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 September 2, 2026
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response filed on June 04, 2026 has been received. Claims 1-13 are currently pending. Claims 1, 5, 7 and 12 have been amended.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Drawings
The objection to the drawings has been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments and response.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The claim rejections under 35 USC 112(b) on claims 1-13 are withdrawn because Applicant has amended the independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The claim rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi on claims 1-2 are withdrawn because Applicant has amended the independent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Choi and You on claims 3-4 are withdrawn because Applicant has amended the independent claim.
The claim rejections under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Choi and Fujita on claims 7-9 and 11 are withdrawn because Applicant has amended the independent claim.
The claim rejections under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Choi, Fujita and You on claim 10 is withdrawn because Applicant has amended the independent claim.
Claim(s) 1-2, 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) and .
As to Claim 1, Choi discloses a battery 100, comprising: 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 (Fig. 1-4 and paragraphs [0050-0052]). Choi does not specifically disclose wherein the guide line is provided on the uppermost plate surface and exposed to the outside of the battery cell.
However, Fujita teaches of a battery, comprising terminal plates 202 having a guide line (groove shown in the middle) on an uppermost plate surface exposed to an outside of the cell (Fig. 8a,c). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the terminal plates of Choi to comprise a guide line provided in the claimed manner because Fujita teaches that a structure with improved connection reliability is provided (paragraph [0011]).
As to Claim 2, Choi discloses wherein the guide line is parallel to the length direction of the cap assembly (Fig. 1-4).
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 wherein the guide line is provided on the uppermost plate surface and exposed to the outside of the battery cell or 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]). Fujita further teaches of terminal plates 202 having a guide line (groove shown in the middle) on an uppermost plate surface exposed to an outside of the cell (Fig. 8a,c). 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]). In addition, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the terminal plates of Choi to comprise a guide line provided in the claimed manner because Fujita teaches that a structure with improved connection reliability is provided (paragraph [0011]).
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) 3-4 and 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 claims 7-9 and 11 above and in further 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]).
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 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Original dependent claims 5 and 12 previously indicated as allowable have been amended into independent form. The reasons for allowance previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed on March 24, 2026 stand.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 ADAM ARCIERO whose telephone number is (571)270-5116. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (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
Prosecution Insights