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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/27/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 10/27/2025 have been entered. Claims 1, 4-8, and 13-14 are canceled and Claims 15-21 are new.
Support for the amendments can be found in original Claims 1, 4-14, and paragraphs 0014 and 0015 of the instant specification.
Claims 15-21 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 15 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 15-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 15 contains the limitations of an electrode roll core comprising an electrode sheet wherein “the electrode sheet is a positive electrode sheet” and “the electrode sheet is a negative electrode sheet”. The specification does not disclose any electrode sheets that are both positive and negative electrode sheets at the same time.
For the purposes of this examination, the electrode sheet is interpreted in line with paragraph 0061 of the instant specification: the electrode roll core comprises two electrode sheets: a positive electrode sheet and a negative electrode sheet.
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 16-21 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 all comprise the limitation “the tab” and “the sheet-like current collector”. Claim 20 further comprises the limitation “the electrode sheet”. Claim 15 comprises both a positive electrode sheet and a negative electrode sheet. It is unclear if “the tab”, “the sheet-like current collector”, and “the electrode sheet” refer to the positive electrode sheet, the negative electrode sheet, or both.
For the purposes of examination, the limitations “the tab”, “the sheet-like current collector”, and “the electrode sheet” are interpreted to refer to either the positive electrode sheet or the negative electrode sheet or both of the electrode sheets.
Claim 21 comprises the limitation “an angle… is less than or equal to 10° to 350°.” It is unclear if the angle is less than or equal to 10°, less than or equal to 350°, or between 10° and 350°.
For the purposes of this examination, the limitation of “less than or equal to 10° to 350°” is interpreted to mean between 10° and 350°.
Claim Interpretation
In Claim 15, the limitation of “are buckled together” is a product-by-process limitation. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation; instead, the determination of patentability is based upon the product or apparatus structure itself. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (see MPEP 2113).
In this case, the structural limitations of “are buckled together” are interpreted to mean that the steel is bent (as depicted in Figs. 7 and 8).
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, Park teaches a battery comprising an electrode roll core, wherein the electrode roll core comprises an electrode sheet comprising a tab (parts 141 and 151), a sheet-like current collector (parts 11c and 12c), and two electrode active materials attached to two surfaces of the sheet-like current collector respectively (parts 11a, 11b, 12a, and 12b) (Fig. 4). An edge of one of the two electrode active materials is indented at a beginning and/or an end of current collector relative to an edge of the other of the two electrode active materials so as to form a foil-free region, and one end of the tab is connected to the sheet-like current collector (Fig. 4).
The roll core comprises two electrode sheets (Fig. 4 – parts 14 and 15; 0038, 0039 – examiner notes that Park refers to the positive electrode sheet 14 as the anode and the negative electrode sheet 15 as the cathode). The positive electrode sheet (part 14) is indented at the end of the winding (part 11e – termination end) rather than the beginning of the winding (part 11d – leading end) and the negative electrode sheet (part 15) is indented at the beginning of the winding (12d – leading end) rather than the end of the winding (part 12e – termination end).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the shape of the active material coating of the positive electrode sheet with the shape of the negative electrode sheet and to have substituted the shape of the negative electrode sheet with the shape of the positive electrode sheet as they both are known shapes for active material coatings and doing so would provide nothing more than the predictable result of an electrode sheet with suitable active material coatings.
Thus, the roll core comprises a positive electrode sheet, wherein the two electrode active materials are positive active materials, the two positive active materials are 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, and the first foil-free region is located at a center of the battery roll core (Fig. 4, part 14).
The roll core also comprises a negative electrode sheet, wherein the two electrode active materials are negative electrode active materials, the two negative active materials are arranged at staggered positions at the end of the winding so as to form a second 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 foil0free region, and is spaced apart from the second foil-free region (Fig. 4, part 15).
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 current collector (Fig. 1).
Park does not teach that the battery is a cylindrical or button battery comprising an inner side steel shell and an outer side steel shell which are buckled together and enclose the electrode roll core.
Hina teaches a cylindrical battery comprising a wound electrode assembly (Abstract). The battery comprises an inner side metal shell (part 2 – lid/terminal) and an outer side steel shell (part 1 – case) which are crimped together and enclose the electrode roll core (0084; Fig. 1). A resin gasket, which can be viewed as an insulating sleeve, is arranged between the inner side metal shell and the outer side steel shell (0046).
Park and Hina are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they relate to the same field of endeavor, namely batteries with wound electrodes.
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 battery of Park to be a cylindrical battery with the housing and shape of Hina as it is a known form of battery for a wound electrode assembly. Doing so would provide nothing more than the predictable results of a wound electrode assembly used in a cylindrical battery (see MPEP 2143 B).
Modified Park does not disclose the 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 Park, 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 Park 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 (Park: Fig. 3 – parts 141 and 151).
Regarding Claim 17, as best understood over the 112(b) issues presented above, modified Park teaches the battery of Claim 15. The tab has a width accounting for 5%-95% of a width of the sheet-like current collector (Park: Fig. 3 – parts 141 and 151).
Regarding Claim 18, as best understood over the 112(b) issues presented above, modified Park 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 (Park: Fig. 3 – parts 141 and 151).
Regarding Claim 21, as best understood over the 112(b) issues presented above, modified Park 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 (Park: Abstract), two tabs on the positive electrode sheet and the negative electrode sheet are located at the end of a respective electrode sheet (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°)
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 Park, Hina, and Kogetsu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Watanabe (US 20030170535 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, as best understood over the 112(b) issues presented above, modified Park teaches the battery of Claim 15. While Park teaches that the tabs are welded to the electrode sheets (0041), Park 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 Park 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 Park 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 Park, Hina, and Kogetsu as applied to claim 1 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 Park teaches the battery of Claim 15. While Park teaches that the tabs are welded to the electrode sheets (0041), Park 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 Park 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.
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 Pytlik (US 20120015224 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Park teaches a battery comprising an electrode roll core, wherein the electrode roll core comprises an electrode sheet comprising a tab (parts 141 and 151), a sheet-like current collector (parts 11c and 12c), and two electrode active materials attached to two surfaces of the sheet-like current collector respectively (parts 11a, 11b, 12a, and 12b) (Fig. 4). An edge of one of the two electrode active materials is indented at a beginning and/or an end of current collector relative to an edge of the other of the two electrode active materials so as to form a foil-free region, and one end of the tab is connected to the sheet-like current collector (Fig. 4).
The roll core comprises two electrode sheets (Fig. 4 – parts 14 and 15; 0038, 0039 – examiner notes that Park refers to the positive electrode sheet 14 as the anode and the negative electrode sheet 15 as the cathode). The positive electrode sheet (part 14) is indented at the end of the winding (part 11e – termination end) rather than the beginning of the winding (part 11d – leading end) and the negative electrode sheet (part 15) is indented at the beginning of the winding (12d – leading end) rather than the end of the winding (part 12e – termination end).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the shape of the active material coating of the positive electrode sheet with the shape of the negative electrode sheet and to have substituted the shape of the negative electrode sheet with the shape of the positive electrode sheet as they both are known shapes for active material coatings and doing so would provide nothing more than the predictable result of an electrode sheet with suitable active material coatings.
Thus, the roll core comprises a positive electrode sheet, wherein the two electrode active materials are positive active materials, the two positive active materials are 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, and the first foil-free region is located at a center of the battery roll core (Fig. 4, part 14).
The roll core also comprises a negative electrode sheet, wherein the two electrode active materials are negative electrode active materials, the two negative active materials are arranged at staggered positions at the end of the winding so as to form a second 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 foil0free region, and is spaced apart from the second foil-free region (Fig. 4, part 15).
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 current collector (Fig. 1).
Park does not teach that the battery is a cylindrical or button battery comprising an inner side steel shell and an outer side steel shell which are buckled together and enclose the electrode roll core.
Pytlik teaches a button cell (Title) with a wound electrode assembly (0013). The button cell comprises a housing consisting of two metal housing halves separated by an insulating seal and an electrode winding inside the housing (Abstract). The two metal housing halves comprise a housing cup and a housing top, both of which can be made of steel (0016), and can be viewed as outer side steel shells and inner side shells respectively. The insulating seal/sleeve is placed between the two parts (Fig. 1, part 109). Joining the two housing parts involve applying drawing the casing area of the cup radially inward (0064). This would result in the same product as buckling (Figs. 1 and 4).
Park and Pytlik are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they relate to the same field of endeavor, namely batteries with wound electrodes.
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 battery of Park to be a button battery with the housing and shape of Pytlik as it is a known form of battery for a wound electrode assembly. Doing so would provide nothing more than the predictable results of a wound electrode assembly used in a button battery (see MPEP 2143 B).
Regarding Claim 16, as best understood over the 112(b) issues presented above, modified Park 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 (Park: Fig. 3 – parts 141 and 151).
Regarding Claim 17, as best understood over the 112(b) issues presented above, modified Park teaches the battery of Claim 15. The tab has a width accounting for 5%-95% of a width of the sheet-like current collector (Park: Fig. 3 – parts 141 and 151).
Regarding Claim 18, as best understood over the 112(b) issues presented above, modified Park 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 (Park: Fig. 3 – parts 141 and 151).
Regarding Claim 21, as best understood over the 112(b) issues presented above, modified Park 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 (Pytlik: Figs. 3), and are provided with an electrode separator therebetween (Park: Abstract), two tabs on the positive electrode sheet and the negative electrode sheet are located at the end of a respective electrode sheet (Park: Fig. 3), and an angle between lines connecting corresponding parts of the two tabs to the circle center is between 10° and 350° (Pytlik: Fig. 4 – the angle between lines connecting output conductors/tabs 409 and 410 to the circle center can be viewed as between 10° and 350°)
PNG
media_image2.png
635
840
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park and Pytlik as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Watanabe (US 20030170535 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, as best understood over the 112(b) issues presented above, modified Park teaches the battery of Claim 15. While Park teaches that the tabs are welded to the electrode sheets (0041), Park 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 Park 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 Park 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 Park and Pytlik as applied to claim 1 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 Park teaches the battery of Claim 15. While Park teaches that the tabs are welded to the electrode sheets (0041), Park 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 Park 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
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