Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Objections Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the double negative would more clearly written as a positive such as “so as to partially overlap”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “an adjacent electrode tab s ” in lines 2-3 should be singular. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the metal layer” in line 2 should be plural as it is clear in light of the specification the intention is both metal layers introduced in claim 1 from which claim 14 depends. Appropriate correction is required. 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 17 is 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 17 recites the limitation "the electrode lead" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of prosecution, the term will be treated as “an electrode lead”. Clarification is required. 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. Claim(s) 1 , 5-10 and 12-18 FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa (US20130177788) in view of Daidoji (US20080060189 as cited in the IDS dated 9/5/23 ) . With respect to claim 1 , Hasegawa teaches an electrode assembly (50) for secondary battery (title) comprising two or more electrodes (10, 20) and a separator (30) stacked in a stacking direction (z) (fig. 1; [0074]) wherein the electrodes comprise electrode tabs (11, 21), the electrode tabs including metallized film metal layers (14) on both sides of polymer substrate (13) (fig. 1; [0077-80]), the electrode tabs electrically connected through a first metal connector (fig. 1: 41 or fig. 17: 82 or fig. 27 /39 : 182) at an upper portion where the metal layer is formed (14) and are electrically connected through a second metal connector (fig. 1: 80 or fig. 17: 81 or fig. 27 /39 : 181 /183 ) at a lower portion where the metal layer (14) is formed. Similarly the washers/nut may be construed as first and second connectors (fig. 25: 85/86 and [0168]). Hasegawa teaches the electrode tabs wholly overlapping and is therefore silent to the electrode tabs not wholly overlapping in the stacking direction. Daidoji teaches an electrode assembly of a secondary ([0003]) stacked battery (fig. 3 : 2) wherein electrode tabs (7, 8) are not wholly overlapping (fig. 3: 7A does not overlap 7B; fig. 6: all 7s partially overlapping; fig. 7: 7B does not wholly overlap longer 7A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the partially overlapping arrangements of Daidoji in Hasegawa to reduce tab breakage, improve and maintain welding conditions in the overall battery despite increased tab numbers or changing tab numbers as taught by Daidoji ( [0011-15]). Regarding claim 5 , Hasegawa teaches that the second metal connector (asperities) have a thickness 100micron ([0152]) (fig. 15: 81/83) and while the thickness of the first metal connector (fig. 15: 82) the relative size depicted would be less than that of the second metal connector for less than a total of 200micron which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists MPEP 2144.05. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the thickness of the through members of Hasegawa is an art recognized variable and a factor of the number of electrode tabs and thickness of the assembly which depends on the load requirements wherein reducing the number of tabs reduces the of the metal connectors ; this variable would have been obvious to optimize for the needs of a particular application. Regarding claim 6 , Hasegawa teaches that the first (41) and second metal connectors (through members : 80/180 ) are electrically connected via welding ([0121] , [0154], [0210] ) ; similarly Daidoji teaches welding between tabs and metal connectors (lead) ([0058]) . Regarding claim 7 , modified Hasegawa teaches partially overlapping tabs (Daidoji: fig. 6-7). Regarding claim 8 , modified Hasegawa teaches partially overlapping adjacent tabs (Daidoji: fig. 6). Regarding claim 9 , modified Hasegawa does not depict only two electrode tabs however explains that the number of tabs depends is known to vary (Daidoji: [0013]) wherein one of ordinary skill would appreciate that a small battery with a stack of electrode/separators resulting in two electrode tabs would be obvious to minimize battery size and cost for an application in which the load demand is less. In this case where there are only two electrode tabs partially overlapping one another (adjacent tabs) there are no “other” tabs as claimed such that this conditional limitation is met (Daidoji: fig. 6 obvious to reduce stack removing electrode/separators above second tab). Regarding claim 10 , Hasegawa teaches that the pitch of the first and second connectors (through members) is an art recognized result effective variable which is desirable to increase the contact surface area thereof as the area between metal connectors (through members) and electrode (tabs) effects resistance which is desirable to reduce. While Hasegawa is explicitly silent to the range of 50% or more, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would optimize the connection to maximize contact surface area thereby arriving at an overlap with the claimed 50% or more in order to reduce resistance as taught by Hasegawa ([0019]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists MPEP 2144.05. Regarding claim 12 , Hasegawa teaches the current collector comprises the polymer substrate (13, polypropylene) has a thickness of 15micron and the metal layers (14s, aluminum) have a thickness of 1micron; both values are within the claimed range and therefore read on the claim ([0147]). Regarding claim 13 , Hasegawa teaches the polymer substrate is a polyolefin ([0080] and [0147]). Regarding claim 14 , Hasegawa teaches that the metal layers are Ni, Al or steel ([0070] and [0147]). Regarding claim 15 , Hasegawa teaches that the first and second metal connectors (parts of through members) are made of Al ([0152]). Regarding claim 16 , Hasegawa teaches that both the metal layers of tabs (14s) and first and second connectors (through-members) are made of the same material (Al: [0147, 0152]). Regarding claim 17 , Hasegawa teaches that the metal connectors ( 80/180: through-members) are connected to a lead (41) (fig. 10) ( [0141]) . Regarding claim 18, Hasegawa and Daidoji teach secondary batteries (fig. 2 and 1, respectively) containing the assembly of claim 1 (see above). Claim(s) 2-4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa and Daidoji as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Tsukamoto ( JP10255754 see machine translation for citations) . Regarding claim 2 , modified Hasegawa is silent to the metal connectors electrically connected at positions where they do not overlap the electrode tabs. Tsukamoto teaches a lead (metal connectors) electrically connected to upper (21) and lower portions (22) of electrode tab (E1/P/E2) wherein 21 and 22 are also electrically connected at a position to the left of the overlap and therefore at apposition they are not overlapped as required by instant claim 2 (fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the lead connection of modified Hasegawa (Hasegawa: fig. 1, 41 and Daidoji: fig. 6B, 9) with the lead having both overlapping and not overlapping tab portions because the folded lead described provides light weight, safety and high production yield suitable for mass production as taught by Tsukamoto ([0022]). Regarding claim 3 , as combined with Tsukamoto, modified Hasegawa provides for a folded lead (Daidoji: fig. 6B, 9) to form the sandwich cross section electrically connecting folded perimeter which includes ends in the width direction of 9 at nonoverlapping regions (combination for instant claim 2) to electrically and mechanically connected the tabs and lead as taught by Tsukamoto ([0015]: welding and mechanical). One of ordinary skill would appreciate that this reinforces the connection by thickening the joint wherein Daidoji recognizes that these thin structures are prone to breakage ([0011]). Regarding claim 4 , examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “an area where the first and second metal connectors are connected is not limited to the “further electrically connected” positions of claim 2 but can be any area the connectors are connected. Therefore, given the rejection of claim 1 wherein the connectors include the mechanical connections via 82/182 (first) and 81/181 (second) of Hasegawa wherein Hasegawa teaches that these connections occupy area in the width direction (fig. 12) and that the number (i.e. total area of connection) is not limited but preferably two to sixteen ([0187]) it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to balance the number of connections sites to ensure electrical connection and balancing tab integrity by not overloading them with through holes and in doing so arrive at the claimed range barring evidence of criticality and unexpected results MPEP 2144.05. Regarding claim 11 , Hasegawa teaches that the first metal connector (41) covers the entire upper portion of the tabs (portion entirely covered by 41). Note that the broadest reasonable interpretation of upper and lower portions is any part of the tab in the upper and lower positions. Daidoji teaches the lower portions entirely covered (areas of 7 covered from below by 9). That Hasegawa and Daidoji teach that the lead/connectors cover the entire width of upper and lower portions but do not teach both the upper and lower connectors spanning the entire portions in one embodiment. Tsukamoto teaches the concept of the lead folding over the tab to cover both upper and lower portions of the tab in a single embodiment Hasegawa and Daidoji are silent to where both the upper (21) and lower (22) portions of the tab (E1/P/E2) are entirely covered (fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the entire coverage of both upper and lower portions of Tsukamoto in modified Hasegawa because the folded lead described provides light weight, safety and high production yield suitable for mass production as taught by Tsukamoto ([0022]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MIRIAM STAGG whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5256 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Srilakshmi Kumar can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-7769 . 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. /MIRIAM STAGG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724