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. Examiner’s Comments The examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, paragraphs, or figures in the references as applied to the claims for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Drawings Figures 1-4 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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. The drawings are objected to because Figure 5 includes a reference line without a reference number (structure directly above reference (31)). 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 § 102 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. Claims 1, 3-6, 8-9, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 110729447 . Regarding claim s 1 and 13 , CN ‘447 discloses a battery and a case comprising an electrode assembly, comprising a first electrode plate, a second electrode plate, and a separator located between the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate , wherein the first electrode plate comprises a first current collector and a first membrane disposed on the first current collection, and the first membrane is provided with a first tab groove , and the second electrode plate includes a second current collector and a second membrane disposed on the second current collector, the second membrane is provided with a blocking groove and an alignment region defined by the blocking groove, and an orthogonal projection of the alignment region on the on the first electrode plate covers the first tab groove (All Figs, claims, in addition to annotated figure set below ). Regarding claims 3- 6 and 15-18 , CN ‘447 discloses that the cross section of the groove is square, thereby would comprises of plurality of groove as claimed (4 sides). Additionally, since CN ‘447 discloses a cross section being square, it would include that the first preset angle and the second present angle is 90°. Further , CN ‘447 also discloses that the cross section of the groove is U-shaped, thereby a cross-section of U would include annular groove overall (combining two cross sections) and circular shape, which thereby surrounds the alignment region. Regarding claim 8, CN ‘447 discloses the plates as claimed ( Fig. 7 ). Regarding claim 9, CN ‘447 discloses an insulating film as claimed (All Figs). Regarding claim 20, CN ‘447 discloses an electrical device as claimed. 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. Claims 2-7, 10-12, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110729447. Regarding claim s 2 and 14 , a lthough CN ‘447 discloses that the distance from the bottom surface of the groove to the current collector of the electrode piece is less than or equal to the thickness of the coating area (emphasis added), CN ‘447 fails to explicitly disclose that the blocking groove is a surface of the second current collector. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Malagari , 182 USPQ 549. Regarding claims 3-6, CN ‘447 discloses that the cross section of the groove is square, thereby would comprises of plurality of groove as claimed (4 sides). Additionally, since CN ‘447 discloses a cross section being square, it would include that the first preset angle and the second present angle is 90°. Further, CN ‘447 also discloses that the cross section of the groove is U-shaped, thereby a cross-section of U would include annular groove overall (combining two cross sections) and circular shape, which thereby surrounds the alignment region. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose any shape as claimed, since CN ‘447 are open to variety of suitable shapes. Furthermore, it has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23. Regarding claims 7, 10-12 and 19, CN ‘447 recognizes that the groove’s dimensions and their relationship with the plates and the insulating film helps reduce the overall thickness of the battery core, improves the energy density of the battery, and thus improves the quality of the battery. The courts have held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, see MPEP 2144.05, II, B. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the dimensions of the plate, insulating film, and the blocking groove to satisfy the claimed relationship and dimensions to read on the claims because that the groove’s dimensions and their relationship with the plates and the insulating film, which contributes to the overall thicknesses of the battery core, improve energy density and quality life of the battery. In addition, the courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device, see MPEP 2144.04, IV, A. Additionally, the law is replete with cases in which the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range, variable or other dimensional limitation within the claims, patentability cannot be found. It furthermore has been held in such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range(s); see In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Moreover, the instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions; see Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT LINDA N CHAU whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5835 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 9AM-5PM EST M-F . 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 Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1291 . 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. Linda Chau /L.N.C/ Examiner, Art Unit 1785 /Holly Rickman/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785