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. POWER STORAGE CELL Examiner: Adam Arciero S.N. 18/ 466,237 Art Unit: 1727 March 14, 2026 DETAILED ACTION The Application filed on September 13 , 2023 has been entered. Claims 1- 5 are currently pending and have been fully considered. 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 - 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Maeda et al. (US 2021/0036299 A1 ; as found in IDS dated 01/22/2025 ) . As to Claim 1, Maeda discloses a battery, comprising: an electrode assembly; a cell case 100,110 ; and an external terminal 300 , comprising: a terminal plate 301 (the upper flat surface) located above the cell case; and an insulating plate 350 located between the terminal plate and the cell case in a manner that a gap 320 is formed between the insulating plate and the terminal plate (Fig. 1-2 and 6, paragraphs [0036, 0042, 0047, 0055, 0075]). As to Claim 2, Maeda discloses wherein the insulating plate has a flat plate portion 354 located on the upper surface of the cell case ; and a plurality of intervening portions interposed between the flat plate portion and the terminal plate, and the intervening portions 355 are spaced from each other and in contact with the flat plate portion and the terminal plate (Fig. 6). As to Claim s 3 -4 , Maeda discloses wherein the insulating member (which includes the intervening portions) is made of a resin and prepared by resin molding (which reads on an adhered member adhered to both the flat-plate portion and the terminal plate and a hardened product of an adhesive agent consisting of a resin composition ) (Fig. 6 and paragraph s [0051 and 0065 ]). 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 (s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda et al. (US 2021/0036299 A1 ; as found in IDS dated 01/22/2025 ) in view of Kwon et al. (KR 1020040022715; using machine translation for citation purposes) . As to Claim 5, Maeda discloses the insulating plate structure of claim 5 as discussed in the rejections above and using a polyethylene resin as an insulating plate/intervening portion material (paragraph [0051]). Maeda does not specifically disclose wherein the material is a foamed resin. However, Kwon teaches of a battery comprising an insulator is made of a polyethylene foamed resin (paragraph [59]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the insulating plate of Maeda to comprise a foamed resin because Kwon teaches that such a materially has excellent restorability (paragraph [59]). 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