Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/308,846

CELL CONNECTION COMPONENTS AND BATTERIES

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Apr 28, 2023
Examiner
ZENG, LINGWEN R
Art Unit
1723
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Hangzhou Narada Power Technology Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
398 granted / 522 resolved
+11.2% vs TC avg
Strong +21% interview lift
Without
With
+21.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
22 currently pending
Career history
544
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
61.6%
+21.6% vs TC avg
§102
24.6%
-15.4% vs TC avg
§112
7.5%
-32.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 522 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 04/28/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Claims 5 and 6 recite the limitation "adapting pieces" in claim 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It should be amended as “the adapting pieces.” Claim 7 recites the limitation “a number of connecting pieces” and "that of adapting pieces" in claim 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It should be amended as “ “a number of the connecting pieces” and “that of the adapting pieces.” 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. 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. Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2022/0115748 to Xu. With respect to claim 1, Xu teaches a battery core connecting assembly, which is configured for connecting a core of a lithium-ion battery, wherein the lithium-ion battery comprises a top cover 41 and the battery core connecting assembly comprises: an adapting piece 60 comprising a first tongue 62 and a second tongue 61 which are connected with each other, the first tongue 62 being configured to be connected with the core 321 via tab 322, the adapting piece 60 being pliable at a pliable part 63 of the first tongue 62 and the second tongue 61, and the adapting piece 60 with an insulating component 70 having a multi-layer structure at least at the pliable part 63; and a connecting piece 52 at least in part comprising a single-layer structure, the connecting piece 52 being connected with the second tongue 61 of the adapting piece 60, and the connecting piece 52 being connected with the top cover 41 at a position of the single-layer structure. Xu does not specifically teach the first tongue 62 being configured to be welded with the core 321; the connecting piece 52 being welded with the top cover 41 at a position of the single-layer structure. However, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have the first tongue 62 being configured to be welded with the core 321; the connecting piece 52 being welded with the top cover 41 at a position of the single-layer structure since it was known in the art that welding is one of the common methods to connect any two components in a battery (Xu: Sections [0061]-[0078]; Figs. 5-16 and 20). With respect to claim 2, Xu teaches the battery core connecting assembly, wherein the first tongue 62 and the second tongue 61 are formed with a rounded corner 63 at the pliable part, on a section of the adapting piece 60 (Xu: Sections [0061]-[0078]; Figs. 5-16 and 20). With respect to claim 3, Xu does not specifically teach the battery core connecting assembly, wherein a diameter of the rounded corner ranges from 1.25 T to 2.5 T, wherein T is a total thickness of the adapting piece. However, It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have a diameter of the rounded corner ranges from 1.25 T to 2.5 T, wherein T is a total thickness of the adapting piece, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It has been held that discovering that general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller,105 USPQ 233. Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). With respect to claim 4, Xu teaches the battery core connecting assembly, wherein the adapting piece 60 and the connecting piece 52 are two independent components, the connecting piece 52 having a single-layer structure and the adapting piece 60 with foils 60a having a multi-layer structure (Xu: Sections [0061]-[0078]; Figs. 5-16 and 20). With respect to claim 5, Xu teaches the battery core connecting assembly, wherein the connecting piece 52 comprises a connecting piece body and connecting arms 52a extending from the connecting piece body, the second tongue 61 being welded with the connecting arms 52a and a number of the connecting arms 52a corresponding to a number of adapting pieces 60 (Xu: Sections [0061]-[0078]; Figs. 5-16 and 20). With respect to claim 6, Xu teaches the battery core connecting assembly, wherein the adapting piece 60 is formed into an L-shape after the pliable part of the first tongue 62 and the second tongue 61 are bent, and there are two connecting arms 52a and two adapting pieces 60, and the connecting arms 52a are distributed on a same side of the connecting piece body (Xu: Sections [0061]-[0078]; Figs. 5-16 and 20). With respect to claim 7, Xu teaches the battery core connecting assembly, wherein a number of connecting pieces 52a is equal to that of adapting pieces 60, and the connecting piece 52a comprises a welding part 300 for welding with the adapting piece 60 (Xu: Sections [0061]-[0078]; Figs. 5-16 and 20). Xu does not specifically teach the connecting piece 52a comprises an ultrasonic welding part for welding with the top cover 41. However, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have the connecting piece 52a comprises an ultrasonic welding part for welding with the top cover 41 since it was known in the art that welding is one of the common methods to connect any two components in a battery. With respect to claim 8, Xu does not specifically teach the battery core connecting assembly, wherein there are at least two connecting pieces 52, and ultrasonic welding parts of the two opposite connecting pieces 52 are arranged oppositely so as to be welded with the top cover 41. It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have the battery core connecting assembly, wherein there are at least two connecting pieces, and ultrasonic welding parts of the two opposite connecting pieces are arranged oppositely so as to be welded with the top cover since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (CA7 1977). With respect to claim 9, Xu does not specifically teach the battery core connecting assembly, wherein the adapting piece and the connecting piece are an integrally formed component. It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have the adapting piece and the connecting piece are an integrally formed component, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893). With respect to claim 10, Xu teaches the battery core connecting assembly, wherein both the connecting piece 52 and the adapting piece 60 with foils 60a are made of multi-layer materials (Xu: Sections [0061]-[0078]; Figs. 5-16 and 20). It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have the connecting piece is formed with a single-layer structure by molecular welding at a welding position with the top cover since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (CA7 1977). With respect to claims 11 and 12, Xu does not specifically teach the battery core connecting assembly, wherein at least at the pliable part, a thickness of a single layer of the adapting piece ranges from 0.05 mm to 0.2 mm, a number of layers of the adapting piece ranges from 2 to 8, and a total thickness of the adapting piece ranges from 0.3 mm to 1.8 mm; and wherein the adapting piece comprises a positive adapting piece and a negative adapting piece, a thickness of a single layer of the positive adapting piece ranging from 0.1 mm to 0.2 mm, a number of layers of the positive adapting piece ranging from 4 to 8, and a total thickness of the positive adapting piece ranging from 0.4 mm to 1.8 mm; and a thickness of a single layer of the negative electrode adapting piece ranging from 0.05 mm to 0.2 mm, a number of layers of the negative electrode adapting piece ranging from 2 to 6, and a total thickness of the negative electrode adapting piece ranging from 0.3 mm to 1 mm. However, It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have wherein at least at the pliable part, a thickness of a single layer of the adapting piece ranges from 0.05 mm to 0.2 mm, a number of layers of the adapting piece ranges from 2 to 8, and a total thickness of the adapting piece ranges from 0.3 mm to 1.8 mm; and wherein the adapting piece comprises a positive adapting piece and a negative adapting piece, a thickness of a single layer of the positive adapting piece ranging from 0.1 mm to 0.2 mm, a number of layers of the positive adapting piece ranging from 4 to 8, and a total thickness of the positive adapting piece ranging from 0.4 mm to 1.8 mm; and a thickness of a single layer of the negative electrode adapting piece ranging from 0.05 mm to 0.2 mm, a number of layers of the negative electrode adapting piece ranging from 2 to 6, and a total thickness of the negative electrode adapting piece ranging from 0.3 mm to 1 mm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It has been held that discovering that general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller,105 USPQ 233. Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). With respect to claim 13, Xu teaches a multi-core battery comprising paired cores 321 and a top cover 41, further comprising the battery core connecting assembly, wherein the paired cores 321 are connected the adapting piece, and the cores 321 are connected with the top cover 41 through the connecting piece 52 (Xu: Sections [0061]-[0078]; Figs. 5-16 and 20). Xu does not specifically teach the paired cores are welded by small butterfly welding through the adapting piece, and the cores subjected to the small butterfly welding are finally welded with the top cover using large butterfly welding through the connecting piece. However, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have the paired cores are welded by small butterfly welding through the adapting piece, and the cores subjected to the small butterfly welding are finally welded with the top cover using large butterfly welding through the connecting piece since it was known in the art that butterfly welding is one of the common methods to connect any two components in a battery. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINGWEN R ZENG whose telephone number is (571)272-6649. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-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, Milton I Cano and Tiffany Legette can be reached on (313) 446-4937 and (571) 270-7078, respectively. 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. /LINGWEN R ZENG/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 12/25/2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 28, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 15, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603351
BATTERY MODULE WITH IMPROVED COOLING PERFORMANCE AND BATTERY PACK INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603397
Seam Welding Structure of Battery Can, Current Collecting Plate, and Cap and Battery Cell Using the Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597683
CURRENT COLLECTOR, BATTERY CELL, BATTERY PACK, AND VEHICLE INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592449
ASSEMBLED BATTERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12573676
BATTERY UNIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
76%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+21.1%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 522 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month