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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 07/06/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 12, 14, 15, and 18 are amended while claims 3, 11, and 19 are cancelled; support for amendment can be found in original claims; thus, claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-18, and 20 are pending and are rejected under prior art on their merits below.
The 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 1-20 of the previous Office action, are overcome by the amendment and are withdrawn; however, in light of the amendment, new 35 USC 112(b) and USC 112(d) rejections are presented below. The amended claims recite claims 4-5 as depending from canceled claim 3 and claims 12-13 as depending from canceled claim 11. Consequently, claims 4-5 and 12-13 are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as set forth below. For purposes of examination under the prior art, claims 4-5 have been treated as depending from amended claim 1 rather than canceled claim 3, and claims 12-13 have been treated as depending from amended claim 6 rather than canceled claim 11. Accordingly, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 below are presented based on these assumed dependencies.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument, see Remarks page 8, filed 07/06/2026, with respect to amended claim 1, specifically the limitation of “the first current collector is connected to the second current collector in a rotatable manner” have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the bent portion 21 and the main body portion 23 in Zhang are not rotatable components, but rather that the bent portion 21 is bent to drive the tab 11 to fold and attach to the main body portion 23. However, Zhang teaches that the bent portion 21 forms an included angle with main body portion 23 in an unfolded-back state and is subsequently folded back relative to main body portion 23 ([0073]). This change in angular orientation constitutes rotation of bent portion 21 relative to main body portion 23 and therefore teaches the claimed connection “in a rotatable manner”. Moreover, Applicant’s Specification (see page 4) and their arguments on remarks (see page 9) itself associates such a folding operation with relative rotation, explaining that the second current collector is rotated relative to the first current collector so as to drive the tab to fold to a specific angle. Thus, folding and relative rotation are not presented in the Specification as mutually exclusive arrangements; rather, relative rotation of the current collectors is expressly used to produce folding of the tab. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument that Zhang’s folding arrangement necessarily precludes a rotatable relationship is not persuasive.
Applicant argues, see Remarks page 8, filed 07/06/2026, that incorporating Maeda's shaft-based rotational connection to the current collectors of Zhang to enable relative rotation between the collectors would have been improper. Specifically, Applicant argues that Maeda fails to provide a technical teaching that ''relative rotation between the lower insulating member 50 and the top cover 12 is capable of improving the energy density of the electricity storage element''. However, this argument is not persuasive.
Maeda teaches a compact interlocking connection structure including bearing portions 52 and 53, lower insulating member 50, lid/top cover 12, and shaft portion 30b. The shaft-and-bearing arrangement forms part of Maeda’s interlocking connection structure, which reduces the internal space occupied by the connection structure and thereby improves utilization of the internal battery space by the storage element and increases energy density. Maeda further teaches that shaft portion 30b provides the rotational relationship between the interconnected components. Thus, the relied-upon structure provides both the rotatable connection and the space-saving functionality, and its incorporation into Zhang would provide the expected functionality.
Additionally, Maeda teaches in the modified example (page 15, lines 1-16) that cylindrical shaft 73 is provided on current collecting member 70 and passes through lower insulating member 50 and lid 12. Thus, Maeda further demonstrates that a shaft-based interconnection extending through the lower insulating member and lid may be incorporated directly with a current collecting member. This further supports applying Maeda’s known shaft-based connection structure to the current collectors of Zhang.
Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues, see Remarks page 9, filed 07/06/2026, that Maeda is directed to improving the energy density of the battery and not to the application’s stated purpose of ''how to drive the tab to fold more smoothly to prevent the tab from being tom, improve a bending precision of the tab, and improve a product consistency”. However, this argument is not persuasive. The prior art does not need to be directed to the same purpose or recognize the same advantage as Applicant where the proposed modification would otherwise have been obvious. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Therefore, Applicant’s identification of a different purpose or additional benefit does not overcome the rejection.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4-5, and 12-13 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.
Regarding claim 4, and claim 5, these claims depend from claim 3, which has been canceled. Accordingly, claims 4-5 are indefinite. For purpose of examination, the Examiner has construed claims 4-5 as depending from claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, and claim 13, these claims depend from claim 11, which has been canceled. Accordingly, claims 12-13 are indefinite. For purpose of examination, the Examiner has construed claims 12-13 as depending from claim 6.
Claim 4-5, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 4-5 are improper dependent claims because they depend from canceled claim 3. As claim 3 is no longer pending, claims 4-5 do not properly rely back to a pending claim and incorporate all of the limitations of the claim upon which they depend.
Claims 12-13 are improper dependent claims because they depend from canceled claim 11. As claim 11 is no longer pending, claims 12-13 do not properly rely back to a pending claim and incorporate all of the limitations of the claim upon which they depend.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-2, 6-10, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 20200243896 A1), and further in view of Maeda et al. (CN 107887535 A, citations from enclosed machine translation).
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 Figs. 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 of the battery ([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).
Zhang does not teach a cell of the lithium battery and 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 the rotatable manner, and an extension direction of the rotating shaft is perpendicular to the plane where the top cover is located in the state that the first current collector is connected to the top cover.
However Maeda discloses:
a lithium ion rechargeable battery (page 4, line 28; page 16, line 13) wherein
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 (Figs. 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 (Figs. 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 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.
In addition, 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 2, Zhang, as modified by Maeda, teaches all limitation 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 Figs. 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 is located 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).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang, as modified by Maeda, teaches all limitation of claim 1 as stated above. Zhang further teaches a top cover assembly, comprising the 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 insulate 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. Modified Zhang further teaches a limitation wherein a side of the plastic member away from the top cover is provided with a locking portion, and the locking portion is configured to lock the second current collector when the second current collector rotates to a second 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.
Maeda 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).
In addition, Zhang teaches the second state, wherein 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)
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 when the second current collector rotates to a second state and thereby to 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 further teaches 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.
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);
The 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, 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 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 9, Zhang, as modified by Maeda teaches all claim limitations of claim 7 as stated above. Maeda further 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 extended 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 is located 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 14, Zhang, as modified by Maeda teaches all claim limitations of claim 6 as stated above. Modified Zhang further teaches a lithium battery, comprising the cell and the top cover assembly according to claim 6, the tab of the cell is welded with the second current collector.
Specifically, Zhang teaches a cell ([0082]) and the top cover assembly (the 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, as discussed with respect to claim 1, 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 15, Zhang, as modified by Maeda teaches all claim limitations of claim 14 as stated above. Modified Zhang further teaches a limitation wherein a side of the plastic member away from the top cover is provided with a locking portion, and the locking portion is configured to lock the second current collector of the battery connecting piece when the second current collector rotates to a second 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.
Specifically, Maeda 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).
In addition, Zhang teaches the second state, wherein 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)
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 when the second current collector rotates to a second state and thereby to 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 further teaches 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.
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);
The 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, 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 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 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 extended 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.
Claims 4 and 12 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 claims 1 and 6 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 1 as stated above. Modified Zhang fails to teach a limitation wherein a radius of the rotating shaft ranges from 1.8mm to 4mm; and a 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 6 as stated above. Modified Zhang fails to teach a limitation wherein a radius of the rotating shaft ranges from 1.8mm to 4mm; and a 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.
Claims 5, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, as modified by Maeda, as applied to claims 1, 6, 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 1 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:
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 6 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:
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 20, Zhang, as modified by Maeda, teaches all claim limitations of claim 18 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:
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)).
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 Lili Rassouli whose telephone number is (571)272-9760. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM-4:00 PM.
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, Matthew T Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/LILI RASSOULI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/JESSIE WALLS-MURRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights