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. BATTERY CELL AND BATTERY PACK INCLUDING THE SAME Examiner: Adam Arciero S.N. 18/370,315 Art Unit: 1727 March 19, 2026 DETAILED ACTION The Application filed on September 19, 2023 has been entered. Claims 1-13 are currently pending and have been fully considered. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the guide line passing through a center of the rivet terminal must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). The drawings show a guide line L1 that passes through a center of the terminal plates and intersects with a center of the rivet terminal 122a,124a . No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 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. Claims 1-13 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. Claims 1 and 7 each recite wherein the guide line passes through a center of the rivet terminal. However, the original disclosure and the drawings show a guide line that passes through a center of the terminal plates and intersects with a center of the rivet terminals. It is unclear as to what structure the claims are intending to recite. For purposes of compact prosecution and with the direction provided in the original disclosure and drawings, the terminal plates will be construed as to having a guide line passing through a center thereof that intersects with a center of the rivet terminals. 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. Claim(s) 1 -2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi (US 2015/0287974 A1; as found in IDS dated 09/19/23 ) . As to Claim 1, Choi discloses a battery 100 , comprising: a cap assembly (top surface) having a terminal plate 1 11,121 , and two rivet terminals 112,122 electrically connected to the terminal plate and an electrode assembly; wherein the terminal plates comprise a guide line 1111-3 on a plate surface thereof and passing through a center thereof and intersecting (passing through) the center of the rivet terminals (Fig. 1- 4 and paragraph s [0050-0052] ). As to Claim 2, Choi discloses wherein the guide line is parallel to the length direction of the cap assembly (Fig. 1-4). 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) 3 -4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US 2015/0287974 A1; as found in IDS dated 09/19/23) in view of You et al. (US 2014/0147736 A1) . As to Claim 3, Choi does not specifically disclose wherein the guide line is perpendicular to the length direction of the cap assembly. However, You teaches of a battery cap assembly 20 , comprising: terminal plates 21c,22c having a guide line G2 passing through a center thereof and intersecting with a center of a rivet terminal 21a,22a and wherein the guide is perpendicular to the length direction of the cap assembly (Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0054 and 0070]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the terminal plate of Choi to comprise the claimed guide line because You teaches that water can be discharged from the terminal plate paragraph [0071]). In addition, the courts have held that the particular placement of the guide grooves of Choi would not have modified the operation of device and was therefore an obvious matter of design choice, see MPEP 2144.04, VI, C. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the guide groove of Choi to read on the claims because Choi teaches that a secure connection can be obtained (paragraph [0069-0070]). As to Claim 4, the courts have held that the claimed configuration was a matter of choice which a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence the claimed configuration was significant, see MPEP 2144.04, IV, B. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the guide groove of Choi to read on the claims because Choi teaches that a secure connection can be obtained (paragraph [0069-0070]). Claim (s) 7 -9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US 2015/0287974 A1; as found in IDS dated 09/19/23) in view of Fujita (US 2019/0288264 A1; as found in IDS dated 08/20/24) . As to Claim 7 , Choi discloses a battery pack 10 , comprising: a plurality of battery cells 100 , each cell having a cap assembly (top surface) having a terminal plate 111,121 , and two rivet terminals 112,122 electrically connected to the terminal plate and an electrode assembly; wherein the terminal plates comprise a guide line 1111-3 on a plate surface thereof and passing through a center thereof and intersecting (passing through) the center of the rivet terminals; and a plurality of busbars 200 electrically connected to the terminal plates (Fig. 1-4 and paragraphs [0050-0052]). Choi does not specifically disclose the claimed frame. However, Fujita teaches of a battery pack, comprising: a frame 6 that supports a plurality of battery cells 8 (Fig. 1-2 and paragraph [0025]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pack of Choi to comprise the claimed frame because Fujita teaches that a plurality of batteries can be fastened together to form a battery pack (paragraph [0038]). As to Claim 8, Choi discloses a busbar that is shaped (reads on a cutout portion) such that the guide line is exposed at least on an edge thereof (Fig. 1-2). As to Claim 9 , Choi discloses wherein the guide line is parallel to the length direction of the cap assembly (Fig. 1-4). As to Claim 11, the courts have held that the claimed configuration was a matter of choice which a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence the claimed configuration was significant, see MPEP 2144.04, IV, B. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the guide groove of Choi to read on the claims because Choi teaches that a secure connection can be obtained (paragraph [0069-0070]). Claim (s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US 2015/0287974 A1; as found in IDS dated 09/19/23) in view of Fujita (US 2019/0288264 A1; as found in IDS dated 08/20/24) as applied to claim s 7 - 9 and 11 above and in further view of You et al. (US 2014/0147736 A1) . As to Claim 10 , Choi does not specifically disclose wherein the guide line is perpendicular to the length direction of the cap assembly. However, You teaches of a battery cap assembly 20 , comprising: terminal plates 21c,22c having a guide line G2 passing through a center thereof and intersecting with a center of a rivet terminal 21a,22a and wherein the guide is perpendicular to the length direction of the cap assembly (Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0054 and 0070]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the terminal plate of Choi to comprise the claimed guide line because You teaches that water can be discharged from the terminal plate paragraph [0071]). In addition, the courts have held that the particular placement of the guide grooves of Choi would not have modified the operation of device and was therefore an obvious matter of design choice, see MPEP 2144.04, VI, C. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the guide groove of Choi to read on the claims because Choi teaches that a secure connection can be obtained (paragraph [0069-0070]). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 5-6 and 12-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior arts of record, Choi , Fujita and You , do not specifically disclose, teach, or fairly suggest wherein the guide line further comprises a plurality of third guide lines spaced apart from the first guide line and the second guide line (claims 5 and 12). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ADAM ARCIERO whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5116 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 8:00-5 ET . 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 Barbara Gilliam can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1330 . 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. /ADAM A ARCIERO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727