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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/27/2026 has been entered.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Lee (KR20120095039A), Takahashi (US20190140241A1), Li (US20190221855A1), Kwak (US20060051662A1), Lee’036 (KR20060124036A1) do not teach the features present in claim 18-19, specifically the at least one first and second protective member having an uneven surface includes a plurality of grooves. Thus the instant claimed structure is deemed novel and non-obvious contributing to the advancement of battery cells.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claim Interpretation
Throughout the claim set the applicant has the limitation “a material having heat dissipation properties. See Claim 1 line 33-34, Claim 2 line 1-2, Claim 5 line 1-2, Claim 10 line 3, Claim 11 line 4, Claim 15 line 37-38 for examples.
Based off of the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of the limitation, “heat dissipation properties” does not limit the scope of property and therefore includes a large range of materials including perfect thermal insulators, perfect thermal conductors, and everything in-between. These materials all possess properties related to “heat dissipation”.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20120095039 A) and in view of Takahashi (US 20190140241 A1) and Li (US 20190221855A1).
Regarding claim 1 and 15, Lee disclose an electrode assembly comprising [0008, Lee]: a first electrode (200) [0008, 0031, fig. 2, Lee], a second electrode (100) [0008, 0031, fig. 2, Lee], and a separator therebetween [0008, 0032, fig. 2, Lee], the first electrode [0066, Lee], the second electrode [0066, Lee], and the separator being wound in a jelly-roll shape [0066, Lee].
Lee notes that the electrode is wound but is silent to the winding start and end point. For prosecution purposes, the examiner has assigned the left half of fig. 2 to be the starting point for winding the electrode. For clarity of the record, the winding start point is the portion of the electrode where winding begins and thus forms the center of the wound electrode. The winding end point is the portion of the electrode where all of the electrode has been wound and forms the outer surface of the electrode.
PNG
media_image1.png
477
926
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 2, Lee
Lee further discloses the first electrode includes a first winding start portion provided at a center of the electrode assembly and not having a first electrode active material thereon [fig. 2, Lee], a first winding end portion provided at an outer circumferential surface of the electrode assembly and not having the first electrode active material (220) thereon [0065, fig. 2, Lee], and a first coating portion (200A) provided between the first winding start portion and the first winding end portion and coated with the first electrode active material [0065, fig. 2, Lee], wherein the second electrode includes a second winding start portion provided at the center of the electrode assembly and not having a second electrode active material thereon [0065, fig. 2, Lee], a second winding end portion provided at the outer circumferential surface of the electrode assembly and not having the second electrode active material thereon [0065, fig. 2, Lee], and a second coating portion (100A) provided between the second winding start portion and the second winding end portion and coated with the second electrode active material [0065, fig. 2, Lee], wherein a first electrode tab (240) is provided at the first winding end portion of the first electrode [fig. 2, Lee], wherein a second electrode tab (110) is provided at the winding start portion of the second electrode [fig. 2, Lee], wherein a first protective member (lower 130) is attached to a surface of the second winding end portion of the second electrode facing the first electrode tab [fig. 2, Lee], wherein the first protective member is attached to a first surface of the second winding end portion of the second electrode facing the first electrode tab [fig. 2, Lee], wherein an auxiliary member (upper 130) is attached to a second surface of the second winding end portion of the second electrode opposite to the first protective member [fig. 2, Lee], and wherein the first protective member is attached to an entire surface of the second winding end portion [0054, fig. 2, Lee], wherein the first protective member has an uneven surface [fig. 2, Lee depicts the “protective member” covering the active material layer and non-coated region. In doing so the surface of the first protective member is uneven.]
PNG
media_image2.png
485
1111
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 2, Lee
Lee is silent to 1) a second protective member attached to a first winding start portion. 2) the first protective and auxiliary member are connected to each other through a connection part passing through the aperture.
In regards to 1) Takahashi discloses a wound (“jelly-roll”) electrode [0005, Takahashi], comprised of a positive and negative electrode with a separator in-between [0039, Takahashi], with a central winding start point and an winding end point at the outer surface of the electrode [fig. 2, Takahashi]. Takahashi additionally discloses a covering material (18b, “second protective member”) is attached to a surface of the first winding start portion of the first electrode facing the second electrode tab [fig. 2, Takahashi].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would appreciate that there exists three possible options when comparing the area of the first protective member and the area of the second protective member. 1) the area of the first protective member may be larger than the area of the second protective member. 2) the area of the first protective member may be smaller than the area of the second protective member. 3) the area of the first protective member may be the same as the second protective member. Regardless of the option, one may have a reasonable expectation for success so long as the primary functions of the protection members are not ignored.
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Lee such that a covering material (“second protective member”) such as that used by Takahashi (18b, Takahashi) is adhered to the uncoated region (200C, Lee) of the exposed electrode (200, Lee) facing the polar opposite electrode (100, Lee). Doing so can reduce the risk of internal short circuit [0069, Takahashi]. One would also find it obvious for the first protective member to have an area greater than an area of the second protective member as it would be obvious to try, see MPEP 2143.I.E.
In regards to 2) Li discloses an electrode plate in which a conductive layer (11’) is disposed on the surface of a substrate 10 [0054, fig. 4, Li], an active material (12) is disposed on a portion of the surface of the conductive layer creating a coated and uncoated portion [0054-0055, fig. 4, Li]. A through-hole (13 a, “aperture”) is formed through the uncoated portion and a reinforcement structure (3, equivalent to first protective member and auxiliary member) made from an insulating plastic material disposed on either side of the uncoated portion and through the through-hole [0074, fig.4, Li]. The reinforcement structure is subjected to a heat-sealing process during which the reinforcement structure melts and flows through the through-hole [0075, Li]. The examiner notes that this results in an “integrally formed” structure.
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Lee such that the second winding end portion contained a through hole (“aperture”) such as to allow the first protective member and the auxiliary member to be integrally connected through the through hole. Doing so can allow for the protective member and auxiliary member to be sufficiently fasten to the conductive structure [0074, Li].
In regards to the limitation “and made of one or more materials having heat dissipation properties”. The examiner notes that based off of the BRI all materials have “heat dissipation properties”.
Claim 15 contains all the features and limitations of claim 1 along with the claim limitation “a case configured to accommodate the electrode assembly”
The rejection of claim 15 relies on the features described above in the rejection of claim 1. Additionally, Lee describes a case configured to accommodate the electrode assembly [0067, Lee].
Regarding claim 2, Lee as modified above discloses that the first protective member is made of a material having heat dissipation properties [0026-0027, Lee].
This reads on the applicants claimed language of “heat dissipation properties”. Based off of the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of the limitation “heat dissipation properties” includes a large range of materials including perfect thermal insulators, perfect thermal conductors, and everything in-between. These materials all possess properties related to “heat dissipation”.
Regarding claim 3, Lee as modified above discloses that the first protective member has an area greater than an area of the first electrode tab disposed inside the first winding end portion [fig. 3, Lee].
Regarding claim 5, Lee as modified above discloses that the second protective member is made of a material having heat dissipation properties [0069, Takahashi].
This reads on the applicants claimed language of “heat dissipation properties”. Based off of the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of the limitation “heat dissipation properties” includes a large range of materials including perfect thermal insulators, perfect thermal conductors, and everything in-between. These materials all possess properties related to “heat dissipation”.
Regarding claim 6, Lee as modified above depicts the second protective member has an area greater than an area of the second electrode tab disposed inside the second winding start portion [fig. 2, Takahashi].
Regarding claim 8 Lee as modified above discloses a length of the first winding start portion is less than a length of the first winding end portion when viewed in a longitudinal direction of the first electrode [fig. 2, Lee].
Regarding claim 10 Lee as modified above further comprising a first protective tape (230) attached to the first electrode tab [fig. 2, Lee], wherein the first protective tape is made of a material having heat dissipation properties [0037, Lee].
Based off of the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of the limitation “heat dissipation properties” includes a large range of materials including perfect thermal insulators, perfect thermal conductors, and everything in-between. These materials all possess properties related to “heat dissipation”.
Regarding claim 16 and 17, Lee as modified above the first protective member (170) and the auxiliary member (170) have a same width in a winding direction of the electrode assembly [fig. 5, Kim depicts the insulating tape 170 as having the same width].
Claim(s) 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kwak (US 20060051662 A1).
Regarding claim 9, modified Lee is silent to a length of the second winding start portion is less than a length of the second winding end portion.
However, Kwak describes a jelly-roll electrode oriented in the same fashion as Lee and with an uncoated region of the negative electrode (“second winding end point”) with a length larger than the starting region of the negative electrode (“second winding start point”) [fig. 5, Kwak].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Lee such that the uncoated region of the negative electrode (“second winding end point”) was larger than the starting region of the negative electrode (“second winding start point”) as a matter of mere change in size/proportion, see MPEP 2144.04.IV.A.
For clarity of the record, this modification would provide a second winding end point with an length greater than an area of the second winding start point.
PNG
media_image3.png
710
1422
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 5 of Kwak showing the modified structure reading on the claim language.
Claim(s) 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee’036 (KR20060124036A).
Regarding claim 11, modified Lee is silent to a second protective tape attached to the second electrode tab, wherein the second protective tape is made of a material having heat dissipation properties.
However, Lee’036 discloses a jelly-roll electrode with a first and second electrode with a first and second winding start point and a first and second winding end point [fig. 5, Lee’036], wherein each electrode comprises an electrode tab (136, 146) [fig. 5-6, Lee’036], and each electrode tab is covered by a protective tape (25, 27, “second protective tape”).
Prior to the effective filling date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Lee such that the second electrode tab was covered by a protective tape as disclosed by Lee’036. Doing so can prevent damage to the separator from burrs [lines 828-832, Lee’036].
Regarding claim 12, modified Lee discloses that the first electrode may be a negative electrode and the second electrode may be a positive electrode [0020, Lee].
Lee is silent to the first electrode being a positive electrode and the second electrode being a negative electrode.
However, Lee’036 discloses that either electrode may be a positive or negative electrode [line 627-630, Lee’036].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Lee such that the first electrode was a positive electrode and the second was a negative electrode. As a matter of art recognized equivalence, see MPEP 2144.06.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See below for additional details.
Applicant’s arguments in regards to the allowability of independent claims 1 and 15 were found to not be persuasive. Applicant’s arguments include arguing that the “protective member” of Lee’039 does not “attached to an entire surface of the second winding end portion”. The examiner notes that the claimed limitation require “an entire surface” but does not define “an entire surface” such that none of the current collector is exposed as argued by the applicant. As such, any surface covered by the protective member reads on “an entire surface” as that entire surface is covered.
In response to applicant's arguments against arguing features within Takahashi that are not relied upon, such as location of the electrode tabs. The examiner notes that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that one would not turn to Li as its reinforcement member is on an “entirely different component than the claimed invention”. This is not persuasive as the location in question is the uncoated region of an electrode plate.
As such, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the examiner maintains their rejection. However, incorporating the features of claims 18 and 19 into independent claims 1 and 15 would result in allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUINTIN DALE ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-5423. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6pm (MST).
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached on 5712705256. 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.
/QUINTIN D. ELLIOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/BRIAN R OHARA/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights