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 I in the reply filed on 5/11/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 1, 5-7, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ji et al. (CN 207800663 U, see Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Ji et al. discloses in Figs 1-8, an end cover assembly (Fig 1) applied to a battery cell (Fig 2) and comprising: an end cover (ref 12) provided with an electrode lead-out hole (ref 13) and including a first mating portion (bottom portion of ref 12, Fig 1) provided at a side (Fig 1), facing inside of the battery cell (Fig 2), of the end cover (ref 12); an electrode terminal (ref 19) disposed at the end cover (ref 12, Fig 2) and covering (Figs 1, 2) the electrode lead-out hole (ref 13); and a connecting member (refs 15+16) configured to electrically connect the electrode terminal (ref 19) and an electrode assembly (at ref 26, Fig 2) of the battery cell (Fig 2), the connecting member (refs 15+16) including a second mating portion (area where ref 16 goes through ref 13, Figs 1-2) configured to be mated with (ref 16 in hole ref 13, connects to ref 12 underside) the first mating portion (bottom of ref 12, Fig 1) to provide deformation resistance (Figs 1, 2, 7) of the connecting member (refs 15+16) along a radial direction (Figs 1, 2) of the electrode lead-out hole (ref 13).
Regarding claim 5, Ji et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the first mating portion is one of a plurality of first mating portions (multiple holes 13 depicted, each having a mating portion, Fig 1) of the end cover (ref 12), and the plurality of first mating portions are evenly distributed along a circumferential direction (Fig 1, spacing of refs 13 and associated structure) of the electrode lead-out hole (ref 13); and the second mating portion is one of a plurality of mating portions (multiple connection points of ref 16 in each of the holes 13, Fig 1) of the connecting member (refs 15+16), and the plurality of second mating portions are disposed corresponding to (two of each depicted in Fig 2) the plurality of first mating portions (multiple holes 13 depicted, each having a mating portion, Fig 1).
Regarding claim 6, Ji et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the first mating portion includes a connecting convex portion (top of structure around refs 13, on ref 12, Fig 1), and a projection of the connecting convex portion along an axial direction (top of structure around refs 13, on ref 12, Fig 1) of the electrode lead-out hole (ref 13) at least partially overlaps (Figs 1, 2) the electrode terminal (ref 19).
Regarding claim 7, Ji et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses an insulating member (ref 17) disposed between the end cover (erf 12) and the connecting member, the insulating member (ref 17) including an insulating portion having an accommodation cavity (“cavities”, Fig 1 below), and the accommodation cavity (“cavities”, Fig 1 below) being configured to accommodate at least one of the first mating portion or the second mating portion (ref 16 passes through ref 17, including at least second mating portion, Figs 1, 2), to isolate the end cover (ref 12) from the connecting member (refs 15+16).
PNG
media_image1.png
250
354
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Ji et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the connecting member further includes at least two reinforcing blocks (each parts of ref 15, “skeleton”, Fig 2), and the reinforcing blocks and the second mating portion are disposed alternately along a circumferential direction (as depicted in Figs 1-2) of the electrode lead-out hole (ref 13).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji et al. (CN 207800663 U, see Machine Translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Conrad (US 2010/0236913).
Regarding claim 2, Ji et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the first mating portion and the second mating portion are mated in a plug-in manner along an axial direction of the electrode lead-out hole.
Conrad discloses in Figs 1-8, a battery (ref 1) including a cap (ref 10) and a battery body (ref 100). Connection terminals (refs 41, 42) are plugged in and snap fit to terminal structures (depicted in Fig 3) on an underside of the cap (ref 10). This configuration enhances the internal battery connections as well as enhances structural integrity of the overall battery structure ([0007]-[0016]).
Conrad and Ji et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the plugged / snap-fit connection disclosed by Conrad into the first and second mating structures of Ji et al. to enhance the internal battery connections as well as enhance overall structural integrity of the battery structure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 8- are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Instant dependent claims 3 and 8 each disclose structure of the end cover assembly including intricate structure of the first and second mating portions having the structure as set forth in claim 3 and spatially related to the connecting hole and terminal as set forth in the claim, as well as third and fourth mating portions as structurally set forth in the claim and as spatially related to each other and the remaining structure of the end cover assembly that is not disclosed or rendered obvious by the above applied prior art references of record. As such, these features have been determined to be allowable over the above-cited prior art references of record. Further, claims 4 and 9-13 are objected to since they depend from claims 3 and 8, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yeh et al. (US 2012/0052351) discloses in Figs 1-5, a battery (Abstract) including a cap assembly having a reinforcing block (ref 308) to enhance strength of the structure ([0025], [0045]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH J DOUYETTE whose telephone number is (571)270-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8A - 4P EST.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/KENNETH J DOUYETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights