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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 18-20 in the reply filed on May 27, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 27, 2026.
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) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morin et al (US 2020/0373584).
Regarding claim 20, Morin teaches battery connections and metallized film components in energy storage devices (such as batteries) having internal fuses (title). Morin teaches metallized current collectors welded to form contacts with tabs (abstract). The metallized current collectors are taught to comprise a polymeric substrate metallized (coated) upon both sides, thus sandwiching the polymeric layer/substrate (pars. 20 and 72 and Fig. 4). Morin teaches a weld, which is considered to constitute the claimed conductive material, is employed for connection purposes between the current collector and the tab (par. 45) and thereby forming a joint, thus indicating that at least a portion of the conductive material/joint is located/sandwiched between the tab and the metallized current collector. It is further noted Morin, at paragraph 15, teaches that “[the] welds exhibit placement of conductive material passing through [the] tab from its exposed top surface to [the] covered surface of [the] thin film current collector,” wherein the tab is laid upon said thin film such that the tab has an exposed top surface or a bottom surface in contact with a covered surface of the thin film current collector.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Morin et al (US 2020/0373584).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Morin teaches battery connections and metallized film components in energy storage devices (such as batteries) having internal fuses (title). Morin teaches metallized current collectors welded to form contacts with tabs (abstract). The metallized current collectors are taught to comprise a polymeric substrate metallized (coated) upon both sides, thus sandwiching the polymeric layer/substrate (pars. 20 and 72 and Fig. 4). Morin teaches a weld, which is considered to constitute the claimed conductive material, is employed for connection purposes between the current collector and the tab (par. 45) and thereby forming a joint, thus indicating that at least a portion of the conductive material/joint is located/sandwiched between the tab and the metallized current collector. It is further noted Morin, at paragraph 15, teaches that “[the] welds exhibit placement of conductive material passing through [the] tab from its exposed top surface to [the] covered surface of [the] thin film current collector,” wherein the tab is laid upon said thin film such that the tab has an exposed top surface or a bottom surface in contact with a covered surface of the thin film current collector.
In the event any differences can be shown for the product of the product-by-process claims 18 and 19, as opposed to the product taught by Morin, such differences would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a routine modification of the product in the absence of a showing of unexpected results; see also In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964 (CAFC 1985).
When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or 103 of the statute is appropriate. As a practical matter, the Patent and Trademark Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith. A lesser burden of proof is required to make out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their particular nature than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. In re Brown, 59 CCPA 1063, 173 USPQ 685 (1972); In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324 (CCPA 1974).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLIN W SLIFKA whose telephone number is (571)270-5830. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 AM-5:30 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, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/Colin W. Slifka/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights