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 and species B in the reply filed on 07/19/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 1, 7, 13, 15 and 16 recite the broad recitation 1/8 to 1, and each claim also recites or 1/5 to 1 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 11 and 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Both claims recite a height of the electrical connection part protruding out of the positive cover plate is from 0 to 2mm, yet claim 1 from which they depend requires the electrical connection part to protrude towards the positive cover plate. One of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize a 0 mm height as protruding towards the cover plate. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 11-13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al.(CN209328960 as cited in the IDS dated 4/22/26, reference made to attached English translation).
Regarding claim 1, Xu discloses a current collector plate(1, ¶[0036], Fig. 2) which may be a positive collector plate(¶[0021]), wherein the positive current collector plate is located between positive tabs and a positive cover plate(see end cap 2 Fig. 2 and ¶[0047] where the collector may be in contact and welded to the positive inner core which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as positive tabs), the positive current collector plate comprises a plate body(i.e. portion of current collector not the flange 102a) and an electrical connection part(flange 102a), the electrical connection part extends and protrudes from the plate body towards the positive cover plate and is in contact with the positive cover plate(Fig. 2).
Xu does not specify the cross-sectional area of the electrical connection part, however, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood to set the size of the cross-sectional area of the electrical connection part based on the size of the battery and the desired conductivity/resistance needs to the connection within the battery.
Therefore it would have been obvious to have set the numerical value of minimum cross-sectional area (unit: mm2) of the electrical connection part is from 1/8 to 1 or from 1/5 to 1 of a numerical value of 1C current (unit: A) the size as well as desired conductivity/resistance needs to the battery.
A change in proportion or relative dimension is obvious in the absence of unexpected results. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit 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.
Regarding claim 2, Xu discloses a positive electrode plate according to claim 1 and further discloses wherein a through hole is provided in the central position of the plate body(i.e. flange hole 102, ¶[0036], Fig. 2)), the electrical connection part is formed by extending and protruding from an outer edge of the through hole towards the positive cover plate(see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Xu discloses a positive electrode plate according to claim 1 and further discloses wherein the electrical connection part has a circular cross-section(see annular flange, ¶[0036]), the positive cover plate is provided with a central hole, the electrical connection part is inserted into and extends out of the central hole, and an outer wall of the electrical connection part is in contact with a side wall of the central hole(Fig. 2, see hole/opening in center of end cap 2 which collector plate 1 is within and abuts).
Regarding claim 5, Xu discloses a positive electrode plate according to claim 4 and further discloses wherein the electrical connection part is a hollow truncated cone shaped structure with a gradually decreasing diameter in a direction towards the positive cover plate(see upper most portion of flange 102a in Fig. 3 which curves gradually to narrow hole 102), and the angle between the side outer wall of the electrical connection part and the vertical direction is 0°.
Regarding claim 7, Xu discloses a positive electrode plate according to claim 1 and further discloses wherein the annular flange(i.e. electrical connection part) is welded to the end cap(¶[0010]).
Xu does not specify the size of the welding area between the electrical connection part and the positive cover plate or the size of the contact area at the position where the electrical connection part is connected with the plate body, however, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood to set the size of the welding area between the electrical connection part and the positive cover plate or the contact area at the position where the electrical connection part is connected with the plate body based on the size of the battery and the required strength of attachment needs to the battery.
Therefore it would have been obvious to have set the numerical value of welding area (unit: mm2) between the electrical connection part and the positive cover plate is from ⅛ to 1 or from ⅕ to 1 of a numerical value of 1C current (unit: A); a numerical value of contact area (unit: mm2) at the position where the electrical connection part is connected with the plate body is from ⅛ to 1 or from ⅕ to 1 of a numerical value of 1C current (unit: A) based on the size of the battery and the required strength of attachment needs to the battery.
A change in proportion or relative dimension is obvious in the absence of unexpected results. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit 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.
Regarding claim 11, Xu discloses a positive electrode plate according to claim 4, but does not specify the height of the electrical connection part.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood to set the height of the electrical connection part based on the size of the battery to achieve the desired form factor.
Therefore it would have been obvious to have set the height of the electrical connection part protruding out of the positive cover plate to 0 to 2 mm.
A change in proportion or relative dimension is obvious in the absence of unexpected results. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit 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.
Regarding claim 12, Xu discloses a positive electrode plate according to claim 5, but does not specify the height of the electrical connection part.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood to set the height of the electrical connection part based on the size of the battery to achieve the desired form factor.
Therefore it would have been obvious to have set the height of the electrical connection part protruding out of the positive cover plate to 0 to 2 mm.
A change in proportion or relative dimension is obvious in the absence of unexpected results. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit 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.
Regarding claim 13, Xu discloses a positive electrode plate according to claim 2 and further discloses wherein the annular flange(i.e. electrical connection part) is welded to the end cap(¶[0010]).
Xu does not specify the size of the welding area between the electrical connection part and the positive cover plate or the size of the contact area at the position where the electrical connection part is connected with the plate body, however, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood to set the size of the welding area between the electrical connection part and the positive cover plate or the contact area at the position where the electrical connection part is connected with the plate body based on the size of the battery and the required strength of attachment needs to the battery.
Therefore it would have been obvious to have set the numerical value of welding area (unit: mm2) between the electrical connection part and the positive cover plate is from ⅛ to 1 or from ⅕ to 1 of a numerical value of 1C current (unit: A); a numerical value of contact area (unit: mm2) at the position where the electrical connection part is connected with the plate body is from ⅛ to 1 or from ⅕ to 1 of a numerical value of 1C current (unit: A) based on the size of the battery and the required strength of attachment needs to the battery.
A change in proportion or relative dimension is obvious in the absence of unexpected results. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit 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.
Regarding claim 15, Xu discloses a positive electrode plate according to claim 4 and further discloses wherein the annular flange(i.e. electrical connection part) is welded to the end cap(¶[0010]).
Xu does not specify the size of the welding area between the electrical connection part and the positive cover plate or the size of the contact area at the position where the electrical connection part is connected with the plate body, however, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood to set the size of the welding area between the electrical connection part and the positive cover plate or the contact area at the position where the electrical connection part is connected with the plate body based on the size of the battery and the required strength of attachment needs to the battery.
Therefore it would have been obvious to have set the numerical value of welding area (unit: mm2) between the electrical connection part and the positive cover plate is from ⅛ to 1 or from ⅕ to 1 of a numerical value of 1C current (unit: A); a numerical value of contact area (unit: mm2) at the position where the electrical connection part is connected with the plate body is from ⅛ to 1 or from ⅕ to 1 of a numerical value of 1C current (unit: A) based on the size of the battery and the required strength of attachment needs to the battery.
A change in proportion or relative dimension is obvious in the absence of unexpected results. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit 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.
Regarding claim 16, Xu discloses a positive electrode plate according to claim 5 and further discloses wherein the annular flange(i.e. electrical connection part) is welded to the end cap(¶[0010]).
Xu does not specify the size of the welding area between the electrical connection part and the positive cover plate or the size of the contact area at the position where the electrical connection part is connected with the plate body, however, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood to set the size of the welding area between the electrical connection part and the positive cover plate or the contact area at the position where the electrical connection part is connected with the plate body based on the size of the battery and the required strength of attachment needs to the battery.
Therefore it would have been obvious to have set the numerical value of welding area (unit: mm2) between the electrical connection part and the positive cover plate is from ⅛ to 1 or from ⅕ to 1 of a numerical value of 1C current (unit: A); a numerical value of contact area (unit: mm2) at the position where the electrical connection part is connected with the plate body is from ⅛ to 1 or from ⅕ to 1 of a numerical value of 1C current (unit: A) based on the size of the battery and the required strength of attachment needs to the battery.
A change in proportion or relative dimension is obvious in the absence of unexpected results. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN J. ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (703)756-1243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am-6 pm 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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/K.J.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1726 /RYAN S CANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights