DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. Information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted July 8, 2025, has been received and considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
4. All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
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.
5. Claims 2, 11, 14, and 19 are 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. Claim 2 recites “the plurality of pole bodies are mounted in the mounting holes, and the pole bodies pass through the mounting holes corresponding to the pole bodies” but there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the pole bodies” because this does not refer to the previously recited “plurality of pole bodies” and so it is unclear what pole bodies are further limited. In the interest of compact prosecution, this limitation is interpreted as “the plurality of pole bodies are mounted in the mounting holes, and the plurality of pole bodies pass through the mounting holes corresponding to the plurality of pole bodies”. Claims 11, 14, and 19 are rejected as being dependent upon rejected Claim 2.
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 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.
(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.
6. Claims 1-3, 10, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zheng CN109273660.
Regarding Claims 1 and 10, Zheng discloses battery (power battery, Fig. 9, meeting Claim 10) and a top cover for a battery comprising a body (top cover plate/sheet) 100 and a pole riveting block (first terminal block/plate) 230 (para 0088, riveting is used) and a plurality of pole bodies (pole posts) 220 (para 0080) wherein the plurality of pole bodies are arranged on the body 100 and the plurality of pole bodies 220 are connected to the pole riveting block 230 (see entire disclosure and especially Figs and paras 0014-0024, 0075-0088).
Regarding Claims 2 and 19, Zheng further discloses the battery (meeting Claim 19) wherein the body 100 is provided with a plurality of mounting holes (see annotated Fig), the pole bodies 220 are mounted in the mounting holes, and the pole bodies pass through the mounting holes correspond to the pole bodies as to electrically connected to the pole riveting block 230 (see para 0077, “first conductive plate 210 is conductive to the first terminal plate 230 through the first pole post 220”).
PNG
media_image1.png
568
906
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 3 and 20, Zheng discloses the battery (meeting Claim 20) wherein the plurality of pole bodies 220 comprises first sub-pole bodies (first part) 221 and second sub-pole bodies 222 (paras 0076-0078) wherein the first sub-pole bodies 221 and second sub-pole bodies 222 are spaced apart from each other in a length direction of the battery since the first sub-pole bodies 221 are spaced apart from each other, as are the second sub-pole bodies 222, in the length direction (see annotated Fig above).
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
7. Claims 4, 7, 9, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng CN109273660, as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Matsubara US PG Publication 2005/0014064.
Regarding Claim 4, Zheng discloses the claimed top cover for a battery as described in the rejection of Claim 1, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Zheng discloses wherein there are two pole riveting blocks, 230 and 330, and the skilled artisan would appreciate that the claimed pole riveting block has a length L2, while the body 100 has a length L1. It is clear that to have two pole riveting blocks 230/330 positioned on the body 100, in addition to other elements in the body 100 (electrolyte hole and vent, according to Fig. 8), a total length of each riveting block MUST be less than half of the length of the body 100, and so, e.g. L2/L1 would necessarily be less than 0.5. Zheng does not specifically teach wherein the ratio is greater than or equal to 0.3. However, in the same field of endeavor of battery design, Matsubara discloses that a battery terminal is required to have sufficient of an area to facilitate connection with an electronic device or a lead wire (see para 0009). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the top cover of Zheng such that the pole riveting block has dimensions that are large enough to facilitate connection with an electronic device or a lead wire, such that e.g. the length is maximized relative to the space available on the body of Zheng while taking into account the space that the other components need, such that 0.3 ≤ L2/L1 ≤ 0.5 because Matsubara teaches that this optimization is needed to ensure connection with an electronic device. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding Claims 7 and 14-16, Zheng discloses a width H1 of the body 100 and a width H2 of the pole riveting block 230 (H1 and H2 are mere labelling conventions and see annotated Fig below) but does not specifically disclose wherein the following relational expression is satisfied: 0.5 ≤ H2/H1 ≤ 0.9. However, Zheng shows the pole riveting block 230 is very close to the same width as the body 100 in e.g. Fig 8). Further, Matsubara’s teaching of maximizing the area of the terminal block would lead the skilled artisan to design 230 of Zheng to be as wide as possible without extending off the plate, such that an “almost as wide” block could be selected as e.g. 90% of the width of the body 100 since 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. The size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 9, Zheng modified by Masumura does not specifically disclose wherein a width of the first and second sub-pole bodies 221/222 is H3 and a rational expression is satisfied: 0.5 ≤ H3/H1 ≤ 0.8. However, since it is obvious that the pole riveting block 230 has a relational expression of 0.5 ≤ H2/H1 ≤ 0.9 with the width of the body 100, and the first and second sub-pole bodies 221/222 are held within the pole riveting block (and are therefore smaller than the width of the pole riveting block), then the skilled artisan would find it obvious to design H3 to have a relational expression with the width of the body that is slightly smaller than that of the pole riveting block vs. the body (e.g. in the claims, H2/H1 can be at most 0.9 while H3/H1 can be at most 0.8). The size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04). 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.
PNG
media_image2.png
175
555
media_image2.png
Greyscale
8. Claims 5-6 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng CN109273660, as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Yu CN214043796.
Regarding Claims 5 and 11-12, Zheng discloses the claimed top cover for a battery as described in the rejection of Claim 1, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Zheng discloses what the skilled artisan would interpret as a vent or exhaust valve arranged on the body 100 (see Fig below):
PNG
media_image3.png
522
628
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and the skilled artisan would see that the body 100 has a first end and a second end opposite of each other in the length direction, and that there is a distance L3 between an end of the pole riveting block 230 away from the vent or valve and the first end, and there is a distance L4 between of the vent or valve away from the pole riveting block 230 and the second end (see annotated Fig above) but Zheng does not specifically wherein the top cover specifically comprises an explosion-proof valve arranged on the body 100 and does not specifically disclose the relational expression 0.1 ≤ L3/L1 ≤ 0.3 or 0.05 ≤ L4/L1 ≤ 0.3 (addressing Claim 6). However, in the same field of endeavor of battery cover design, Yu discloses wherein an explosion-proof valve 14 is provided to the cover assembly of a battery (para 0013, 0037) which provides protection to the battery (see entire disclosure and especially Figs 1-2 and paras cited above). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the cover of Zheng with an explosion-proof valve since Yu teaches that this protects the battery.
Zheng modified by Yu does not specifically disclose the relational expression 0.1 ≤ L3/L1 ≤ 0.3 or 0.05 ≤ L4/L1 ≤ 0.3. However, since Zheng shows multiple elements on the body 100 then the skilled artisan would understand that the arrangement of the elements (including positioning of elements relative to the ends of the body 100) would be needed, including positioning the center of the valve in a relatively central location and positioning the pole riveting block 230 such that it is close to an end of the body 100 (see Figs of Zheng), then the skilled artisan could arrive at a value of L3/L1 where the end of 230 closer to the first end of the body 100 is 0.1 of the length to 0.3 of the length of the body 100 (fulfilling the claimed relationship 0.1 ≤ L3/L1 ≤ 0.3) and the end of the valve (and the explosion-proof valve of modified Zheng) would be in a position within a third of the second end of the body 100 (e.g. in order to ensure correct positioning to fit the other elements on the body) by a routine design process (fulfilling the claimed relationship 0.05 ≤ L4/L1 ≤ 0.3), since 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. Further, the mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
8. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng CN109273660, as applied to Claim 3, and further in view of Xiao CN111403671.
Regarding Claim 8, Zheng discloses the claimed top cover for a battery as described in the rejection of Claim 3, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Zheng discloses wherein a length of first sub-pole body is L5 and a length of the second sub-pole body is L6 (these being mere naming conventions) (see annotated Fig below) but Zheng fails to specifically disclose a relationship between the claimed lengths and a length of the pole riveting block L2, e.g. 0.5 ≤ (L5+L6)/L2 ≤ 1.5. However, in the same field of endeavor of battery cover design, Xiao discloses wherein a terminal pole/column size can be optimized to avoid damage caused by over-current, for example (para 0036). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the top cover of Zheng such that the size/length of the sub-pole bodies (and ultimately the pole bodies) are sufficiently sized to ensure damage is avoided as taught by Xiao.
9. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng CN109273660 in view of Matsubara US PG Publication 2005/0015064, as applied to Claim 4, and further in view of Yu CN21404379.
Regarding Claim 13, Zheng modified by Matsubara discloses the claimed top cover for a battery as described in the rejection of Claim 4, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Zheng discloses what the skilled artisan would interpret as a vent or exhaust valve arranged on the body 100 (see Fig below):
PNG
media_image4.png
432
611
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and the skilled artisan would see that the body 100 has a first end and a second end opposite of each other in the length direction, and that there is a distance L3 between an end of the pole riveting block 230 away from the vent or valve and the first end (see annotated Fig above) but Zheng does not specifically wherein the top cover specifically comprises an explosion-proof valve arranged on the body 100 and does not specifically disclose the relational expression 0.1 ≤ L3/L1 ≤ 0.3. However, in the same field of endeavor of battery cover design, Yu discloses wherein an explosion-proof valve 14 is provided to the cover assembly of a battery (para 0013, 0037) which provides protection to the battery (see entire disclosure and especially Figs 1-2 and paras cited above). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the cover of Zheng with an explosion-proof valve since Yu teaches that this protects the battery.
Zheng modified by Yu does not specifically disclose the relational expression 0.1 ≤ L3/L1 ≤ 0.3. However, since Zheng shows multiple elements on the body 100 then the skilled artisan would understand that the arrangement of the elements (including positioning of elements relative to the ends of the body 100) would be needed, including positioning the center of the valve in a relatively central location and positioning the pole riveting block 230 such that it is close to an end of the body 100 (see Figs of Zheng), then the skilled artisan could arrive at a value of L3/L1 where the end of 230 closer to the first end of the body 100 is 0.1 of the length to 0.3 of the length of the body 100 (fulfilling the claimed relationship 0.1 ≤ L3/L1 ≤ 0.3), since 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. Further, the mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
10. Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng CN109273660 in view of Yu CN21404379, as applied to Claim 5 and 6, and further in view of Matsubara US PG Publication 2005/0015064.
Regarding Claims 17-18, Zheng modified by Yu discloses the claimed top cover for a battery as described in the rejection of Claims 5 and 6, which are incorporated herein in their entireties. Zheng further discloses a width H1 of the body 100 and a width H2 of the pole riveting block 230 (H1 and H2 are mere labelling conventions; see annotated Fig above) but does not specifically disclose wherein the following relational expression is satisfied: 0.5 ≤ H2/H1 ≤ 0.9. However, Zheng shows the pole riveting block 230 is very close to the same width as the body 100 in e.g. Fig 8). Further, in the same field of endeavor, Matsubara teaches to maximize the area of the terminal block (see rejections above in view of Matsubara) which would lead the skilled artisan to design 230 of Zheng modified by Yu and Matsubara to be as wide as possible without extending off the plate, such that an “almost as wide” block could be selected as e.g. 90% of the width of the body 100, since 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. The size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA S PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-3597. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30a to 3p Eastern Time.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached on 5712721481. 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.
/LISA S PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights