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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/22/25 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments, filed 09/22/2025, have been fully considered. Claim(s) 1 is/are amended; claim(s) 7 and 17–19 stand(s) as originally or previously presented; claim(s) 8 and 12–14 remain(s) withdrawn; and claim(s) 2–6, 9–11, 15, and 16 is/are canceled; no new matter has been added. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection set forth in the Office Action mailed 06/20/2025 has/have been withdrawn. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text forming the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 may be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim(s) 1 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto et al. (US 5683834 A) (Fujimoto).
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Fujimoto discloses a battery cell (e.g., Title, fig. 1) comprising an electrode assembly accommodated in a shell (refs. 8/9/10 accommodated in case 11, fig. 1), comprising (via annot. fig. 1 below) a negative electrode plate (ref. 9) and a positive electrode plate (ref. 8), the negative electrode plate and the positive electrode plate being wound in a winding direction to form a winding structure (Abstract and implied from figure’s cross-section), the winding structure comprising a bending area (right-hand portion inside case below, which would form arc upon winding); both the negative electrode plate and the positive electrode plate comprise a plurality of bending portions located in the bending area (e.g., each set of pos. electrode 8 or neg. electrode 9 comprising current collector with active layer on each side; see also, e.g., col. 17, lines 5–11 and 15–21), wherein
PNG
media_image1.png
165
402
media_image1.png
Greyscale
all bending portions in the negative electrode plate are the first bending portion (as a given electrode assembly would be the continually wound pos. electrode/separator/neg. electrode—and each bending portion is freely selectable—it appears that Fujimoto’s inner neg. electrode 9—i.e., 1BP above (which would bend upon winding even if not shown in the fig.)—and outer pos. electrode 8—i.e., 3BP above—would assume the same structure throughout the assembly such that all bending portions in the negative electrode plate could be considered the first bending portion);
a bending portion in the positive electrode plate adjacent to the first bending portion is a third bending portion (3BP above);
wherein the first bending portion comprises a first current collecting portion (1BP’s Cu foil (Fujimoto, e.g., col. 17, lines 10 and 11), a first active substance portion (outer active layer (farther from electrode assembly’s radial center) from Fujimoto, col. 17, lines 10 and 11), and a second active substance portion (inner active layer (closer to assembly’s radial center) from Fujimoto’s col. 17, lines 10 and 11); the first current collecting portion has a first inner surface and a first outer surface arranged oppositely in a thickness direction (necessitated by Fujimoto’s dual coating in col. 17, lines 10 and 11), the first active substance portion is provided on the first outer surface, and the second active substance portion is provided on the first inner surface (as seen in Fujimoto, e.g., Abstract and col. 17, lines 10 and 11, and expounded upon below), wherein a material of the second active substance portion is the same as a material of the first active substance portion (by coating identical mixture on both sides of Cu foil in Fujimoto, col. 17, lines 10 and 11).
Fujimoto further generally discloses that the outer active-substance thickness of the positive and/or negative electrode’s active substance portion may be thicker than the inner active-substance thickness for excellent (dis)charge cycling and high-current (dis)charge (e.g., col. 2, lines 12–15 and 28–31, emphasis added) but fails to explicitly embody varying the negative electrode’s active layers’ thicknesses while keeping the positive electrode’s active layers’ thicknesses constant.
Considering that Fujimoto is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely batteries with wound electrode assemblies, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to only vary the negative electrode’s active-substance thicknesses, as suggested by Fujimoto, with the reasonable expectation of achieving excellent (dis)charge cycling and high-current (dis)charge, as taught by Fujimoto.
Thus, Fujimoto would disclose or render obvious that a thickness of the first active substance portion is greater than a thickness of the second active substance portion (by making the outer, i.e., first, active layer, thicker than the inner, i.e., second, layer).
Although Fujimoto would disclose a thicker second active substance portion, Fujimoto fails to explicitly articulate the areal capacity within the first bending portion.
One skilled in the art, however, would recognize that areal capacity is dictated by gram capacity, coating density, and active-layer thickness, meaning that, at a given thickness (i.e., thicker active layer) and gram capacity (via same material in first and second active substances), a larger active-material content necessitates higher areal capacity.
Importantly, although Fujimoto fails to explicitly address the coating density of each active substance, the skilled artisan would recognize that some coating density must necessarily be chosen for each active substance for the electrode to properly (de)intercalate ions, further understanding that only two solutions exist: the coating density of the first active substance portion must be the same as or different than the second active substance portion. In investigating the proper coating density in each active layer, then, it would have been obvious to routinely investigate using the same coating density in each layer with the reasonable expectation of producing a successful electrode (MPEP 2143 (E.)).
Thus, as the outer active layer would be thicker than the inner active layer, contain the same active substance and, thus, exhibit the same gram capacity as the inner layer, and exhibit the same coating density as the inner layer, an active substance capacity per unit area of an outer side of the first bending portion would be greater than an active substance capacity per unit area of an inner side of the first bending portion.
Fujimoto further discloses that the third bending portion comprises a third current collecting portion (Al foil (in 3BP above), e.g., col. 17, lines 20/21), a fifth active substance portion, and a sixth active substance portion (each active material layer, Id.); the third current collecting portion has a third inner surface and a third outer surface arranged oppositely in a thickness direction of the third current collecting portion (annot. fig. 1), the fifth active substance portion is provided on the third outer surface, and the sixth active substance portion is provided on the third inner surface (inner/outer active layers in 3BP in outward radial direction of annot. fig. 1, based on col. 17, lines 15–20); wherein a material of the fifth active substance portion is the same as a material of the sixth active substance portion (e.g., col. 17, lines 15 and 20), and a thickness of the fifth active substance portion is equal to a thickness of the sixth active substance portion (by holding positive electrode’s active-substance portions’ thicknesses constant, per above).
Further, based on the rationale with the negative electrode, as there are only two solutions for the coating density of the positive electrode’s inner and outer/first and second active-substance portions—i.e., same or different—in determining the proper coating density for each active layer, it would have been obvious to routinely investigate using the same coating density in each positive active layer with the reasonable expectation of producing a successful electrode (MPEP 2143 (E.)).
Thus, in employing the same active material—and, thus, gram capacity—as well as the same thickness and coating density in each positive active layer, an active substance capacity per unit area of the outer side of the third bending portion would be equal to an active substance capacity per unit area of the inner side of the third bending portion.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto et al. (US 5683834 A) (Fujimoto), as applied to claim 1, in view of Yushin et al. (US 20200083542 A1) (Yushin).
Regarding claim 7, Fujimoto discloses the electrode assembly according to claim 1.
Fujimoto further discloses that each electrode mixture includes a conducting agent (e.g., col. 13, lines 18–20) but fails to explicitly disclose that the first bending portion further comprises a first conductive portion connected between the second active substance portion and the first inner surface, where a thickness of the first active substance portion is equal to or greater than a total thickness of the second active substance portion and the first conductive portion.
Yushin, in teaching a battery electrode (Abstract), teaches a conductive interlayer between the collector and active layer (Abstract). Yushin teaches that the interlayer significantly enhances electrode mechanical stability and adhesion to the collector by reducing stress concentration near this area, as well as protects the collector from undesirable electrolytic reactions (¶ 0067).
Yushin is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Yushin’s interlayer between each of Fujimoto’s active layers and collectors—so that a first conductive portion would be connected between the second active substance portion and the first inner surface (between 1BP’s collector’s inner surface and inner active layer)—as taught by Yushin, with the reasonable expectation of significantly enhancing each electrode’s mechanical stability and adhesion to the collector, as well as protect the collector from undesirable electrolytic reactions, as taught by Yushin.
Regarding the recited thickness differences, Yushin further teaches a preferably nanometer-thick interlayer (¶ 0078), teaching that a larger-than-optimal thickness of the interlayer may reduce energy density, while lower-than-optimal thickness may be insufficient for providing the desired enhancement (¶ 0078). To balance 1) each electrode’s mechanical stability and adhesion to the collector, 2) each collector’s protection from undesirable electrolytic reactions, and 3) suitable energy density from each active material, then, it would have been obvious to routinely optimize the conductive portion’s thickness relative to the first/second active substance portions’ thicknesses (see MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto et al. (US 5683834 A) (Fujimoto), as applied to claim 17, in view of Capati et al. (US 20190081294 A1) (Capati).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Fujimoto discloses the electrode assembly according to claim 17.
Fujimoto further discloses that the battery is applicable to electronics—i.e., power consumption devices—such as EVs (col. 16, lines 39, 40, and 53) but fails to explicitly disclose a box body accommodating the battery cell and, by extension, a power consumption device comprising the battery and box body.
Capati, in teaching an EV battery pack (Abstract), teaches that the pack includes a plurality of battery blocks each comprising battery modules each comprising a plurality of cells (Abstract), where the pack is accommodated in a tray (¶ 0076, FIG. 2).
Capati is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention's effective filing date, that Fujimoto's battery, when powering an EV, must necessarily be incorporated into the EV in some manner, and, as demonstrated by Capati, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to incorporate Fujimoto’s battery into a battery pack accommodated by a tray or box and reasonably expect a successfully powered EV.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered. Applicant’s amendment overcame the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection and necessitated the new grounds of rejection citing Fujimoto’s broader disclosure, as established above. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments as follows:
Applicant argues that the outer positive active layer is thicker than the inner positive active layer so that Fujimoto fails to disclose that an active substance capacity per unit area of the outer side of the third bending portion is equal to an active substance capacity per unit area of the inner side of the third bending portion. Examiner respectfully notes that Fujimoto’s broader disclosure allows the positive and/or negative electrode’s inner/outer active layers to vary in thickness to achieve the desired (dis)charge-cycling improvement, as outlined above.
Examiner reasserts, therefore, that the skilled artisan could have varied the negative electrode’s inner and outer layers’ thicknesses while holding the positive electrode’s active layers’ thicknesses constant and reasonably expected improved (dis)charge cycling and high-current (dis)charge, as suggested by Fujimoto. Thus, as explained above, with the gram capacity, thickness, and coating density’s being equal in each positive active substance portion, an active substance capacity per unit area of the outer side of the third bending portion would be equal to an active substance capacity per unit area of the inner side of the third bending portion. Moreover, with the gram capacity and coating density’s being equal in each negative active substance portion, alongside the outer negative active substance’s being thicker than the inner substance, an active substance capacity per unit area of an outer side of the first bending portion would be greater than an active substance capacity per unit area of an inner side of the first bending portion. Thus, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant further argues that, based on a mistranslation of “outside [or inside] the third bending portion” in the original PCT application that has been corrected to “an outer [or inner] side of the third bending portion” such that the areal-capacity difference must apply within areas of the third bending portion (rather than inside versus outside the third bending portion). Examiner respectfully submits that the above grounds of rejection address this new limitation by holding the positive electrode’s active-substance thicknesses constant to yield equal areal capacities in the third bending portion’s inner and outer sides, rendering this argument unpersuasive.
Applicant further argues against the previously applied Carney, but, as this reference is now omitted from the above grounds of rejection, this argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record but not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
JP 2003045474 A: wound electrode assembly with thinner inner active layer versus outer active layer in first electrode bending portion.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN S MEDLEY whose telephone number is (703)756-4600. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00–5:00 EST M–Th and 8:00–12:00 EST F.
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, Jonathan Leong, can be reached on 571-270-192. 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.
/J.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 11/25/2025