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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
U.S.C 102 rejection to Takeshi are overcome by amendment. U.S.C. 103 rejection to Takeshi in light of MPEP 2144.04 Making Integral are presented below.
No arguments are presented to Fumihiro and therefore no change to the rejection has been made. In light of the new verbiage utilized in the instant claim, a figure mapping the features of Fumihiro to the new language is presented to improve clarity of the prior art as it reads on the scope of the instant claimed invention.
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, 3-6 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. The instant claim recites “…a location , at which a plurality of current collector tabs are bound together…” whereby the recitation of ‘a plurality of current collector tabs’ makes the claim indefinite. The preamble establishes the invention to be a singular electrode sheet whereby does the plurality limitation imply the negative and positive current collector tabs of the singular unit are bound together in a region? The instant specification does not have support for this. Alternatively, the bound region comprises additional and adjacent electrodes, which would be outside the scope as set by the preamble. Lastly, the reference to such as a location modifier is indefinite because the plurality of features lie outside the scope of the instant claim.
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, 3-4, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fumihiro et al (JP 2014-229435)
Claim 1, 3-4, 6: Fumihiro teaches a stacked battery [Abstract]. The mapping of scope features of the instant claims is found on Modified Fig 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
369
466
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The battery comprises a solid polymer electrolyte (solid-state battery) [0036]. The battery (1) comprises a positive and negative electrode separated by an electrolyte layer [0052]. Electrode tabs (40, 50) are electrically connected to current collectors (11, 21) via conductive leads (60, 70) whereby expandable parts (61, 71) provide the leads with an expandable function [Fig 5]. The current collector has a laminated portion (applicant’s current collector body) of active material respective to the electrode material (12, 22) [0052] which is separate from the non-laminated portion of tabs [Fig 5]. The expandable portions read on applicant’s bending region capable of stress relaxation in a sectional region [Fig 5]. Fumihiro teaches a shape:
PNG
media_image2.png
61
50
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. This shape is interpreted to be a wave shape in the form of a function of sinusoidal wave, triangular wave, and saw wave [Fig 5]. The stress relaxation section is the region with a wave shape located between a bonding section and the current collector body that comprises a laminated active material.
Fumihiro teaches a material casing on the outside of the electrochemical cell that is interpreted to be made of one sheet of foil and separate from the current collector tab [Fig 6]. There is no nexus to other recited elements of the instant claim so the encasing material is capable of reading on this feature.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshi et al (JP 2011-081925).
Claim 1: Takeshi teaches a laminate-type nonaqueous solid electrolyte battery with a tab having improved stability from breakage [Abstract]. The electrode sheets (having active material) of different polarity are stacked and have electrode leads connected to respective terminals that are bundled together and fixed to a container [0009; Fig 9]. Instant claim recitation to “lamination” is not interpreted to impart method weight into the instant claim as the instant claim, as stated in the preamble, is drawn to a product claim; the specifics of lamination are not patentably distinguishable so-long as the positively recited elements are arranged in the location as claimed. Takeshi teaches the laminate layers to be stacked with an electrolyte between layers [0014]. The current collector tab is a region extending from the current collector without active material thereon (3, 4) [Fig 2-3]. Applicants “Region” exists by a one sheet of foil other than the current collector tab as shown in Modified Fig 9; the figure maps the claim limitations to the prior art. A stress relaxation section comprises a wave shape and comprises a region where the plurality of current collector tabs become bonded through the region material and are thereby electrically connected. It is interpreted that the wave shape region and the bound region are separate regions because the bonding process removes the waves; applicant should be aware of the impact of bonding on the shape of the wave during prosecution so as not to overlap these regions unless it can be supported by the instant filed specification that the resulting structure comprises a welded and waved structure in the same region. See modified figure 9 for claim limitation mapping to the prior art structure.
PNG
media_image3.png
278
554
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Takeshi teaches a tab led structure that with a connection portion (62a) that is connected to the negative electrode tab by resistance welding or the like [0032]. Takeshi does not inherently teach a continuously and integrally formed current collector body and current collecting tab that extends through the stress relaxation section to a location capable of being bound with other electrode leads of a stacked configuration. The use of a single one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in Takeshi, a two piece construction welded together, would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice – MPEP 2144.04 V.B – whereby an engineer would obviate the separable versus integral construction in order to improve manufacturing time and manufacturing capabilities. The feature of a continuously and integral current collector body to include the stress relaxation section formed of a single sheet is obviated by the prior art [0032, Fig 9, MPEP 2144.04 V.B Making Integral].
Claim 6: Takeshi teaches a shale to be bend that has a decaying sinusoidal wave shape [Fig 9].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fumihiro et al (JP 2014-229435) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matumoto (PGPUB 2009/0080144)
Claim 5: Fumihiro teaches a wave shape of the electrode lead but is silent to teach a rectangular wave shape.
Matumoto teaches a multi-layered solid electrolytic capacitor cell [Abstract]. An electrode sheet (6) is taught to have a laminate portion (8) whereby an active material layer (2, 3b) is within the region and a non-laminated portion (7) which reads on applicant’s current collector tab portion whereby the element (1) of the prior art reads on applicant’s current collector [Figure 4]. The current collector tab portion comprises applicant’s stress relaxation sections through slits (16, 17) [Figure 5]. The element comprising the stress relieving slit of Matumoto is a current collecting element and therefore is interpreted to be analogous art; even though the instant reference is drawn to a battery and Matumoto is drawn to a solid electrolytic capacitor cell, the modification to the current collecting element is proper as one having ordinary skill in the art of batteries would look to capacitor art as analogous. The shape is considered to be rectangular wave, saw wave, and a thickness portion that is thinner other portions of the current collector tab [Fig 4, 5]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the current collector of Takeshi to have a saw wave shape formed of larger thickness and thinner thickness portions along a current collector, as taught by Matumoto, in order to alleviate stress between a layered stacked portion of a cell and a bundled portion of a cell [0009; Fig 5].
Claim(s) 4, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshi et al (JP 2011-081925) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matumoto (PGPUB 2009/0080144)
Claim 4, 5: Takeshi teaches a tab lead designed to have reduce breakage when the tab lead is bent [0049], but is silent to teach alternative shapes of the bend.
Matumoto teaches a multi-layered solid electrolytic capacitor cell [Abstract]. An electrode sheet (6) is taught to have a laminate portion (8) whereby an active material layer (2, 3b) is within the region and a non-laminated portion (7) which reads on applicant’s current collector tab portion whereby the element (1) of the prior art reads on applicant’s current collector [Figure 4]. The current collector tab portion comprises applicant’s stress relaxation sections through slits (16, 17) [Figure 5]. The element comprising the stress relieving slit of Matumoto is a current collecting element and therefore is interpreted to be analogous art; even though the instant reference is drawn to a battery and Matumoto is drawn to a solid electrolytic capacitor cell, the modification to the current collecting element is proper as one having ordinary skill in the art of batteries would look to capacitor art as analogous. The shape is considered to be rectangular wave, saw wave, and a thickness portion that is thinner other portions of the current collector tab [Fig 4, 5]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the current collector of Takeshi to have a saw wave shape formed of larger thickness and thinner thickness portions along a current collector, as taught by Matumoto, in order to alleviate stress between a layered stacked portion of a cell and a bundled portion of a cell [0009; Fig 5].
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshi et al (JP 2011-081925) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fumihiro et al (JP 2014-229435)
Claim 3: Takeshi teaches a wave shape, but is silent to teach a triangular wave shape.
Fumihiro teaches a triangular wave shape for the electrode connector of a battery [0036, 0052, Fig 5]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the shape of the tab of Takeshi to the shape of a triangular wave as taught by Fumihiro in order to have a lead designed to have reduce breakage when the tab lead is bent [0049].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 STEPHEN J YANCHUK whose telephone number is (571)270-7343. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10a-8p.
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, Nick Smith can be reached at 571-272-8760. 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.
/STEPHEN J YANCHUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752