DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s amendment filed 30 June 2026 is acknowledged. Claim 1 has been amended, claims 8-16 remain withdrawn, and claims 1-16 remain pending.
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 .
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 1-7 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.
In claim 1, is “a width direction” in lines 19 and 20 supposed to be the same as or different from “a width direction” as established in claim 1, line 4? For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will be treating each instance as referring to the same thing. As claims 2-7 depend either directly or indirectly from claim 1, they are rejected for the same reason.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (JP H10-074538 A; listed in the IDS filed 25 January 2022; using attached English machine translation; hereinafter “Matsumoto”), in view of Kaito et al. (US 2003/0224242; hereinafter “Kaito”; listed in the IDS filed 25 January 2022) and Oh et al. (US 2010/0035144; hereinafter “Oh”; listed in the IDS filed 25 January 2022).
Regarding claim 1, Matsumoto teaches a Li-ion battery electrode piece comprising:
an electrode piece substrate (sheet-like positive electrode 1 with active material-containing coating film 1b, see Fig. 1; see [0031]), a blank foil (blank foil equated to current collector 1a section without active material-containing coating film 1b, see Fig. 1; [0031]), at least one adhesive piece (tape 1d, see Fig. 1; [0033]), and an electrode tab (aluminum tab 1c, see Fig. 1; [0033]); the electrode piece substrate having a length between two ends defining a length direction and a width defining a width direction (see Fig. 1 – length equated to the left-right direction in Fig. 1 and width direction equated to the up-down direction in Fig. 1);
the blank foil being arranged on one end of the electrode piece substrate extending along the length direction of the electrode piece substrate (see Fig. 1);
the blank foil comprising a first end and a second end, the first end being away from the one end of the electrode piece substrate in the length direction of the electrode piece substrate (see Fig. 1 – first end of current collector 1a being equated to end with tape 1d), and the second end being close to the one end of the electrode piece substrate (see Fig. 1 – second end of current collector 1a being equated to end away from tape 1d and adjacent active material-containing coating film 1b);
the blank foil containing a plurality of corners at the first end (see Fig. 1), edges of the first end forming a right angle at each of the plurality of corners forming a right- angle area at each of the plurality of corners (see annotated Fig. 1 below);
PNG
media_image1.png
784
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the blank foil is a sheet structure (see Fig. 1), the blank foil has two opposite main flat surfaces (see Fig. 1) and is located at the first end (see Fig. 1), each of the right-angle areas is located on one of the two opposite main flat surfaces (see annotated Fig. 1 above – only two are highlighted in the annotated Figure 1 but there would be two further right-angle areas on the backside of the current collector 1a section),
wherein the at least one adhesive piece is an integral adhesive piece (tape 1d, see Fig. 1; [0033]) adhered on the blank foil along a width direction of the electrode piece substrate (see Fig. 1), and the integral adhesive piece covers the electrode piece substrate in a width dimension (width direction equated to the up-down direction in Fig. 1),
at least an other one of the right-angle areas is fully uncovered by the at least one adhesive piece (see Fig. 1 and [0033] – tape 1d is attached facing the center of the winding and so the opposite side of current collector 1a is fully uncovered; see [0031]-[0033]); and
the electrode tab is arranged on the blank foil (aluminum tab 1c arranged on current collector 1a, see Fig. 1), and a distance between the electrode tab and the first end of the blank foil is 1-5 times of a length of one of the at least one adhesive piece along the length direction of the electrode piece substrate (see Fig. 1 and [0033] – length of tape 1d is 15mm and the center of the tab 1c is 32mm from the end of the current collector 1a, so a distance between the electrode tab and the first end of the blank foil is at least 2 times of a length of one of the at least one adhesive piece along the length direction of the electrode piece substrate);
wherein one of the at least one adhesive piece is an adhesive film (polyimide film or polypropylene film, see [0009]).
Matsumoto is silent to wherein each of the at least one adhesive piece has a first edge that extends to one of the edges of the first end, wherein one of the at least one adhesive piece is an adhesive paper, and the integral adhesive piece covers an edge of the electrode piece substrate in a width direction, and the integral adhesive piece covers all of the right-angle areas located on the at least one of the two opposite main flat surfaces.
Kaito teaches that for lithium ion secondary batteries, a non-active material, such as insulating material, including an insulating tape (see [0047] and [0071]), is to be disposed at each lengthwise edge of a current collector as well as the insulating material abutting the end edge of the blank foil or collector (see [0050] and [0059], and Fig. 1). Such arrangement provides aligning with the end of the edge of a current collector and the lengthwise edges of the current collector. The arrangement prevents burrs from short circuiting between a collector and an active electrode material part (see [0070], [0074], and [0084]).
In view of Kaito’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the battery electrode piece of Matsumoto to include wherein each of the at least one adhesive piece has a first edge that extends to one of the edges of the first end, and the integral adhesive piece covers an edge of the electrode piece substrate in a width dimension, and the integral adhesive piece covers all of the right-angle areas located on the at least one of the two opposite main flat surfaces, as taught by Kaito, because it helps to prevent burs from short circuiting between a collector and an active electrode material part.
The combination of Matsumoto and Kaito is silent to wherein one of the at least one adhesive piece is an adhesive paper.
Oh teaches that it is known to use a protective tape 160 or laminating tape 170 or 180 as the insulation tape for an insulation member. The insulation tape may be made of any material if it is an insulating material having a high stability to electrolytes or lithium ions. Oh teaches that the tape material may include polyimide, polyethylene terephthalate, and polypropylene (see [0029]). Thus, Oh teaches that polyethylene terephthalate is a material substitute for polyimide.
In view of Oh’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute a known element (the polyimide film or polypropylene film, as taught by both the combination of Matsumoto and Kaito, and Oh) for another known element (the polyethylene terephthalate tape material of Oh) with predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed. Therefore, the combination of Matsumoto, Kaito, and Oh teaches wherein one of the at least one adhesive piece is an adhesive paper, wherein the adhesive paper is polyethylene terephthalate paper (as the material of the prior art combination is indistinguishable from that of the claimed invention (i.e., polyethylene terephthalate), it must also be an adhesive paper).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Matsumoto, Kaito, and Oh teaches wherein, the at least one adhesive piece (Matsumoto: tape 1d, see Fig. 1; [0033]) is aligned with edges of the right-angle area (Kaito: see [0070], [0074], and [0084]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Matsumoto, Kaito, and Oh teaches wherein the electrode tab is arranged on the blank foil (Matsumoto: aluminum tab 1c arranged on current collector 1a, see Fig. 1), and a distance between the electrode tab and the first end is 2-5 times of the length of one of the at least one adhesive piece along the length direction (Matsumoto: see Fig. 1 and [0033] – length of tape 1d is 15mm and the center of the tab 1c is 32mm from the end of the current collector 1a, so a distance between the electrode tab and the first end of the blank foil is at least 2 times of a length of one of the at least one adhesive piece along the length direction of the electrode piece substrate).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Matsumoto, Kaito, and Oh teaches wherein each of the at least one adhesive piece is a single adhesive piece (Matsumoto: tape 1d, see Fig. 1; [0033]), and the single adhesive piece is adhered to the blank foil along a width direction of the electrode piece substrate (Matsumoto: tape 1d, see Fig. 1) and fully covers the at least one of the right-angle areas (Kaito: see [0070], [0074], and [0084] – it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Kaito’s teachings for the at least one adhesive piece to fully cover the at least one of the right-angle areas to prevent burs from short circuiting between a collector and an active electrode material part).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Matsumoto, Kaito, and Oh teaches wherein a thickness of the at least one adhesive piece (Matsumoto: 50 µ, see [0033]) is less than a thickness of the electrode piece substrate (Matsumoto teaches a coating material of 10 µm is applied to both sides of a copper foil for total thickness of 160 µm and so the thickness of the copper foil and one layer of coating material, equated to the claimed electrode piece substrate, is 150 µm; see [0039]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Matsumoto, Kaito, and Oh is silent to wherein the distance between the electrode tab and the first end of the blank foil is 3-5 times of the length of the one of the at least one adhesive piece along the length direction of the electrode piece substrate.
However, Matsumoto teaches that the length of the tape is selected from the range of 5 to 100 mm, taking into consideration the size of the battery, etc. (see [0011]).
Therefore, as the center of the tab 1c is 32mm from the end of the current collector 1a (see [0033]), the range of 5-11mm for the length of the tape would result in the distance between the electrode tab and the first end of the blank foil being 3-5 times of the length of the one of the at least one adhesive piece along the length direction of the electrode piece substrate, and it would have been an obvious case of engineering design choice to choose this range taking into consideration the size of the battery. See MPEP §2144.04(VI)(A). Furthermore, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Matsumoto, Kaito, and Oh teaches wherein the adhesive paper is a polyethylene terephthalate adhesive paper (Oh: see [0029]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 9-10 of the remarks, Applicant argues, with respect to claim 1, that neither Matsumoto, Kaito, nor Oh teaches “an adhesive paper”. Applicant acknowledges that Oh teaches an insulation tape of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), but Applicant argues an insulation tape is not an adhesive paper.
The Examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive. The combination of Matsumoto, Kaito, and Oh, teaches a structure that is indistinguishable from that of the claimed invention. Furthermore, the prior art also uses polyethylene terephthalate (see rejection for claim 1 above) so it must also teach an adhesive paper as it is materially indistinguishable from that of the claimed invention. Therefore, any benefit that the Applicant’s invention has with regard to the adhesive paper of polyethylene terephthalate (such as those discussed on page 10 of Applicant’s remarks) must also be present for the combination of the prior art because they are materially and structurally indistinguishable.
On pages 10-12 of the remarks, Applicant argues, with respect to claim 1, that the prior art, either taken alone or in combination, fails to teach the newly added “integral adhesive piece” limitation whose length equals the width of the electrode piece substrate and that covers all of the right-angle areas located on the main flat surface.
The Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive. The combination of Matsumoto, Kaito, and Oh teaches that it would be obvious for the integral adhesive piece that covers an edge of the electrode piece substrate in a width direction and that covers all of the right-angle areas located on the main flat surface to prevent burrs from short circuiting between a collector and an active electrode material part (Kaito: see [0070], [0074], and [0084]). The insulation tape of the combination of Matsumoto, Kaito, and Oh is also an integral adhesive piece as it is an integral tape to the electrode piece of the combination of the prior art.
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 STEVEN HA whose telephone number is (571)270-5934. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458 . 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.
/S.S.H/Examiner, Art Unit 1735 14 September 2026
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights