DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/5/2026 has been entered.
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. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Clarity of the Record
2. Applicant’s election of Species 3, without traverse, directed to the embodiment shown in Figs. 7-9, reading on claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-14, 16, and 18. Species 3 is the embodiment shown in Figs. 7-9, Fig. 7 reproduced below:
PNG
media_image1.png
374
548
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The anti-puncture cushion 16 in this embodiment is arranged [indirectly] on the first tail exposed zone 104a, and directly on the second tail exposed zone 104b. Accordingly, the claim recites:
“the anti-puncture cushion is arranged on the first tail exposed zone”
which is interpreted to be indirectly on the first tail exposed zone given the species elected (it is noted the other species identified have the anti-puncture directly on the first tail exposed zone).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The rejection of claim 11, and thus dependent claims 12-14, 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 is maintained.
The amendments provided in the response filed 1/5/2026 also necessitate the following grounds of rejection against claim 1, and thus dependent claims 2, 5-6, 8-14, 16, and 18; claim 2; and claim 18; 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.
Proposed Examiner-corrections are proposed below for claims 1 and 11, along with a subsequent section with an indication of allowable subject matter below.
A) Claim 11 is still not clear in terms of clearly defining the structure set forth on each face of the current collector. The amendments provided allow for either option of “a first coating zone or the second coating zone covered by an active substance layer…” which does not provide proper antecedent basis to the entities defined in claim 1 and specifically that the second coating zone already defines that it is covered by a second active substance layer.
Claim 11 can be corrected as shown below:
“…from the head to the tail,
from the head to the tail, the second side face of the cathode current collector opposite to the first side face comprises a head exposed zone arranged on the head, a head adhesive application zone arranged on the head exposed zone and covered by a head protective adhesive, and the second coating zone covered by the second active substance layer; and
for each…”
B) Claim 1 as amended recites in part (final two lines of the claim):
“…a whole adhesive face of the anti-puncture cushion is directly bonded to a surface of the cathode current collector.”
It appears as best understood by the Examiner that the claimed “a surface of the cathode current collector” that the anti-puncture cushion is directly bonded to is already defined in the claim as the first tail exposed zone (Embodiments shown in Figs. 1 & 4; see withdrawn claim 7) or the second tail exposed zone (elected Embodiment shown in Fig. 7). It does not appear that there is another distinctive “a surface” that can be recited at this juncture in the claim. Accordingly, the claim fails to invoke antecedent basis to the only two possible surfaces that that the anti-puncture cushion is directly bonded to within the disclosure, and thus sets forth what appears to be an entirely new surface distinct from those already set forth rendering the claim indefinite.
For compact prosecution purposes, the claim will be examined as if the above quoted portion is replaced with:
“…a whole adhesive face of the anti-puncture cushion is directly bonded to:
the first tail exposed zone, or
the second tail exposed zone.”
With this proposed amendment, non-elected dependent claim 7 requires cancellation as it is non-limiting to the proposed Examiner correction.
C) Claim 1 was amended to recite:
PNG
media_image2.png
130
657
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Corrections were not made to the dependent claims (claims 2 and 18) to delete the portion now presented within the independent claim (see claim 2 for example as emphasized below):
PNG
media_image3.png
213
644
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Additionally, claim 1 deletes “the first side face of the cathode current collector comprises a first coating zone covered by a first active substance layer along the direction of the cathode sheet” such that within claim 2, there is now insufficient antecedent basis for the first coating zone or how it is defined in claims 2 and 18. The deleted portion of claims 2 and 18 from the claim set of 10/21/2025 thus needs reinstated within each of claims 2 and 18 (claim 2 shown below):
PNG
media_image4.png
342
650
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Appropriate correction is required.
Compact Prosecution
4. For compact prosecution, the Examiner proposed-corrections to claim 1 will be assumed made as otherwise it is not clear how evaluation of the prior art can proceed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. The rejection of claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-9, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2013/0244071) is withdrawn in view of the claim amendments and Examiner-proposed corrections above. All rejections pending from this are also withdrawn.
Terminal Disclaimer
6. The Terminal Disclaimer filed 10/21/2025 was received and approved.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claim 1, and thus claims 2, 5-6, 8-14, 16, and 18 (with corrections to those dependent claims also rejected above under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/second paragraph), would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action in the manner proposed by the Examiner for compact prosecution purposes. The currently withdrawn claims drawn to non-elected species will be reconsidered for rejoinder at the time of allowance when a definitive claim is set forth that is allowable.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to provide teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation to arrive at independent claim 1 as presented on 1/5/2026 in conjunction with the proposed Examiner corrections provided to claim 1 above within the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The closest prior art is considered to be Lee et al. (US 2013/0244071) as previously applied and Kawabe et al. (WO 2013/133167) previously cited for compact purposes with a machine translation provided. The anti-puncture cushion 390a of Lee '071 is not separated from the second coating zone by the second tail exposed zone, and a whole adhesive face of anti-puncture cushion is not directly bonded to a surface of the tail exposed zone. The purpose of the anti-puncture cushion 390a of Lee is to protect and partially cover the second active substance layer such that any attempt to propose modification as to its location by the Examiner would destroy in the intended purpose of principal of operation of the construct taught by Lee. If the proposed modification or of the prior art would change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified, then the teachings of the reference(s) are not sufficient to render the claims prima facie obvious. In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813, 123 USPQ 349, 352 (CCPA 1959).
Kawabe et al. '167 teaches a wound roll with adhesives 3, 3, 3 (wherein for clarity the Examiner adds letters (A, B, C, etc.) to the adhesives within the bottom-left figure for easy designation:
PNG
media_image5.png
414
455
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Kawabe thus teaches an anti-puncture cushion 3B separated from a coating zone 8 by a part of a first tail exposed zone along the length direction of the cathode sheet; however, as argued by Applicant which the Examiner finds persuasive, a whole adhesive face of the anti-puncture cushion is not directly bonded to a surface of the current collector with the Examiner proposed correction of:
“a whole adhesive face of the anti-puncture cushion is directly bonded to:
the first tail exposed zone, or
the second tail exposed zone.”
As persuasively argued in the response filed 1/5/2026:
PNG
media_image6.png
225
668
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Thus, there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the anti-puncture tape 3B of Kawabe to meet the above-quoted limitation given the purpose of the tape 3B is to cover and (directly bond to) tab 4. Accordingly, if it a whole adhesive face of the anti-puncture is directly bonded to the illustrated tail exposed zone, it could not be bonded to and cover tab 4 which is its entire purpose. Such a proposed modification would change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified such that there is no motivation to make such a modification. In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813, 123 USPQ 349, 352 (CCPA 1959).
No additional prior art was found that was considered closer to the claim set than the above identified references to Lee and Kawabe.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments filed 1/5/2026 have been fully considered. The only maintained rejection is against claim 11, and the Examiner outlines how it is still indefinite along with a proposed correction. At the present time, there are no arguments to respond to given the indication of allowable subject matter and withdrawal of the prior art rejections.
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA J BARROW whose telephone number is (571)270-7867. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am - 6pm CST.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/AMANDA J BARROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729