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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 7/15/2026 does not put the application in condition for allowance.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8-9, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 and a2 as being anticipated by Iida (US Pub No. 2022/0271401)
Regarding Claim 1, Iida et al. teaches an electrochemical apparatus [Fig. 1, There are three battery cells, and in figure 10, 0026], comprising:
a first battery cell [see the cell closer to the right, Fig. 1], comprising a first conductive plate [60 closest to the right, Fig. 1, 0030];
a second battery cell [see middle cell, Fig. 1], the second battery cell and the first battery cell being stacked in a first direction [Fig. 1, 0025, see annotated figure], and the second battery cell comprising a second conductive plate [see 60 in middle cell, Fig. 1, 0030]; and
a first conductive member [30 and 31, Fig. 1, 0033]; the first conductive plate and the second
conductive plate being stacked on the first conductive member [Fig. 2B, 0032], and the first
conductive plate and the second conductive plate being connected to the first
conductive member through welding [70, Fig. 2B, 0040]; wherein
wherein one of the first conductive plate [60 closest to the right, Fig. 1, 0030] and the second conductive plate [see 60 in middle cell, Fig. 1, 0030] is located between the other of the first conductive plate and the second conductive plate and the first conductive member [30 and 31, Fig. 1, 0033 ] (when viewed from the direction from the first conductive plate to the second conductive plate, the first conductive plate is between the second conductive plate and the first conductive member, the first conductive plate is overlapping a portion of 31 in the first conductive member).
a mutually connected portion of the first conductive plate and the second
conductive plate comprises a first region and a second region [Fig. 2B, see annotated figure], the first conductive plate and the second conductive plate are welded to the first conductive member
in the first region [Fig. 2B, see annotated figure], the first conductive plate and the second conductive plate are connected in the second region through welding [the first and second conductive plate comprise a region that is part of the second region, which is not welded but connected to each other as a result of the welding in the first region],
and the second region is not connected to the first conductive member through welding [the welding region in the first region is not directly connected to the second region, meeting the limitations of the claim].
The outer circle shows the mutually connected portion. The inner circle is the first region. The rectangle and line show the second region. The solid arrows show the first direction. The dashed lines are the third direction.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
681
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image2.png
291
629
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8, Iida et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Iida et al. teaches wherein, the first battery cell comprises a first shell [see outside of battery closet to the right of the figure 1]; the second battery cell comprises a second shell; the second shell and the first
shell are stacked in the first direction [see outside of the middle battery in the middle of the figure 1]; and in a third direction perpendicular to the first direction [see annotated figure], the first conductive
member is provided with a first side and a second side opposite to each other; the
first shell and the second shell are located on the first side of the first conductive
member, and the first region and the second region are located on the second side
of the first conductive member [Fig. 1].
Regarding Claim 9, Iida et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Iida et al. teaches further comprising a substrate [50, Fig. 1, 0028], the first conductive member [30 and 31, Fig. 1, 0033] is disposed on the substrate [50, Fig. 1, 0028]; in the third direction, the substrate is provided with a third side and a fourth side opposite to each other [See sides of 50 for third and fourth sides, Fig. 1, the third side is facing the battery, and the fourth side is facing away from battery], the first shell and the second shell are located on the third side of the substrate, and the first region and the second region are located on the fourth side of the substrate [Fig. 1, the first region and second region are part of the same structure as the substrate so would be “on” the substrate]; and
in the third direction, the first conductive member is at least partially exposed
to the fourth side of the substrate [Fig. 1].
Regarding Claim 20, Iida et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Iida et al. teaches an electrical device, comprising the electrochemical apparatus according
to claim 1 [Fig. 1, 0025].
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2-7, and 10-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iida (US Pub No. 2022/0271401)
Regarding Claim 2, Iida et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Iida et al. is silent on wherein, a length of the first region in a second direction is greater than a length of the
first region in the first direction; a length of the second region in the second direction is greater than a length of the second region in the first direction; and the second direction is perpendicular to the first direction.
As the construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the battery, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the battery are changed, the precise parameters of the battery would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein, a length of the first region in a second direction is greater than a length of the first region in the first direction; a length of the second region in the second direction is greater than a length of the second region in the first direction; and the second direction is perpendicular to the first direction.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the battery to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 3, Iida et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Iida et al. is silent on wherein, in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, a length of the first region is a first length, a length of the second region is a second length, and the first length is not equal to the second length.
As the construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the battery, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the battery are changed, the precise parameters of the battery would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein, in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, a length of the first region is a first length, a length of the second region is a second length, and the first length is not equal to the second length.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the battery to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 4, Iida et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Iida et al. is silent on wherein, the first length is less than the second length.
As the construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the battery, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the battery are changed, the precise parameters of the battery would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein, the first length is less than the second length.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the battery to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 5, Iida et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Iida et al. is silent on wherein, the first length is greater than the second length.
As the construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the battery, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the battery are changed, the precise parameters of the battery would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein, the first length is greater than the second length.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the battery to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 6, Iida et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Iida et al. is silent on wherein, in a third direction perpendicular to the first direction, a projection of the first region at
least partially overlaps a projection of the first conductive member, and a
projection of the second region is separated from the projection of the first
conductive member.
As the construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the battery, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the battery are changed, the precise parameters of the battery would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein, in a third direction perpendicular to the first direction, a projection of the first region at least partially overlaps a projection of the first conductive member, and a projection of the second region is separated from the projection of the first conductive member.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the battery to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 7, Iida et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Iida et al. is silent on wherein, in a third direction perpendicular to the first direction, a projection of the first region at
least partially overlaps a projection of the first conductive member, and a
projection of the second region at least partially overlaps the projection of the first
conductive member.
As the construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the battery, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the battery are changed, the precise parameters of the battery would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein, in a third direction perpendicular to the first direction, a projection of the first region at least partially overlaps a projection of the first conductive member, and a projection of the second region at least partially overlaps the projection of the first conductive member.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the battery to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 10, Iida et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Iida et al. is silent on wherein, in the second direction, a length of the first conductive plate is a third length,
and a sum of the first length and the second length is less than the third length;
and in the second direction, a length of the second conductive plate is a fourth
length, and the sum of the first length and the second length is less than the fourth
length.
As the construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the battery, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the battery are changed, the precise parameters of the battery would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein, in the second direction, a length of the first conductive plate is a third length, and a sum of the first length and the second length is less than the third length; and in the second direction, a length of the second conductive plate is a fourth length, and the sum of the first length and the second length is less than the fourth length.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the battery to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 11, Iida et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Iida et al. is silent wherein, in the second direction, a distance between the first region and the second region is a
first distance, and the first distance is greater than 0 and less than or equal to 2
mm.
As the construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the battery, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the battery are changed, the precise parameters of the battery would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein, in the
second direction, a distance between the first region and the second region is a
first distance, and the first distance is greater than 0 and less than or equal to 2
mm.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the battery to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 12, Iida et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Iida et al. is silent wherein, in the first direction, a length of the first region is a first dimension, a length of the second
region is a second dimension, a length of the first conductive member is a third
dimension, and both the first dimension and the second dimension are less than
the third dimension.
As the construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the battery, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the battery are changed, the precise parameters of the battery would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein, in the first
direction, a length of the first region is a first dimension, a length of the second region is a second dimension; a length of the first conductive member is a third dimension, and both the first dimension and the second dimension are less than the third dimension.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the battery to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 13, Iida et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Iida et al. is silent wherein, the first dimension is not equal to the second dimension.
As the construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the battery, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the battery are changed, the precise parameters of the battery would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein, the first
dimension is not equal to the second dimension.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the battery to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 14, Iida et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Iida et al. is silent on further comprising a third battery cell, comprising a third conductive plate;
a fourth battery cell, the third battery cell and the fourth battery cell being
stacked in the first direction, and the fourth battery cell comprising a fourth
conductive plate; and a second conductive member, the third conductive plate and the fourth
conductive plate being stacked on the second conductive member, and the third
conductive plate and the fourth conductive plate being connected to the second
conductive member through welding, wherein a mutually connected portion of the third conductive plate and the fourth conductive plate comprises a third region and a fourth region, the third conductive
plate and the fourth conductive plate are welded to the second conductive member
in the third region, and the third conductive plate and the fourth conductive plate
are connected in the fourth region through welding.
The recitation of a third battery cell, fourth battery cell, third conductive plate, fourth conductive plate, and second conductive member are merely the duplication of parts, and one skilled in the art would have expected a convention battery in figure 1 to have more than the three battery cells shown in figure 1, resulting in additional battery cells, conductive plates and conductive members.
The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 15, Iida et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Iida et al. teaches wherein, the fourth region is not connected to the second conductive member through welding [see rejection of claim 1 and 14].
Regarding Claim 16, Iida et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Iida et al. teaches wherein, the fourth region is welded to the second conductive member [see rejection of claims 1 and 14]
Regarding Claim 17, Iida et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Iida et al. is silent on wherein, in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, a length of the third region is a sixth
length, a length of the fourth region is a seventh length, and the sixth length is not
equal to the seventh length.
As the construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the battery, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the battery are changed, the precise parameters of the battery would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein, in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, a length of the third region is a sixth length, a length of the fourth region is a seventh length, and the sixth length is not equal to the seventh length.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the battery to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 18, Iida et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Iida et al. is silent on wherein, in the first direction, a projection of the first region partially overlaps a projection of the third
region, and a projection of the second region partially overlaps a projection of the
fourth region.
As the construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the battery, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the battery are changed, the precise parameters of the battery would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein, in the first direction, a projection of the first region partially overlaps a projection of the third
region, and a projection of the second region partially overlaps a projection of the
fourth region.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the battery to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 19, Iida et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Iida et al. is silent on wherein, in the first direction, a projection of the third conductive plate is separated
from a projection of the first conductive plate and separated from a projection of
the second conductive plate, and a projection of the fourth conductive plate is
separated from the projection of the first conductive plate and separated from the
projection of the second conductive plate.
As the construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the battery, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the battery are changed, the precise parameters of the battery would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein, in the first direction, a projection of the third conductive plate is separated from a projection of the first conductive plate and separated from a projection of the second conductive plate, and a projection of the fourth conductive plate is separated from the projection of the first conductive plate and separated from the
projection of the second conductive plate.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the battery to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding the new limitations in claim 1, Iida et al. teaches wherein one of the first conductive plate [60 closest to the right, Fig. 1, 0030] and the second conductive plate [see 60 in middle cell, Fig. 1, 0030] is located between the other of the first conductive plate and the second conductive plate and the first conductive member [30 and 31, Fig. 1, 0033 ] (when viewed from the direction from the first conductive plate to the second conductive plate, the first conductive plate is between the second conductive plate and the first conductive member, the first conductive plate is overlapping a portion of 31 in the first conductive member).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MICHAEL Y SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-0557. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-7PM.
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, MATTHEW MARTIN can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/MICHAEL Y SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights