cell” and “a battery” without clearly defining their relationship. It is unclear whether “ a battery” is distinct from “a cel l ” or whether the terms are used interchangeably. Accordingly, the scope of the claim is not clear . Claims 2-20 are similarly rejected for depending upon claim 1. Claim s 3 and 11 recit e “a rotatable manner” in line 6 and line 5 respectively . However, “a rotatable manner” is previously recited in line 2 of claim 1. It is unclear that “a rotatable manner” mentioned in claim s 3 and 11 refer to the same structure or different rotational relationships . For examination purposes, “a rotatable manner” recited in line 6 of claim 3 and line 5 of claim 11 is interpreted as corresponding to “a rotatable manner” previously recited in line 2 of claim 1 . Accordingly, to avoid the appearance of introducing a new element, A pplicant is advised to amend “ a rotatable manner ” in line 6 of claim 3 and line 5 of claim 11 to “ the rotatable manner ”. Further regarding claim s 3 , and 11, claim s 3 and 11 recite “ a state that the first current collector is connected to the top cover” in line 7 . However, this phrase is previously recited in line 6-7 of claim 1 . For examination purposes, “ a state that the first current collector is connected to the top cover ” recited in line 7 of claim 3 and 11 is interpreted as corresponding to “ a state that the first current collector is connected to the top cover ” previously recited in line s 6-7 of claim 1 . Accordingly, to avoid the appearance of introducing a new element, A pplicant is advised to amend “ a state that the first current collector is connected to the top cover ” in line 7 of claim 3 and 11 to “ the state that the first current collector is connected to the top cover ”. Claims 4-5 are similarly rejected for depending upon claim 3. Claims 12-13 are similarly rejected for depending upon claim 11. C laim s 4 and 12 recites the limitations “the radius” in line 2 and “the length” in line 3 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for th ese limitation in the claim s 4 and 12 because claim s 4 and 12 do not recite any “ radius ” and “length” prior to the recitation in line 2 ( “ a radius” and “ a length” are suggested). C laim 6 recites “a top cover” in line 1 of claim 6. However, “ a top cover ” is previously recited in line 3 of claim 1. It is unclear that “ a top cover ” mentioned in claim 6 refer to the same structure . For examination purposes, “ a top cover ” recited in line 1 of claim 6 is interpreted as corresponding to “ a top cover ” previously recited in line 3 of claim 1. Accordingly, to avoid the appearance of introducing a new element, applicant is advised to amend “ a top cover ” in line 1 of claim 6 to “the top cover ”. Claims 7-20 are similarly rejected for depending upon claim 6. claim s 7 and 15 recite “a second state” in line 4 without any definition of what constitutes “ a second state.” Although “ a second state” is described in claim 2, claim s 7 and 15 do not depend from claim 2, and therefore the meaning of “ a s econd state” is unclear in the context of claim s 7 and 15 . Applicant is advised to amend claim s 7 and 15 to clarify or incorporate the definition of “ a second state” to ensure proper clarity. Claims 8-9 are similarly rejected for depending upon claim 7. Claims 16-17 are similarly rejected for depending upon claim 15. Claim s 10 and 18 recites “ an included angle is formed between a plane where the second current collector and a plane where the first current collector is located ” in lines 3-4. However, it is unclear what is meant by “ a plane where the second current collector ” and “ a plane where the first current collector ,” and how these planes are defined for purposes of determining the included angle. It is unclear whether the claim intends to recite “a plane where the second current collector is located and a plane where the first current collector is located ,” and whether these are two distinct planes used to define the included angle. Accordingly, the scope of “ a n included angle” cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. Applicant is advised to amend the claim to clarify the recitation of the planes, for example by including “is located” for both planes and clearly defining how the planes are used to determine the included angle. Claims 19-20 are similarly rejected for depending upon claim 18. Claim 14 recites the limitations “a cell” in line 1 and “a tab” in line 2 . However, “ a cell ” and “a tab” are previously recited in line 4 of claim 1 . For examination purposes, “a cell” recited in line 1 and “a tab” recited in line 2 are interpreted as corresponding to “a cell” and “a tab” previously recited in line 4 of claim 1. Accordingly, to avoid the appearance of introducing a new element, applicant is advised to amend “a cell” in line 1 to “the cell” and amend “a tab” in line 2 to “the tab ” . Claims 15-20 are similarly rejected for depending upon claim 14. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (US 20200243896 A1) . Regarding claim 1 , Zhang teaches a battery connecting piece (connecting structure [0063, 0070] ) , comprising a first current collector ([0082], Fig. 12A; main body portion 23 of current collector 2) and a second current collector ([0082], Fig. 12A; bent portion 21 of current collector 2 ), the first current collector is connected to the second current collector in a rotatable manner (90° angle between bent portion 21 and main body portion 23 in an unfolded back state in Fig s . 1 , 12A [0073], and a folded back state in Fig. 7 shows the rotatable manner between portions 21 and 23) the first current collector is configured to be connected to a top cover of a battery ( The cover plate 6 is arranged on the top of the electrode assembly 1 [0065] and a terminal connection portion 22, located at the top of the electrode assembly 1 and configured to connect with the terminal [0082] , a main body portion 23, located on a side of the electrode assembly 1 [0082] and is connected to terminal connection portion 22 located in a cover plate ( Fig . 12A)) the second current collector is configured to weld a tab of a cell ([0082]: the tab 11 is fitted and welded with the bent portion 21 ) , and an extension direction of a central axis of the second current collector rotating relative to the first current collector ([0082]: direction of a step 231 extending along the height direction ) is perpendicular to a plane where the top cover is located in a state that the first current collector is connected to the top cover (Fig. 12A, axis along the step 231 height direction is perpendicular to the plane 22 where the cover is located). Regarding claim 2, Zhang teaches all claim limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Zhang further teaches a limitation wherein the second current collector is configured to rotate from a first state to a second state relative to the first current collector (90° angle between bent portion 21 and main body portion 23 in an unfolded back state in Fig s . 1 , 12A [0073], and a folded back state in Fig. 7 shows the rotatable manner between portions 21 and 23) , in the first state, an included angle is formed between a plane where the second current collector and a plane where the first current collector is located (angle between planes 21 and 23 in Fig . 12A ) , and in the second state, the plane where the second current collector is located is parallel to the plane where the first current collector is located ( Fig . 7 , the plane of portion 2(23) is parallel to the plane of portion 21) . 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. Claims 3, 7-11, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Maeda et al. (CN 107887535 A, citations from enclosed machine translation ) . Regarding claim 3, Zhang teaches all claim limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Zhang fails to teach a limitation wherein the first current collector is convexly provided with a bearing pedestal, the second current collector is convexly provided with a mating portion, the mating portion is embedded into the bearing pedestal, and the battery connecting piece further comprises a rotating shaft, and the rotating shaft penetrates through the mating portion and is matched with the bearing pedestal in a rotatable manner, and an extension direction of the rotating shaft is perpendicular to the plane where the top cover is located in a state that the first current collector is connected to the top cover. However, Maeda implicitly teaches this limitation. Specifically, Maeda discloses : the insulating member being convexly provided with a bearing pedestal, corresponding to bearing parts 52 and 53 formed on/with the insulating member 50, which provide a protruding bearing structure that supports a shaft 30b ( Fig s . 3 , 5 , page 9, lines 1–10); the lid/ top cover 12 being convexly provided through protruding structure with a mating portion, corresponding to a portion received within the bearing structure, such as the region of the lid /top cover 12 including through hole 12d that cooperates with the shaft portion 30b (Fig s . 3 , 5; page 6 , lines 57-60; page 7, lines 1-8) ; the mating portion being embedded into the bearing pedestal, as the shaft portion 30b extends through the insulating member 50 and lid/top cover 12 and is supported by bearing parts 52 and 53, thereby positioning one component within the bearing structure of the other ( Figs. 3, 5 ) ; the battery connecting piece further comprising a rotating shaft, namely shaft portion 30b extending through assembled components (Figs. 3, 5); the rotating shaft penetrating through the mating portion and being matched with the bearing pedestal in a rotatable manner, as the shaft portion 30b passes through the insulating member 50 and is supported by bearing parts 52 and 53 to enable relative rotation between the insulating member 50 and the lid/ top cover 12 (page 9, lines 1–10); an extension direction of the rotating shaft being perpendicular to a plane where the top cover is located, as shown in Fig. 3, where shaft portion 30b extends substantially perpendicular to the plane of the lid/ top cover 12. Maeda further teaches that this configuration allows improved utilization of internal space within the battery container, thereby increasing the energy density of the storage element (page 1, lines 42-48) . Further, Zhang , and Maeda are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of battery pack . Although Maeda does not explicitly disclose first and second current collectors, Maeda teaches an equivalent rotational connection between two components (the lower insulating member and the top cover) via a shaft and bearing structure. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would apply Maeda’s shaft-based rotational connection to the current collectors of Zhang to enable relative rotation between the collectors , with the motivation of improv ing utilization of internal space within the battery container increasing the energy density of the storage element as taught toward by Maeda (as cited above) . Per MPEP 2143 I(C), the use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way supports a conclusion of obviousness. Regarding claim 6 , Zhang teaches all claim limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Zhang further teaches a top cover assembly comprising a top cover (cover plate 6, [0065]) and the battery connecting piece (connecting structure [0063, 0070]) according to claim 1 (as cited above), the top cover is provided with a conductive block (first terminal 4 within cover plate 6, Fig. 1) , and the first current collector is connected to the conductive block ( the current collector includes a terminal connection portion 22 configured to connect with the terminal , [0082] and Fig. 12A). Zhang fails to teach : a plastic member, wherein the top cover and the first current collector are respectively arranged on two opposite sides of the plastic member. However, Maeda teaches a top cover assembly including a top cover (cover 12 in Fig. 3 ), and teaches a plastic member (insulating member 50 made of plastic, page 6, lines 1-11 ), and a current collector (positive electrode collector member 70 in Fig. 3 ), the top cover 12 and the first current collector 70 are respectively arranged on two opposite sides of the plastic/ insulating member 50 ( the cover 12 and the current collector 70 are arranged on opposite sides of the insulating member 50 as illustrated in Fig. 3 ) , the top cover is provided with a conductive block ( conductive positive electrode terminal 30 in Fig . 3 wherein located on cover 12 as illustrated in Fig. 2) , and the first current collector is connected to the conductive block ( conductive terminal 30 includes a shaft portion 30b extending through the insulating member 50 , and that the current collector 70 is electrically connected to the conductive terminal 30 via the shaft portion 30b as illustrated in Fig. 3 ) . Maeda further teaches that the insulating member 50 is used for electrically insulating the cover 12 from the current collector 70 (page 6, lines 1-4) . Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would modify Zhang’s battery connection piece to include a plastic member , such that the top cover and the first current collector are arranged on opposite sides of the plastic member as taught by Maeda in order to electrically insulat e the top cover from the current collector (page 6, lines 1-4) . Regarding claim 7, Zhang , as modified by Maeda teaches all claim limitations of claim 6 as stated above. Maeda further implicitly discloses a limitation wherein a side of the plastic member away from the top cover (where locking part 91 is located in Fig. 5, located in a side of insulating member 50 away from cover 12) is provided with a locking portion (locking portion 91) , and the locking portion is configured to lock the second current collector (current collector 70) when the second current collector rotates to a second state ( page 8, lines 44-46; page 9, lines 31-33, to restrict relative rotation of base portion 71 of current collector 70 with respect to the lower insulating member 50 ) . Specifically, Maeda teaches a locking structure provided on a side of the insulating member opposite the cover, including a first locking portion (91) configured to engage a portion of the current collector (base portion 71 of current collector member 70) to restrict relative rotation. As shown in Figs. 5 - 6 of Maed a , the locking portion (91) is positioned away from the cover and is configured such that, upon rotation of the current collector to a predetermined position, the locking portion engages the collector to prevent further relative rotation with respect to the insulating member (page 8, lines 44-46; page 9, lines 31-33) . Maeda additionally discloses a second locking configuration (92), which cooperates with the first locking portion to stabilize the rotational position of the collector member (page 9, lines 13-14) . Maeda further teaches that t his locking arrangement prevents unintended rotation of the current collector relative to the insulating member (page 9, lines 14-17) , while also enabling compact arrangement of components to improve energy density (page 1, lines 42-48) . Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would incorporate Maeda’s locking structure to the battery connection piece of Zhang to secure the current collector and improve structural stability (page 9, lines 13-14) and energy density (page 1, lines 42-48) . Regarding claim 8, Zhang , as modified by Maeda teaches all claim limitations of claim 7 as stated above. Modified Zhang does not explicitly teach a limitation wherein the locking portion protrudes from a surface of the plastic member, two opposite sides of the locking portion are provided with a guide surface and a stop surface respectively, a locking gap is formed between the stop surface and the first current collector, and the guide surface is configured to guide the second current collector over the locking portion and into the locking gap. However, Maeda discloses a structure that corresponds to the claimed locking geometry. Specifically, Maeda discloses : a locking portion that protrudes from a surface of the plastic / insulating member 50, for example, second portion 55 including end surface 55a extending from the surface of the insulating member (page 7, lines 50–55); and a concave portion 55b (page 7, line 59) two opposite sides of the locking portion provided with a guide surface and a stop surface, respectively (see below citations) , wherein , - the guide surface corresponds to the wall surface of concave portion 55b that receives and engages the convex portion 71c of the current collector (page 8 , line 21 ; page 9, lines 38-39 ), and - the stop surface corresponds to end surface 55a (page 7, lines 50–55; page 9, lines 20–21); a locking gap formed between the stop surface and the first current collector, as evidenced by the gap between the edge 71b of base portion 71 (current collector) and the end surface 55a (page 9, lines 21, 29); T he guide surface being configured to guide the current collector over the locking portion and into the locking gap, as the concave portion 55b receives the convex portion 71c during assembly, thereby guiding and positioning the current collector relative to the locking portion (page 9, lines 36-39 ). Therefore, i t would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would incorporate Maeda’s known engagement/locking structure into Zhang in order to improve positional stability and prevent relative rotation between components, thereby improving engagement reliability (page 9, line s 25-26, 38) . Regarding claim 9 , Zhang , as modified by Maeda teaches all claim limitations of claim 7 as stated above. Maeda further implicitly discloses a limitation wherein the locking portion is a groove concavely arranged in a surface of the plastic member ( page 10, lines 22-24; a recess), and an extension direction of the groove is parallel to a plane where the first current collector is located ( page 10, lines 22-24; plane of convex portion 71c , Figs. 5-6 ) . Specifically, Maeda teaches that the locking portion may be formed as a concave portion 55b (recess 55b) arranged in a surface of the insulating member 50 (page 10, lines 22 - 24; Figs. 5 - 6). The concave portion 55b formed in a surface of the insulating member and extend ed along that surface constitutes a groove-like structure . The first current collector (positive electrode current collecting member 70, including base 71) is disposed adjacent to and substantially parallel to the surface of the insulating member 50 (Figs. 5-6) . Accordingly, the extension direction of the concave portion 55b is parallel to a plane in which the first current collector is located. Maeda further teaches that this locking arrangement prevents unintended rotation of the current collector relative to the insulating /plastic member (page 9, lines 14-17), and allows improved utilization of internal space within the battery container, thereby increasing the energy density of the storage element (page 1, lines 42-48) . Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would modify Zhang’s battery connection piece to include the concave groove-like locking structure as taught by Maeda in order to prevents unintended rotation of the current collector (page 9, lines 14-17) , improve space utilization , and increase energy density (page 1, lines 42 - 48) . Regarding claim 10 , Zhang , as modified by Maeda , teaches all claim limitations of claim 6 as stated above . Zhang further teaches a limitation wherein in top cover assembly according to claim 6, the second current collector is configured to rotate from a first state to a second state relative to the first current collector, in the first state, an included angle is formed between a plane where the second current collector and a plane where the first current collector is located (Figs. 1, 12A, [0073], unfolded back state ) , and in the second state, the plane where the second current collector is located is parallel to the plane where the first current collector is located (Figs. 1, 7, [0073], folded back state) . Specifically, Zhang teaches in the first state (unfolded state), an included angle is formed between a plane defined by a bent portion 21 and a plane defined by a main body portion 23 of the current collector (Figs. 1, 12A, [0073]). In the second state (folded state), the bent portion 21 is folded back such that the plane of the bent portion becomes substantially parallel to the plane of the main body portion 23 (Figs. 1, 7, [0073]). Accordingly, Zhang teaches that in the first state an included angle exists between the planes of the bent portion 21 and the main body portion 23, and in the second state the planes are arranged substantially parallel, as required by claim 10. Regarding claim 11, Zhang , as modified by Maeda teaches all claim limitations of claim 6 as stated above. Modified Zhang fails to explicitly teach a limitation wherein the first current collector is convexly provided with a bearing pedestal, the second current collector is convexly provided with a mating portion, the mating portion is embedded into the bearing pedestal, and the battery connecting piece further comprises a rotating shaft, and the rotating shaft penetrates through the mating portion and is matched with the bearing pedestal in a rotatable manner, and an extension direction of the rotating shaft is perpendicular to the plane where the top cover is located in a state that the first current collector is connected to the top cover. However, Maeda implicitly teaches this limitation. Specifically, Maeda discloses: the insulating member being convexly provided with a bearing pedestal, corresponding to bearing parts 52 and 53 formed on/with the insulating member 50, which provide a protruding bearing structure that supports a shaft 30b (Fig s . 3, 5, page 9, lines 1–10); the lid/top cover 12 being convexly provided through protruding structure with a mating portion, corresponding to a portion received within the bearing structure, such as the region of the lid 12 including through hole 12d that cooperates with the shaft portion 30b (Fig s . 3, 5; page 6, lines 57-60; page 7, lines 1-8); the mating portion being embedded into the bearing pedestal, as the shaft portion 30b extends through the insulating member 50 and lid/top cover 12 and is supported by bearing parts 52 and 53, thereby positioning one component within the bearing structure of the other (Figs. 3, 5); the battery connecting piece further comprising a rotating shaft, namely shaft portion 30b extending through assembled components (Figs. 3, 5); the rotating shaft penetrating through the mating portion and being matched with the bearing pedestal in a rotatable manner, as the shaft portion 30b passes through the insulating member 50 and is supported by bearing parts 52 and 53 to enable relative rotation between the insulating member 50 and the lid/ top cover 12 (page 9, lines 1–10); an extension direction of the rotating shaft being perpendicular to a plane where the top cover is located, as shown in Fig. 3, where shaft portion 30b extends substantially perpendicular to the plane of the lid/ top cover 12. Maeda further teaches that this configuration allows improved utilization of internal space within the battery container, thereby increasing the energy density of the storage element (page 1, lines 42-48). Although Maeda does not explicitly disclose first and second current collectors, Maeda teaches an equivalent rotational connection between two components (the lower insulating member and the top cover) via a shaft and bearing structure. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would apply Maeda’s shaft-based rotational connection to the current collectors of Zhang to enable relative rotation between the collectors, with the motivation of improving utilization of internal space within the battery container increasing the energy density of the storage element as taught toward by Maeda (as cited above). Per MPEP 2143 I(C), the use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way supports a conclusion of obviousness. Regarding claim 14 , Zhang, as modified by Maeda teaches all claim limitations of claim 6 as stated above. Zhang further teaches a cell ([0082]) and the top cover assembly (t he cover plate 6 ) , a tab of the cell is welded with the second current collector ([0082]: the tab 11 is fitted and welded with the bent portion 21 ) . Zhang at [0065] generally teaches the electrode assembly 1 includes a first electrode and a second electrode, which have opposite polarities, for example, the first electrode is a positive electrode and the second electrode is a negative electrode. Each of the first electrode and the second electrode includes a coated portion. However, Zhang fails to explicitly teach “A lithium battery”; Zhang is silent toward the specific chemistry of the battery . However, Maeda teaches a lithium-ion battery ( page 16, line 13 ) having secondary/rechargeable battery chemistry. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would select lithium-ion electrode chemistry as taught by Maeda to use within modified Zhang in order to provide functional electrode coating material within Zhang and yield a Lithium Battery . Per MPEP 2144.07, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination . Regarding claim 1 5 , Zhang, as modified by Maeda teaches all claim limitations of claim 14 as stated above. Maeda further implicitly discloses a limitation wherein a side of the plastic member away from the top cover (where locking part 91 is located in Fig. 5, located in a side of insulating member 50 away from cover 12) is provided with a locking portion (locking portion 91), and the locking portion is configured to lock the second current collector (current collector 70) when the second current collector rotates to a second state (page 8, lines 44-46; page 9, lines 31-33, to restrict relative rotation of base portion 71 of current collector 70 with respect to the lower insulating member 50). Specifically, Maeda teaches a locking structure provided on a side of the insulating member opposite the cover, including a first locking portion (91) configured to engage a portion of the current collector (base portion 71 of current collector member 70) to restrict relative rotation. As shown in Figs. 5-6 of Maeda, the locking portion (91) is positioned away from the cover and is configured such that, upon rotation of the current collector to a predetermined position, the locking portion engages the collector to prevent further relative rotation with respect to the insulating member(page 8, lines 44-46; page 9, lines 31-33). Maeda additionally discloses a second locking configuration (92), which cooperates with the first locking portion to stabilize the rotational position of the collector member (page 9, lines 13-14). Maeda further teaches that this locking arrangement prevents unintended rotation of the current collector relative to the insulating member (page 9, lines 14-17), while also enabling compact arrangement of components to improve energy density (page 1, lines 42-48). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would incorporate Maeda’s locking structure to the battery connection piece of Zhang to secure the current collector and improve structural stability (page 9, lines 13-14) and energy density (page 1, lines 42-48). Regarding claim 16, Zhang, as modified by Maeda teaches all claim limitations of claim 15 as stated above. Modified Zhang does not explicitly teach a limitation wherein the locking portion protrudes from a surface of the plastic member, two opposite sides of the locking portion are provided with a guide surface and a stop surface respectively, a locking gap is formed between the stop surface and the first current collector, and the guide surface is configured to guide the second current collector over the locking portion and into the locking gap. However, Maeda discloses a structure that corresponds to the claimed locking geometry. Specifically, Maeda discloses : a locking portion that protrudes from a surface of the plastic / insulating member 50, for example, second portion 55 including end surface 55a extending from the surface of the insulating member (page 7, lines 50–55); and a concave portion 55b (page 7, line 59) two opposite sides of the locking portion provided with a guide surface and a stop surface, respectively, wherein , - the guide surface corresponds to the wall surface of concave portion 55b that receives and engages the convex portion 71c of the current collector (page 8 , line 21 ; page 9, lines 38-39 ), and - the stop surface corresponds to end surface 55a (page 7, lines 50–55; page 9, lines 20–21); a locking gap formed between the stop surface and the first current collector, as evidenced by the gap between the edge 71b of base portion 71 (current collector) and the end surface 55a (page 9, lines 21, 29); T he guide surface being configured to guide the current collector over the locking portion and into the locking gap, as the concave portion 55b receives the convex portion 71c during assembly, thereby guiding and positioning the current collector relative to the locking portion (page 9, lines 36-39 ). Therefore, i t would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would incorporate Maeda’s known engagement/locking structure into Zhang in order to improve positional stability and prevent relative rotation between components, thereby improving engagement reliability (page 9, lines 25-26, 38) . Regarding claim 17, Zhang, as modified by Maeda teaches all claim limitations of claim 15 as stated above . Maeda further implicitly discloses a limitation wherein the locking portion is a groove concavely arranged in a surface of the plastic member (page 10, lines 22-24; a recess), and an extension direction of the groove is parallel to a plane where the first current collector is located (page 10, lines 22-24; plane of convex portion 71c , Figs. 5-6). Specifically, Maeda teaches that the locking portion may be formed as a concave portion 55b (recess 55b) arranged in a surface of the insulating member 50 (page 10, lines 22 - 24; Figs. 5 - 6). The concave portion 55b formed in a surface of the insulating member and extend ed along that surface constitutes a groove-like structure . The first current collector (positive electrode current collecting member 70, including base 71) is disposed adjacent to and substantially parallel to the surface of the insulating member 50 (Figs. 5-6) . Accordingly, the extension direction of the concave portion 55b is parallel to a plane in which the first current collector is located. Maeda further teaches that this locking arrangement prevents unintended rotation of the current collector relative to the insulating /plastic member (page 9, lines 14-17), and allows improved utilization of internal space within the battery container, thereby increasing the energy density of the storage element (page 1, lines 42-48) . Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would modify Zhang’s battery connection piece to include the concave groove-like locking structure as taught by Maeda in order to prevents unintended rotation of the current collector (page 9, lines 14-17) , improve space utilization , and increase energy density (page 1, lines 42-48) . Regarding claim 18, Zhang, as modified by Maeda teaches all claim limitations of claim 14 as stated above . Zhang further teaches a limitation , the second current collector is configured to rotate from a first state to a second state relative to the first current collector, in the first state, an included angle is formed between a plane where the second current collector and a plane where the first current collector is located (Figs. 1, 12A, [0073], unfolded back state ) , and in the second state, the plane where the second current collector is located is parallel to the plane where the first current collector is located (Figs. 1, 7, [0073], folded back state) . Specifically, Zhang teaches in the first state (unfolded state), an included angle is formed between a plane defined by a bent portion 21 and a plane defined by a main body portion 23 of the current collector (Figs. 1, 12A, [0073]). In the second state (folded state), the bent portion 21 is folded back such that the plane of the bent portion becomes substantially parallel to the plane of the main body portion 23 (Figs. 1, 7, [0073]). Accordingly, Zhang teaches that in the first state an included angle exists between the planes of the bent portion 21 and the main body portion 23, and in the second state the planes are arranged substantially parallel, as required by claim 10. Regarding claim 19, Zhang, as modified by Maeda teaches all claim limitations of claim 18 as stated above . Modified Zhang fails to explicitly teach a limitation wherein the first current collector is convexly provided with a bearing pedestal, the second current collector is convexly provided with a mating portion, the mating portion is embedded into the bearing pedestal, and the battery connecting piece further comprises a rotating shaft, and the rotating shaft penetrates through the mating portion and is matched with the bearing pedestal in a rotatable manner, and an extension direction of the rotating shaft is perpendicular to the plane where the top cover is located in a state that the first current collector is connected to the top cover. However, Maeda implicitly teaches this limitation. Specifically, Maeda discloses: the insulating member being convexly provided with a bearing pedestal, corresponding to bearing parts 52 and 53 formed on/with the insulating member 50, which provide a protruding bearing structure that supports a shaft 30b (Fig. 3, 5, page 9, lines 1–10); the lid/top cover 12 being convexly provided through protruding structure with a mating portion, corresponding to a portion received within the bearing structure, such as the region of the lid /top cover 12 including through hole 12d that cooperates with the shaft portion 30b (Fig. 3, 5; page 6, lines 57-60; page 7, lines 1-8); the mating portion being embedded into the bearing pedestal, as the shaft portion 30b extends through the insulating member 50 and lid/top cover 12 and is supported by bearing parts 52 and 53, thereby positioning one component within the bearing structure of the other (Figs. 3, 5); the battery connecting piece further comprising a rotating shaft, namely shaft portion 30b extending through assembled components (Figs. 3, 5); the rotating shaft penetrating through the mating portion and being matched with the bearing pedestal in a rotatable manner, as the shaft portion 30b passes through the insulating member 50 and is supported by bearing parts 52 and 53 to enable relative rotation between the insulating member 50 and the lid/ top cover 12 (page 9, lines 1–10); an extension direction of the rotating shaft being perpendicular to a plane where the top cover is located, as shown in Fig. 3, where shaft portion 30b extends substantially perpendicular to the plane of the lid/ top cover 12. Maeda further teaches that this configuration allows improved utilization of internal space within the battery container, thereby increasing the energy density of the storage element (page 1, lines 42-48). Although Maeda does not explicitly disclose first and second current collectors, Maeda teaches an equivalent rotational connection between two components (the lower insulating member and the top cover) via a shaft and bearing structure. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would apply Maeda’s shaft-based rotational connection to the current collectors of Zhang to enable relative rotation between the collectors, with the motivation of improving utilization of internal space within the battery container increasing the energy density of the storage element as taught toward by Maeda (as cited above). Per MPEP 2143 I(C), the use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way supports a conclusion of obviousness. Claim s 4 and 1 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang , as modified by Maeda ( CN 107887535 A , cited “Maeda” here and in the whole action ) , as applied to claim s 3 and 11 above, and further in view of K. Maeda et al. ( US 20200273635 A1 , here cited as “ K. Maeda’ 635 ” ) . Regarding claim 4, Zhang , as modified by Maeda , teaches all claim limitations of claim 3 as stated above. Modified Zhang fails to teach a limitation wherein the radius of the rotating shaft ranges from 1.8mm to 4mm; and the length of the rotating shaft ranges from 10mm to 50mm. However, K. Maeda’ 635 teaches a shaft portion 210 of an electrode terminal 200(210/201) in Fig. 3, similar to the shaft portion 30b of an electrode terminal 30(30a/30b) disclosed in Zhang as modified by Maeda in Fig. 8 . Specifically, K. Maeda ’ 635 discloses that the shaft portion has a diameter of about 5 mm to 10 mm ([0062]), corresponding to a radius of about 2.5 mm to 5 mm, which overlaps the claimed radius range of 1.8 mm to 4 mm. K. Maeda ’ 635 further teaches that the terminal body 200, including the shaft portion 210, has a length of several centimeters ([0062]), which encompasses the claimed length range of 10 mm to 50 mm. Additionally, K. Maeda ’ 635 explicitly teaches that the size of the shaft portion, including its diameter and length, affects the expansion behavior of the terminal ([0049, 0062]), thereby identifying these dimensions as result-effective variables. Further, Zhang, and K. Maeda ’ 635 are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of battery pack. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the shaft dimensions (radius and length) of Zhang as modified by Maeda in view of the teachings of K. Maeda ’ 635 in order to achieve an appropriate expansion amount ([0062]) and mechanical connection ([0055]) . Optimizing the shaft dimensions within workable ranges, including the claimed ranges, would have been achieved through routine optimization . It is well established that discovering optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.05(II); see also In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, because the prior art range , specifically the radius range, disclosed by K. Maeda ’ 635 overlaps with the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 . Regarding claim 12, Zhang , as modified by Maeda teaches all claim limitations of claim 11 as stated above. Modified Zhang fails to teach a limitation wherein the radius of the rotating shaft ranges from 1.8mm to 4mm; and the length of the rotating shaft ranges from 10mm to 50mm. However, K. Maeda’ 635 teaches a shaft portion 210 of an electrode terminal 200(210/201) in Fig. 3, similar to the shaft portion 30b of an electrode terminal 30(30a/30b) disclosed in Zhang as modified by Maeda in Fig. 8 . Specifically, K. Maeda ’ 635 discloses that the shaft portion has a diameter of about 5 mm to 10 mm ([0062]), corresponding to a radius of about 2.5 mm to 5 mm, which overlaps the claimed radius range of 1.8 mm to 4 mm. K. Maeda ’ 635 further teaches that the terminal body 200, including the shaft portion 210, has a length of several centimeters ([0062]), which encompasses the claimed length range of 10 mm to 50 mm. Additionally, K. Maeda ’ 635 explicitly teaches that the size of the shaft portion, including its diameter and length, affects the expansion behavior of the terminal ([0049, 0062]), thereby identifying these dimensions as result-effective variables. Further, Zhang, and K. Maeda ’ 635 are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of battery pack. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the shaft dimensions (radius and length) of Zhang as modified by Maeda in view of the teachings of K. Maeda ’ 635 in order to achieve an appropriate expansion amount ([0062]) and mechanical connection ([0055]) .Optimizing the shaft dimensions within workable ranges, including the claimed ranges, would have been achieved through routine optimization . It is well established that discovering optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.05(II); see also In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, because the prior art range , specifically the radius range, disclosed by K. Maeda ’ 635 overlaps with the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 . Claim s 5 , 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, as modified by Maeda , as applied to claim s 3 , 11, and 18 above, and further in view of Tamaru ( US 5645954 A ) . Regarding claim 5 , Zhang, as modified by Maeda teaches all claim limitations of claim 3 as stated above. Modified Zhang fails to teach a limitation wherein the battery connecting piece further comprises a spring, and the spring is sleeved on the rotating shaft, one end of the spring abuts against a side of the mating portion away from the top cover, and the other end of the spring abuts against the bearing pedestal. However, Tamaru implicitly teaches this limitation. Specifically, Tamaru teaches : a spring (helical spring 44 of a movable terminal 32 ) (Fig. 4(A), 4(B); [10] of Description); the spring being sleeved on a shaft (shaft 41 of a movable terminal 32 ), as the helical spring 44 is mounted around shaft 41 (Fig. 4(A), 4(B); [10] of Description); one end of the spring abutting against a first structure, namely the inside wall 12a of the housing 10 (Fig. 4(A); [10] of Description); the other end of the spring abutting against a second structure, namely the spring stopper 43 coupled to the movable terminal 32 (Fig. 4(A), 4(B); [10] of Description ), The spring 44 spring is positioned between the inside wall 12a and the spring stopper 43 and exerts a force therebetween ( Figs, 4(A), 4(B), 6(A), 6(B); [13] of Description) . Tamaru further teaches that the flexible arm 33 actuates the movable terminal 32 by engaging the contact plate 42 against the force of the helical spring 44, whereby the spring 44 provides a restoring force that enables controlled displacement and return of the movable terminal (Figs, 4(A), 4(B), 6(A), 6(B); [11, 13] of Description). Further, modified Zhang, and Tamaru are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would incorporate the spring arrangement of Tamaru into the battery connecting piece of modified Zhang in order to provide a force along the rotating shaft. This represents the predictable use of a known spring mechanism to perform its established function, thereby improving electrical contact and facilitating positioning of the battery connecting piece (See MPEP 2143 I (D) ) . Regarding claim 13, Zhang, as modified by Maeda teaches all claim limitations of claim 11 as stated above. Modified Zhang fails to teach a limitation wherein the battery connecting piece further comprises a spring, and the spring is sleeved on the rotating shaft, one end of the spring abuts against a side of the mating portion away from the top cover, and the other end of the spring abuts against the bearing pedestal. However, Tamaru teaches this limitation. Specifically, Tamaru teaches : a spring (helical spring 44 of a movable terminal 32) (Fig. 4(A), 4(B); [10] of Description); the spring being sleeved on a shaft (shaft 41 of a movable terminal 32), as the helical spring 44 is mounted around shaft 41 (Fig. 4(A), 4(B); [10] of Description); one end of the spring abutting against a first structure, namely the inside wall 12a of the housing 10 (Fig. 4(A); [10] of Description); the other end of the spring abutting against a second structure, namely the spring stopper 43 coupled to the movable terminal 32 (Fig. 4(A), 4(B); [10] of Description), T he spring 44 spring is positioned between the inside wall 12a and the spring stopper 43 and exerts a force therebetween ( Figs, 4(A), 4(B), 6(A), 6(B); [13] of Description). Tamaru further teaches that the flexible arm 33 actuates the movable terminal 32 by engaging the contact plate 42 against the force of the helical spring 44, whereby the spring 44 provides a restoring force that enables controlled displacement and return of the movable terminal (Figs, 4(A), 4(B), 6(A), 6(B); [11, 13] of Description). Further, modified Zhang, and Tamaru are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would incorporate the spring arrangement of Tamaru into the battery connecting piece of modified Zhang in order to provide a force along the rotating shaft. This represents the predictable use of a known spring mechanism to perform its established function, thereby improving electrical contact and facilitating positioning of the battery connecting piece (See MPEP 2143 I (D) ) . Regarding claim 20, Zhang, as modified by Maeda teaches all claim limitations of claim 18 as stated above . Modified Zhang fails to teach a limitation wherein