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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1, 9 and 11-14 have been amended; support for the amendment can be found in Fig. 3.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 9 and 11-14 have been examined on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not teach or render obvious that each negative electrode of the plurality of units includes two pairs of diametrically opposed notches, vertically, aligned along a height of the assembly, each of the vertically aligned notches of the plurality of units provides is aligned along a plane such that the vertically aligned notches together form a planar contact surface (pg. 7, para.5).
This argument is not found persuasive because Glaser teaches two pairs (annotated Fig. 4b; P1 and P1, and P2 and P2) of diametrically (Fig. 4b) opposed notches (annotated Fig. 4b; P1 and P2), vertically aligned (Fig. 4b) along a height (Fig. 4a; height of 15, 15’) of an assembly (Fig. 4a; 15, 15’), each of the vertically aligned notches (P1, P2) provides is aligned along a plane (annotated Fig. 4b; planes containing P1, P2, P1 and P2) such that the vertically aligned notches (P1, P2) together form a planar contact surface (Fig. 4b; surface at P1, P2).
Applicant argues that there is no teaching or suggestion in the applied to modify the cell of Wang with the devices of Kawai, Glaser and Onishi because the structure of Wang would require a substantial redesign just to accommodate the features of Kawai, Glaser and Onishi (pg. 8, para. 2) and the position that the Wang assembly could be modified to arrive at the claimed invention would be insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness (pg. 8, para. 3).
This argument is not found persuasive because the motivation of the combination of Wang, Kawai, Glaser and Onishi is to prevent an unnecessary decrease in battery characteristics (for example, energy density per unit volume) as taught by Kawai ([0009]), to allow for efficient assembly of the cell in automated fashion (col. 1, ln. 60-63) with more complete utilization of the strip material (col. 2, ln. 9-14) and comparable electrical performance to a round cell (col. 1, ln. 64-67) as taught by Glaser, to prevent deterioration of cell capacity as taught by Onishi ([0029]) and to design the shape of the packing flaps according to the form of the electrodes as taught by Wang ([0041]). Further, regarding the allegations of a substantial redesign, it is the examiner’s position, that regardless of any redesign required, the modifications of the combination presented in the rejection below are well within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill and motivated by the disclosures of the cited references.
Applicant argues that the rejection of record fails to establish how or why one skilled in the art would selectively pick and choose from the features of the cited references to arrive at the combined features of the present claims, which are not taught by even the combined teachings of the cited references (pg. 8, para. 3).
This argument is not found persuasive because the prior art of record teaches all limitations of the present claims as set forth below. Further, the rejection below sets forth why one of ordinary skill would have combined Wang, Kawai, Glaser and Onishi with the motivations of preventing an unnecessary decrease in battery characteristics (for example, energy density per unit volume) as taught by Kawai ([0009]), allowing for efficient assembly of the cell in automated fashion (col. 1, ln. 60-63) with more complete utilization of the strip material (col. 2, ln. 9-14) and comparable electrical performance to a round cell (col. 1, ln. 64-67) as taught by Glaser, preventing deterioration of cell capacity as taught by Onishi ([0029]) and designing the shape of the packing flaps according to the form of the electrodes as taught by Wang ([0041]).
Applicant argues that the cited references do not recognize the advantageous results achieved by embodiment of the present invention (pg. 9, para. 2).
This argument is not found persuasive because evidence of advantageous results has not been presented and the burden is on applicant to establish that results are unexpected and significant. Further, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., advantageous results) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 29 “provides” should be deleted.
In claim 14, line 3 “plurality” should read ---a- plurality---
In claim 14, line 28 “assembly” should read “assembly,”
In claim 14, line 30 “provides” should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4, 6, 9 and 11-14 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 1 recites the limitation "the vertically aligned notches" in lines 28-29. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination, this limitation is interpreted as “the diametrically opposed notches”. Claims 4, 6, 9 and 11-13 are rejected for dependence on claim 1.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the vertically aligned notches of the plurality of units" in lines 29-30. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination, this limitation is interpreted as “the diametrically opposed notches”.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 9 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2017/0069880 A1, cited in IDS filed 11/30/2021) in view of Kawai (US-20190348718-A1), Glaser (US-5486433-A) and Onishi (JP 2011081941 A, machine translation used for rejection below, cited 03/21/2025).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Wang discloses a coin cell (“coin cell”; [0027]; Fig. 1; element 200) comprising:
a metal case ([0027]; Fig. 1; 201, 207, 208) having a positive side ([0027]; Fig. 1; element 208) and a negative side ([0027]; Fig. 1; element 201) designed to form a housing ([0027]; Fig. 1; element 201, 208),
an assembly ([0027]) of stacked electrodes (Fig. 4; 209) placed inside the housing (201, 208) and comprising a plurality of units (one unit is a negative electrode, separator, positive electrode in sequence, and the electrolyte therebetween, see [0030], [0044] and Fig. 1; 204, 202, 203; “PoU”) each comprising a positive electrode ([0030]; Fig. 1; element 203), a negative electrode (Fig. 1; element 204; [0030]), a separator ([0030]; Fig. 1; element 202) between the positive and the negative electrodes ([0030]) and an electrolyte ([0028-0029]; [0044]), and
a packing tape ([0035]; Fig. 1; element 205) including a basis ([0035]; Fig. 1; element 205a) placed between the assembly (Fig. 1) and the case (201, 207, 208).
wherein the positive electrodes (203) of the plurality of units (PoU) are electrically connected together to form a positive terminal (“all of the positive contact tabs 203a are welded together”; [0031]) and the negative electrodes (204) of the plurality of units (PoU) are electrically connected together to form a negative terminal (“all of the negative contact tabs 204a are welded together”; [0032]),
wherein the cell further comprises a metallic positive contact tab ([0043]; Fig. 1; 206) placed between (Fig. 1) the positive side (208) and an edge (Fig. 4; right edge of 203a) of a distal end ([0043]; Fig. 4; right end of 203a) of the positive terminal (203a),
wherein the negative terminal (204a) connects the negative electrodes (204) to the negative side (201) via a first negative electrode ([0032]; Fig. 1; element 204’) in direct contact with the negative side (101), and
wherein each positive electrode (203) of the plurality of units (PoU) includes a cathode tab (Fig. 1; element 203a) and each negative electrode (204) of the plurality of units (PoU) comprises an anode tab (Fig. 1; element 204a),
wherein each of the cathode tabs (203a) are overlapped (Fig. 2) and welded together ([0031]) to form the positive terminal ([0031]), the positive terminal ([0031]) that includes all ([0031]) of the cathode tabs (203a), and
wherein each of the anode tabs (204a) are overlapped (Fig. 2) and welded together ([0032]) to form the negative terminal ([0032]), the negative terminal ([0032]) that includes all of the anode tabs (204a), and
wherein each negative electrode (204) of the plurality of units (PoU) includes a pair of diametrically opposed notches (annotated Fig. 3; PoN, which are the straight portions along the circumference of elements 204), vertically aligned (Fig. 2) along a height (annotated Fig. 3; dimension of the assembly in the Z direction) of the assembly ([0027]), each of the vertically aligned notches (PoN) of the plurality of units (PoU) provides is aligned (Fig. 3) along a plane (annotated Fig. 3; P) such that the vertically aligned notches (PoN) together form a planar contact surface (annotated Fig. 3; surface of 204 in the P plane),
PNG
media_image1.png
420
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
479
639
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the packing tape (205) includes a plurality of packing flaps ([0035]; Fig. 1; 205b) which are integral ([0039]; Fig. 1) with the basis (205a) and
wherein each of the plurality of packing flaps (205b) are configured to contact a surface (Fig. 2; surface of 204 under 205b) of the negative electrodes (204).
Wang fails to explicitly disclose the limitations “is folded substantially vertically towards the positive side of the case”, “being folded substantially vertically towards the negative side of the case”, “is folded substantially vertically towards the positive side of the case”, “is folded substantially vertically towards the negative side of the case”, “two pairs of diametrically opposed notches”, “wherein each of the plurality of flaps are configured to contact a corresponding contact surface of the two pairs of diametrically opposed notches”.
Kawai discloses wherein a positive terminal (Fig. 5; 70a’) is folded substantially vertically (Fig. 5) towards a positive side (Fig. 5; 60a) of a case (Fig. 5; 60) and a negative terminal (Fig. 5; 70b’) is folded substantially vertically (Fig. 5) towards a negative side (Fig. 5; 60B) of the case (60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Kawai by substituting the cell tab configuration taught by Kawai for the cell tab configuration of Wang such that the positive terminal is folded substantially vertically towards the positive side of the case and the negative terminal being/is folded substantially vertically towards the negative side of the case in order to prevent an unnecessary decrease in battery characteristics (for example, energy density per unit volume) as taught by Kawai ([0009]).
Wang in view of Kawai still fails to disclose two pairs of diametrically opposed notches, wherein each of the plurality of flaps are configured to contact a corresponding contact surface of the two pairs of diametrically opposed notches.
Glaser discloses a hexagonally shaped assembly (Fig. 4b; 15), wherein a negative electrode (Fig. 4b; 15’) includes two pairs (annotated Fig. 4b; P1 and P1, and P2 and P2 of 15’) of diametrically (Fig. 4b) opposed notches (annotated Fig. 4b; P1 and P2 of 15’), vertically aligned (Fig. 4b) along a height (Fig. 4a; height of 15, 15’) of an assembly (Fig. 4a; 15, 15’), each of the vertically aligned notches (P1, P2) provides is aligned along a plane (annotated Fig. 4b; planes containing P1, P2, P1 and P2) such that the vertically aligned notches (P1, P2) together form a planar contact surface (Fig. 4b; surface at P1, P2).
PNG
media_image3.png
384
516
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Wang in view of Kawai by substituting the hexagonal shape of the stacked electrode assembly of Glaser in place of the shape of the stacked electrode assembly of Wang in view of Kawai, such that each negative electrode of the plurality of units includes two pairs of diametrically opposed notches, vertically aligned along a height of the assembly, and each of the vertically aligned notches of the plurality of units provides is aligned along a plane such that the vertically aligned notches together form a planar contact surface. In doing so, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected to allow for efficient assembly of the cell in automated fashion (col. 1, ln. 60-63) with more complete utilization of the strip material (col. 2, ln. 9-14) and comparable electrical performance to a round cell (col. 1, ln. 64-67).
The examiner notes that while in the modification of Wang in view of Kawai and Glaser, the shape of the assembly is hexagonal, the two pairs of notches are identified as solely those notches formed in the negative electrodes.
Wang in view of Kawai and Glaser still fails to disclose wherein each of the plurality of flaps are configured to contact a corresponding contact surface of the two pairs of diametrically opposed notches.
Onishi teaches a cell (Fig. 1) comprising:
a packing tape (Fig. 1; element 14, 15) including a plurality of packing flaps (Fig. 1; element 15), wherein each negative electrode (Fig. 2; 8) of a plurality of units (Fig. 2; 7-9) includes a pair of diametrically opposed notches (Fig. 1; elements 17 and 18), vertically aligned (Fig. 5) along a height (Fig. 5) of the assembly (7-9), each of the vertically aligned notches (17 and 18) of the plurality of units (7-9) provides is aligned (Fig. 5) along a plane (Fig. 5; plane containing 17, plane containing 18) such that the vertically aligned notches (17, 18) together form a planar contact surface (Fig. 5; surface of 17, 18), and wherein each of the plurality of packing flaps (15) are configured to contact a corresponding contact surface (Fig. 1; surface of 17a, 18a) of the pair of diametrically notches (17, 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Wang in view of Kawai and Glaser by configuring the plurality of packing flaps to contact a corresponding contact surface of the pairs of diametrically opposed notches as taught by Onishi, because one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect to prevent deterioration of cell capacity as taught by Onishi ([0029]) and because Wang teaches that the shape of the packing flaps can be designed according to the form of the electrodes ([0041]).
Regarding claim 4, Wang in view of Kawai, Glaser and Onishi discloses wherein the case (201, 207, 208) further comprises a gasket ([0027]; Fig. 1; element 207).
Regarding claim 6, Wang in view of Kawai, Glaser and Onishi discloses wherein the packing tape (205) is an insulating packing tape ([0035]) to avoid electrical contact between the assembly ([0030]) and the case ([0036]).
Regarding claim 9, Wang in view of Kawai, Glaser and Onishi discloses wherein the plurality of packing flaps (205b) comprise rubber-based material, acrylic-based material, silicone-based material or combinations thereof ([0040]).
Regarding claim 11, Wang in view of Kawai, Glaser and Onishi discloses wherein the basis (205a) and the plurality of packing flaps (205b) independently ([0039]) comprise a substrate made of polyesters, polyolefins, polyimides, fluoropolymers or combinations thereof ([0040]).
Regarding claim 12, Wang in view of Kawai, Glaser and Onishi discloses wherein only each negative electrode (204) of the plurality of units (PoU) comprises the two pairs of diametrically opposed notches (Glaser P1 and P2 indicate only the notches formed in the negative electrode) but fails to explicitly disclose wherein each negative electrode has a larger surface than each positive electrode of the plurality of units (PoU).
Kawai discloses wherein each negative electrode ([0061]) has a larger surface ([0061]) than each positive electrode ([0061]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Wang in view of Kawai, Glaser and Onishi so that each negative electrode has a larger surface than each positive electrode of the plurality of units in order to prevent a decrease in battery performance as recognized by Kawai ([0061]).
Regarding claim 13, Wang in view of Kawai, Glaser and Onishi discloses wherein the contact tab ([0043]; 206) is placed between the packing tape (205) and the metal case (201, 207, 208) which is adjacent to said packing tape (205), said contact tab ([0046]; 206) being arranged ([0046]) to lead contact between the positive terminal (203) and the positive side (208).
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 GRACE A KENLAW whose telephone number is (571)272-1253. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-6:00 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, Tiffany Legette-Thompson can be reached at (571) 270-7078. 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.
/G.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights