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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office Action.
Applicant’s amendments have been received on 1/23/26. Claims 1, 7 and 11 have been amended. Claims 13 and 14 are new.
Applicants have submitted amendments to the Drawings and Specification on 1/23/26
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office Action.
Drawings
The amended drawings submitted on 1/23/26 will not be considered as components 50, 60 are new matter. The original drawings do not have components 50 and 60 at the end of the tabs. The base of the tabs does not necessarily have to be at the location of new drawings. The base can be interpreted as the center of the tab for example.
The drawing objection on claim 11 is maintained. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claim 11 limitation, “at a base position of each of the positive electrode tabs, an insulating layer or a protective layer is disposed” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The amendment filed 2/23/26 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the drawings submitted comprises new matter. The Applicants placed components 50 and 60 on Fig. 3 that was not originally disclosed. The Applicants submitted specifications that discloses newly amended components 50 and 60 into the specification that was not originally presented.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, on claims 1, 4, 5, 7-12 are withdrawn because the Applicant amended the claims.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the limitation “electrode tab is a separator member from the multilayer electrode body” is considered new matter since the Applicant’s specification are silent in disclosure. Appropriate corrections and/or further clarification are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takatusk et al. in view of Watanabe., on claims , 4, 5, 7-8, 12 are withdrawn because the Applicant amended the claims.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takatusk et al. (JP2014-049311) in view of in view of Watanabe (CN104813511) in further view of Suzuki et al. (US Publication 2017/0256821), on claims 9 and 10 are withdrawn because the Applicant amended the claims.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takatusk et al. (JP2014-049311) in view of in view of Watanabe (CN104813511) in further view of YASUHIRO et al. (KR 20080103002) on claim 11 are withdrawn because the Applicant amendment the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 7-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable by Kurita et al. (US Publication 2020/0144583) in view of Takatusk et al. (JP 2014-049311) in further view of Machino et al. (JP2001325945).
Regarding claims 1, the Kurita et al. reference discloses a secondary battery, comprising a multilayer electrode body obtained by laminating a plurality of electrode plates with a separator interposed in between and a plurality of electrode tabs protruding outward from first ends of the plurality of electrode plates. Each of the plurality of electrode tabs having a bent portion which is bent in a lamination direction of the multilayer electrode body (Fig. 3). An exterior body (13) having an opening receiving the multilayer electrode body and a sealing plate that closes the opening (14),a collector disposed on the sealing plate and connected to the plurality of electrode tabs with a connector (15, 16), and a binding member that binds the plurality of electrode tabs between the connector and the multilayer electrode body at a position away from the multilayer electrode body (46a; tape), the binding member binds the plurality of electrode tabs together at bent portions and clamps the plurality of electrode tabs. The plurality of electrode plates includes a plurality of positive electrode plates and a plurality of negative electrode plates, wherein the plurality of positive electrode plates each have a positive electrode tab, wherein the positive electrode tab protrudes at the same position so that a plurality of positive electrode tabs of the plurality of positive electrode plates are arranged in a line at the same position in the lamination direction in the multilayer electrode body, and wherein the plurality of positive electrode tabs are bent in the lamination direction of the multilayer electrode body (Fig. 3).
However, the Kurita is silent in specifying the binding member is a tape comprising resin member which is insulating, and the resin member has a shape longer than a width of an electrode tab of the plurality of electrode tabs. However, the Takatusk et al. reference discloses tapes can comprise resin and the Machino reference discloses a resin binding member that is insulating and the resin member has a shape longer than a width of an electrode tab of the plurality of electrode tabs (covering the entire terminal portion; Fig. 2, 5) in order to prevent short circuit for bent electrode tabs between the membrane electrode assembly and the cover. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the tape comprising resin and the resin being an insulating binding member with a shape longer than a width of an electrode tab of the plurality of electrode tabs disclosed by the Takatusk in view of the Machino reference for the tape as the binding member disclosed by the Kurita reference in order for continuous battery usage without internal disruptions.
Regarding claim 4, the Kurita in view of the Takatusk reference discloses the tape with adhesive as the binding member has a mechanism of bonding the plurality of electrode tabs together with an adhesive.
Regarding claim 5, the Kurita in view of Takatusk in further view of Machino (herein referred to as modified Kurita et al.) discloses the first end of the binding member is fixed to the sealing plate (Kurita Fig 3, Machino Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, the Kurita et al. reference discloses wherein the plurality of negative electrode plates each have a plurality of negative electrode tabs that protrudes at the same position so that the plurality electrode tabs of the plurality of negative electrode plates are arranged in a line at the same position in the lamination direction in the multilayer electrode body (Kurita, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 8, the Kurita reference discloses wherein each of the plurality of electrode tabs is formed of a metal foil.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, the Kurita reference discloses generic positive electrode tabs and negative electrode tabs but is silent in disclosing the thickness of each of the plurality of positive electrode tabs is 20 µm and a thickness of each of the plurality of negative electrode tabs is 10 µm, however, the Takatusk reference discloses that the thickness of positive electrode tab is 20 µm and the thickness of the negative electrode tabs to be 10 µm. It would have been obvious to apply the teachings of the thickness of positive electrode tab is 20 µm and the thickness of the negative electrode tabs to be 10 µm disclosed by the Takatusk reference for the generic positive electrode tabs and the negative electrode tabs disclosed by the Kurita reference since a patent for a combination, which only unites old elements with no change in their respective functions, obviously withdraws what is already known into the field of its monopoly and diminishes the resources available to skillful men. Where the combination of old elements performed a useful function, but it added nothing to the nature and quality of the subject matter already patented, the patent failed under §103. When a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious. KSR v. Teleflex
It would have been indeed obvious, absent a teaching of criticality.
Regarding claim 12, the Kurita reference discloses wherein the binding member is indirectly attached to the sealing plate (Fig. 3) .
Regarding claim 13, the Kurita reference discloses the claimed invention above and further incorporated herein. The Kurita reference is silent in disclosing that the electrode tab is a separate member from the multilayer electrode body. However, the Machino reference discloses a lead (21) can be separate from the electrode body. IT would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate a separate member for the same purpose of an integral member to perform the same purposes. If a person of ordinary skill in the art can implement a predictable variation, and would see the benefit of doing so, §103 likely bars its patentability. KSR v. Teleflex
Regarding claim 14, the Kurita reference discloses wherein the electrode tab extends from the multilayer electrode body toward the sealing plate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 7-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 HELEN OI CONLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5162. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Nicholas Smith can be reached on 5712728760. 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.
/Helen Oi K CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights