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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 4/7/2026 have been entered. Claims 15 and 21 are amended.
Support for the amendments can be found in Fig. 2, Fig. 6, and paragraphs 0061 of the instant specification.
Claims 15-21 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim(s) 1, specifically regarding the beginning of the winding of the negative electrode sheet not being provided with a foil-free region, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/7/2026 with regards to the radial outer side of the electrode roll core have been fully considered but they are not persuasive
Applicant argues that the tabs of Park are provided on both the inner side and the outer side in the radial direction rather than only the outer side. However, amended Claim 1 defines the outer side as a “direction in the electrode roll core that extends from the center perpendicular to a central axis of the electrode roll core and away from the center”. Thus, as long as the tabs are not disposed directly on the central axis of the electrode roll core, they are in a direction that extends from the center perpendicular to a central axis of the electrode roll core and away from the center.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: the wording of lines 14-15 and 31-32 should be changed to reflect the amendments to lines 6-7 (e.g., changing “wherein the electrode sheet is the positive electrode sheet, the two electrode active materials are positive active materials” to “wherein the two electrode active materials of the positive electrode sheet are positive active materials”). 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 16-20 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 16 -20 cite limitations such as “the tab” (Claims 16-20), “the sheet-like current collector” (Claims 16-18), and “the electrode sheet” (Claim 20). It is unclear if these terms refer to the tab(s) and current collector(s) of the positive electrode sheet, the negative electrode sheet, or both.
For the purposes of examination, it is interpreted that “the tab”, “the sheet-like current collector”, and “the electrode sheet” can refer to those of either the positive or negative electrodes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 15-18 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 20220231321 A1) in view of Hina (US 20100233524 A1) and Kogetsu (US 20110111293 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Hina teaches a cylindrical battery (Title) comprising an electrode roll core (Abstract), an inner side metal shell and an outer side steel shell which are buckled together and enclose the electrode roll core (0044, 0084; Fig. 1 – parts 1 and 2), and an insulating sleeve arranged between the inner side steel shell and the outer side steel shell (0046). The electrode roll core comprises two electrode sheets: a positive electrode sheet and a negative electrode sheet (Abstract), each with a tab (0012) and a sheet-like current collector (0012). The negative electrode sheet active materials attached to two surfaces of the sheet-like current collector respectively (Abstract; Fig. 4). The negative electrode active materials are arranged at staggered positions at the end of the winding so as to form a foil-free region at a site where the edge is indented at the end, and the tab is connected to the end of the sheet-like current collector, is located on one side of the second foil-free region, and is spaced apart from the second foil-free region (Fig. 4). The beginning of the wind of the negative electrode sheet is not provided with a foil-free region (Fig. 4).
Hina does not disclose the shape of the positive electrode sheet or disclose the type of metal of inner side metal shell.
Park teaches a battery comprising an electrode roll core comprising two electrode sheets (Abstract; Fig. 4). Each electrode sheet comprises a tab, a current collector, and two electrode active materials attached to two surfaces of the current collector (Fig. 4). The active materials of the anode/positive electrode sheet are arranged at staggered positions at the end of the winding so as to form a foil-free region at a site where the edge is indented at the end (Fig. 4 – part 14) and the active materials of the cathode/negative electrode sheet are arranged at staggered positions at the beginning of the winding so as to form a foil-free region where the edge is indented at the beginning (Fig. 4 – part 15). The tab is connected to the end of the current collector on a side opposite to the foil-free region (Fig. 4 – part 15).
Hina and Park are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they relate to the same field of endeavor, namely batteries with wound electrodes.
Although Park refers to the cathode (part 15) as the negative electrode sheet, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode sheet of Hina to have the shape of the cathode/negative electrode sheet of Park as it is a known shape of an electrode sheet whose opposing electrode sheet has two active materials arranged at staggered position at the end of the winding. Doing so would provide nothing more than the predictable results of an electrode sheet suitable for use with a second electrode sheet in an electrode assembly/roll core.
This would result in the positive electrode sheet having two electrode active materials arranged at staggered positions at the beginning of the winding so as to form a first foil-free region at a site where the edge is indented at the beginning, the tab is connected to the end of the sheet-like current collector and is located on one side of the sheet-like current collector opposite to the first foil-free region (Park: Fig. 4 – part 15). As the first foil-free region is located at the beginning of the winding, it would be located at a center of the electrode roll core.
The tabs on the positive electrode sheet and the negative electrode sheet are located on a radial outer side of a curved surface of the electrode roll core (Hina: Fig. 3; Park: Fig. 4 – as the tabs of the positive electrode sheet and the negative electrode sheet are located at the end of the winding, they would not be located in the center of the electrode roll core and would therefore necessarily be on a direction in the electrode roll core that extends from the center perpendicular to a central axis of the electrode roll core and away from the center).
Modified Hina does not disclose the type of metal used in the inner side metal shell.
Kogetsu teaches that a metal terminal/lid for a cylindrical battery (Fig. 3) may be made of steel (0158).
Kogetsu is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it relates to the same field of endeavor, namely cylindrical batteries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the inner side metal shell of modified Hina, which acts like a terminal/lid (Hina: 0044), to be made of stainless steel as Kogetsu teaches it as a suitable material for a metal terminal/lid. Doing so would provide nothing more than the predictable results of a metal terminal/lid made of a suitable material (see MPEP 2143 B).
Regarding Claim 16, as best understood over the 112(b) issues presented above, modified Hina teaches the battery of Claim 15. One end of the tab has an area accounting for 10%-90% of an overlapping region between the one end of the tab and the sheet-like current collector (Hina: Fig. 3 – part 10; Park: Fig. 3 – part 151).
Regarding Claim 17, as best understood over the 112(b) issues presented above, modified Hina teaches the battery of Claim 15. The tab has a width accounting for 5%-95% of a width of the sheet-like current collector (Hina: Fig. 3 – part 10; Park: Fig. 3 – part 151).
Regarding Claim 18, as best understood over the 112(b) issues presented above, modified Hina teaches the battery of Claim 15. An overlapping length between one end of the tab and the sheet-like current collector accounts for 5%-100% of a width of the sheet-like current collector (Hina: Fig. 3 – part 10; Park: Fig. 3 – part 151).
Regarding Claim 21, modified Hina teaches the battery of Claim 15. The positive electrode sheet and the negative electrode sheet are spirally and concentrically wound about the same circle center (Hina: Figs. 1 and 2), and are provided with an electrode separator therebetween (Hina: Abstract), two tabs on the positive electrode sheet and the negative electrode sheet are located at the end of a respective electrode sheet (Hina: Fig. 3; Park: Fig. 3), and an angle between lines connecting corresponding parts of the two tabs to the circle center is between 10° and 350° (Hina: Fig. 1 – the angle between lines connecting positive lead 9 and negative lead 10 to the circle center can be viewed as 180°. Examiner notes that, due to how the positive and negative leads extend inside the battery, the angle can differ based on where the corresponding parts are set).
PNG
media_image1.png
974
871
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hina, Park, and Kogetsu as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Watanabe (US 20030170535 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, as best understood over the 112(b) issues presented above, modified Hina teaches the battery of Claim 15. While Hina teaches that the tabs are welded to the electrode sheets (0040), Hina does not disclose the shape of the weld spots.
Watanabe teaches a welded connection between a battery tab and a bus bar (0077). The welding points (spots) can have a square shape as well as other polygonal shapes or a circle shape (round disk and ellipse) (0078).
Although Watanabe welds a tab to a bus bar rather than a tab to a current collector, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the shape of the welding points/taught by Watanabe would be applicable to any welded connection between a tab and another conductive component.
Watanabe is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it relates to the same field of endeavor, namely welded connections in batteries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the welding spots of modified Hina to be a circle shape or a polygonal shape as Watanabe teaches those shapes as known shapes for a welding a tab. Doing so would provide nothing more than the predictable results of a suitable welding point/spot shape for a tab (See MPEP 2143 A).
Although modified Hina teaches the welding spots can be a polygonal shape rather than a chamfered polygonal shape, it has been held that the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design (See MPEP 2144.04).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hina, Park, and Kogetsu as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Li (CN 209183628 U, US 20200119388 A1 used as an English equivalent).
Regarding Claim 20, as best understood over the 112(b) issues presented above, modified Hina teaches the battery of Claim 15. While Hina teaches that the tabs are welded to the electrode sheets (0040), Hina does not teach that an insulating coating layer is arranged on an overlapping region between the tab and the electrode sheet.
Li teaches that a protecting layer, which can be made from an insulating adhesive, can be provided on a welding region of an electrode plate in order to prevent the surface of the welding region from piercing a separator (0082).
Li is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it relates to the same field of endeavor, namely welded connections in batteries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrode sheets of modified Hina to comprise the protective layer of Li over the welding regions in order to prevent damage caused by the surface of the welding regions.
This would result in insulating coating layers arranged on overlapping regions between the tabs and the electrode sheets that can prevent burrs from welding spots from piercing diaphragms.
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 ZIHENG LU whose telephone number is (703)756-1077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 - 5 ET.
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, Nicholas Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/ZIHENG LU/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/Maria Laios/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights