DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/29/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 2-3, 5, 7-8 and 10 have been canceled.
Claims 1 and 14 have been amended; support for the amendment can be found in Fig. 6.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 9 and 11-14 have been examined on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Matsuzaki is now relied on to teach two pairs of diametrically opposed packing flaps.
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.
Claims 1 and 14 are indefinite because it is unclear from the limitation “two pairs of diametrically opposed notches, vertically aligned along a height of the assembly” if one notch of one pair of the two pairs notches is aligned with another notch of another pair of two pairs of notches, if all notches of the two pairs of notches are vertically aligned with each other, if each notch of the two pairs of notches of one negative electrode of the negative electrodes of the plurality of units is vertically aligned with a notch of the two pairs of notches of an other negative electrode of the negative electrodes of the plurality of units (supported by Fig. 3) or if this limitation has another meaning. For examination, this limitation is interpreted according to the third interpretation. Claims 4, 6, 9 and 11-13 are rejected for dependence on claim 1.
Claims 1 and 14 are indefinite because it is unclear if the limitation “each of the diametrically opposed notches of the plurality of units is aligned along a plane such that the diametrically opposed notches together form a planar contact surface” means that one notch of each pair of the two pairs of notches is aligned along a plane with an other notch of another pair of the two pairs of notches such that the one notch and the other notch together form a planar contact surface, if all notches of the two pairs of notches are aligned along a plane such that the notches together form a planar contact surface, if each notch of the two pairs of notches of each negative electrode of the negative electrodes of the plurality of units is aligned with an other notch of the two pairs of notches of an other negative electrode of the negative electrodes of the plurality of units such that each notch and the other notch together form a planar contact surface or has another meaning. For examination, this limitation is interpreted according to the third interpretation. Claims 4, 6, 9 and 11-13 are rejected for dependence on claim 1.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the plurality of packing flaps" in line 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination, this limitation is interpreted as “the two pairs of diametrically opposed packing flaps”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the plurality of packing flaps" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination, this limitation is interpreted as “the two pairs of diametrically opposed packing flaps”.
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 Matsuzaki (US20190334210A1).
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 diametrically opposed notches (PoN) of the plurality of units (PoU) is aligned (Fig. 3) along a plane (annotated Fig. 3; P) such that the diametrically opposed 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 two pairs of diametrically opposed packing flaps ([0035]; Fig. 1; 205b) which are integral ([0039]; Fig. 1) with the basis (205a) and
wherein each of the two pairs of diametrically opposed 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 the diametrically opposed notches, “wherein each of the two pairs of diametrically opposed packing 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 the diametrically opposed notches, “wherein each of the two pairs of diametrically opposed packing 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 diametrically opposed notches of the plurality of units is aligned along a plane such that the diametrically opposed 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 two pairs of diametrically opposed flaps are configured to contact a corresponding contact surface of the two pairs of diametrically opposed notches.
Matsuzaki teaches a cell (“secondary battery”; [0030]) comprising:
a packing tape (Fig. 4; element 60d) including two pairs of diametrically opposed flaps (Fig. 4A; element 60Da1, 60Db1 and 60Da2, 60Db2), wherein each negative electrode (Fig. 4A; anode of 100D) includes two pairs of diametrically opposed notches (Fig. 4A; elements 101D, 102D and 101D, 102D), vertically aligned (Fig. 4B) along a height (Fig. 4B; height of 100D) of an assembly (Fig. 4B; 100D), each of the two pairs of diametrically opposed notches (101D, 102D and 101D, 102D) is aligned (Fig. 4A) along a plane (Fig. 4A; planes containing 102D and 101D) such that the diametrically opposed notches (101D, 102D) together form a planar contact surface (Fig. 4A; surface of 101D, 102D), and wherein each of the pair of diametrically opposed flaps (60Da1, 60Db1 and 60Da2, 60Db2) are configured to contact a corresponding contact surface (Fig. 4A; surface of 101D, 102D) of the two pairs of diametrically opposed notches (101D, 102D).
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 two pairs of diametrically opposed flaps to contact a corresponding contact surface of the two pairs of diametrically opposed notches because Matsuzaki teaches that applying diametrically opposed flaps to diametrically opposed notches (i.e. straight edges) suitably suppresses positional deviation among the layers of an electrode assembly (0073]) and because Wang teaches that the shape of the packing flaps can be designed according to the form of the electrodes ([0041]); ergo, changing the shape of the packing flaps would have been an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 4, Wang in view of Kawai, Glaser and Matsuzaki 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 Matsuzaki 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 Matsuzaki 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 Matsuzaki 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 Matsuzaki 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 Matsuzaki 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 Matsuzaki 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
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