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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-12 are amended and claim 2 is cancelled, submitted on 9/18/2025. Claims 1 and 3-12 are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
1. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities.
In claim 1, Ln 11, ”in second direction” should read “in the second direction”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
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.
3. Claims 1 and 3-12 are 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 1, Ln 9-11 recites “secondarily bending the electrode tab by moving the unitary bending block in a second direction different from the first direction such that the first surface of the monolithic body pushes the electrode tab in second direction, wherein the second direction is perpendicular to the first direction and is directed toward the electrode assembly”, which includes elements without support in the original disclosure with respect to “the first surface of the monolithic body pushes the electrode tab in second direction”.
Examiner notes that there is no description in the instant specification or in the drawings to support that the first surface of the monolithic body pushes the electrode tab in second direction as claimed. The instant specification provides, quote para[0075] “As illustrated in FIG. 6, while the bending block 21 moves upward, a first surface 211 that faces the first direction, i.e., the upward direction pushes the electrode tab 11 upward”; para[0076] “If the electrode tab 11 is primarily bent upward while the bending block 21 moves upward, an edge of the bending block 21 may be in contact with the electrode tab 11 or the electrode lead 12”; and para[0077] “ the edge of the bending block 21 , which is in contact with the electrode tab 11 or the electrode lead 12”.
Since the first surface 211 faces the upward direction, for the secondarily bending, it is the edge of the bending block 21 that contacts the electrode lead and maybe also the left side vertical surface of the bending block 21 that contacts the electrode tab 11 according to FIG. 7 and para [0075-0077] of the instant disclosure. It is not the first surface of the monolithic body that pushes the electrode tab in the second direction as claimed.
Therefore, the claim limitation “secondarily bending the electrode tab by moving the unitary bending block in a second direction different from the first direction such that the first surface of the monolithic body pushes the electrode tab in second direction, wherein the second direction is perpendicular to the first direction and is directed toward the electrode assembly”, is interpreted as introducing new matter for being without support from the instant disclosure.
Claims 3-12 dependent from claim 1 are rejected for incorporating the same new matter from its base claim, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinyashiki (US 20120202105 A1, IDS of 10/5/2023).
Regarding claim 1, Shinyashiki discloses a method ([0094]) for bending an electrode tab (FIGs. 5-9), the method comprising the steps of: stacking an electrode and a separator to form an electrode assembly ([0094] and FIGs. 5-9); connecting an electrode lead to an electrode tab protruding from the electrode assembly ([0094] and FIGs. 5-9).
Further, Shinyashiki discloses a monolithic bending block having a monolithic body (bottom retaining member 45B [0111] and FIG. 8) disposed on one side of the electrode tab (bottom side, FIG. 8), and the positive electrode current collector joint portion F11 having a U-shape bending along an upward and then left direction shown as the arrow of A14 in FIG. 9 ([0112]), by primarily bending the electrode tab by moving the 45B (upward in FIG. 8, [0112]) in a first direction directed toward an opposite side of the electrode tab (upward bending, [0112]) such that a first surface (top and left side surface of 45B FIGs. 8-9) of the monolithic body pushes the electrode tab in the first direction (upward, [0112] and FIG. 8); and secondarily bending the electrode tab by moving the unitary bending block in a second direction (bent inward, [0112] and FIG. 9) different from the first direction, and wherein the second direction (inward bending, [0112] Second direction Annotated FIG. 9) is perpendicular to the first direction (upward first direction Annotated FIG. 9) and is directed toward the electrode assembly (Annotated FIG. 9).
While Shinyashiki does not explicitly discloses the first surface of the monolithic body pushes electrode tab in the second direction (inward direction, [0112]), a skilled artisan would reasonably envisage the left side surface as part of the first surface set forth above, is capable of pushing the electrode tab in the second direction (inward direction, [0112]) in order to accomplish the inward bending as indicated by arrow 14 ([0112] and Annotated FIG. 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to utilize the left side surface as part of the first surface of the monolithic body to push the electrode tab in the second direction with a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the second step inward bending in order to accomplish the bending indicated by arrow A14.
PNG
media_image1.png
789
1429
media_image1.png
Greyscale
8. Claims 3-5 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinyashiki (US 20120202105 A1, IDS of 10/5/2023), as applied to claim 1, in view of Oi (JP 2009187768 A, see machine translation for citation, IDS of 10/5/2023).
Regarding claim 3, modified Shinyashiki discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. While modified Shinyashiki further discloses the problems if the bent potion of the positive and negative electrode current collector leads unfolded easily which causes damages to the laminate battery case and results in short circuiting ([0013]) and using insulating tape so as to straddle a gap between the stacked electrode assembly and positive or negative electrode current collector terminal, or a gap between the stacked electrode assembly and the insulating layer formed on the positive or negative electrode current collector terminal to effectively prevent deformation, short circuit and creases in the laminated battery case ([0095]), modified Shinyashiki does not explicitly disclose further comprising a step of bending the electrode lead by moving a roller in a third direction directed away from the electrode assembly and toward the electrode lead.
Oi teaches a method for bending an electrode tab (lead bending process, [0083-0086] and FIGs. 8 A-D), the method comprising the steps of: stacking an electrode and a separator to form an electrode assembly (stacking process [0069]); connecting (formed integrally [0067] and [0068]) an electrode lead (terminal 2 or 3, [0086]) to an electrode tab (electrode lead 4a or 4b [0084]) protruding from the electrode assembly (FIG. 8B); and the electrode tab (lead 4a or 4b [0084]) are bent by 90 degree ([0086] and FIG. 8D) into U-shape along an upward and right direction shown as the arrow in FIG. 8D. Oi further teaches using a roller 29 to bend the negative electrode lead 4b protruding from the lead bending table 28a ([0085]) along the surface of 28a (FIG. 8C).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a step of bending the electrode lead by moving a roller as taught by Oi, along the top surface of the bending block 45B in modified Shinyashiki in a third direction (horizontal to the right direction along the surface of 15, Annotated FIG. 9), which is directed away from the electrode assembly and toward the electrode lead, in order to effectively prevent deformation, short circuit and creases in the laminated battery case, as desired by Shinyashiki.
Regarding claim 4, modified Shinyashiki discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Shinyashiki necessarily and inherently includes the step of primarily bending the electrode tab includes moving the unitary bending block in the first direction until a first surface (Annotated FIG. 9) of the unitary bending block facing the first direction reaches a position corresponding to a position at which the electrode lead is bent (Annotated FIG. 9).
Regarding claim 5, modified Shinyashiki discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Shinyashiki discloses the step of bending the electrode lead includes moving the roller along the first surface with the electrode lead being disposed between the roller and the first surface (Annotated FIG. 9).
Regarding claim 7, modified Shinyashiki discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. While modified Shinyashiki further discloses the problems if the bent potion of the positive and negative electrode current collector leads unfolded easily which causes damages to the laminate battery case and results in short circuiting ([0013]) and using insulating tape so as to straddle a gap between the stacked electrode assembly and positive or negative electrode current collector terminal, or a gap between the stacked electrode assembly and the insulating layer formed on the positive or negative electrode current collector terminal to effectively prevent deformation, short circuit and creases in the laminated battery case ([0095]), modified Shinyashiki does not explicitly disclose further comprising a step of bending the electrode lead by moving a roller toward the electrode lead before the step of primarily bending the electrode tab.
Oi teaches a method for bending an electrode tab (lead bending process, [0083-0086] and FIGs. 8 A-D), the method comprising the steps of: stacking an electrode and a separator to form an electrode assembly (stacking process [0069]); connecting (formed integrally [0067] and [0068]) an electrode lead (terminal 2 or 3, [0086]) to an electrode tab (electrode lead 4a or 4b [0084]) protruding from the electrode assembly (FIG. 8B); and using a roller 29 to bend the negative electrode lead 4b protruding from the lead bending table 28a ([0085]) along the surface of 28a (FIG. 8C) before the electrode tab (lead 4a or 4b [0084]) are bent by 90 degree ([0086] and FIG. 8D) into U-shape along an upward and right direction shown as the arrow in FIG. 8D. The U-shape bending along an upward and right direction shown as the arrow in FIG. 8D is interpreted as a combination of a primarily bending step of upward direction followed by a secondarily bending towards the right direction (FIG. D). Thus, Oi teaches using the roller 29 in 8C before the step of primarily bending the electrode tab, thus arrive at the claimed “a step of bending the electrode lead by moving a roller toward the electrode lead before the step of primarily bending the electrode tab”.
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modified Shinyashiki to comprise a step of bending the electrode lead by moving a roller toward the electrode lead before the step of primarily bending the electrode tab as taught by Oi, in order to effectively prevent deformation, short circuit and creases in the laminated battery case, as desired by Shinyashiki.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, modified Shinyashiki discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. The bending block 45B of modified Shinyashiki has a right side surface (FIG. 8 or Annotated FIG. 9), which corresponds to a second surface in the claim. Therefore, as established above, before the step of primarily bending the electrode tab, move a roller toward the electrode lead before the step of primarily bending the electrode tab along the second surface (Annotated FIG. 9) and thus arrive at the claimed limitation “the step of bending the electrode lead includes placing a second surface of the unitary bending block at a position along which the electrode lead is bent, the second surface of the bending block facing away from the electrode assembly” (claim 8) is met. Therefore it is naturally arriving at the claimed the step of bending the electrode lead includes moving the roller (Annotated FIG. 9) along the second surface of the unitary bending block, and the electrode lead (15, Annotated FIG. 9) being disposed between the second surface and the roller (claim 9).
Regarding claim 10, modified Shinyashiki discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Shinyashiki discloses the second surface (right side surface of 42, FIG. 5) of the bending block is flat (Annotated FIG. 9).
Regarding claim 11, modified Shinyashiki discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Shinyashiki necessarily includes the step of primarily bending the electrode tab by moving the unitary bending block until a first surface of the unitary bending block facing the first direction is in contact with a surface of the electrode lead (before moving along the first direction, Annotated FIG. 9).
9. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinyashiki (US 20120202105 A1, IDS of 10/5/2023), as applied to claim 1, in view of Kanda (US 20120189899 A1).
Regarding claim 12, modified Shinyashiki discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. While modified Shinyashiki further discloses the problem with sharp edges or burrs of the metal in the positive and negative electrode current collector leads or in the welded portions between the positive and negative current collector terminals are pressed against and brought into contact with the laminate film of the battery case and cause damage to the laminate film, resulting in short circuiting with the aluminum foil inside the laminate film ([0008]) and the 90 degree bending of the electrode leads with a chamfered or rounded corner (Annotated FIG. 9), modified Shinyashiki does not explicitly mention an edge of the unitary bending block configured to contact the electrode tab or the electrode lead is chamfered or filleted.
Kanda teaches a similar concern of damage such as breakage is apt to occur to the electrode tab at the connection portion between the electrode tab and the electrode terminal and short-circuit caused by the damage ([0004]) and to solve the problem Kanda teaches the bundle of the electrode leads is folded in a meandering shape ([0016]) with the pushing members 20, 21, 22 ([0053] [0088] and FIG. 6), which function equivalent to the bending block and have a chamfered edge configured to contact the electrode tab of the electrode lead (FIGs. 6 and 9-11).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make an edge of the unitary bending block configured to contact the electrode tab or the electrode lead being chamfered, such as the chamfered edge taught by Kanda, with a reasonable expectation of success in preventing damage to the electrode tab and terminal so that to avoid short circuiting.
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if: (1) rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims; and (2) the pending 112(a) rejection is overcome without amendment.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art regarding claim 6 is Shinyashiki (US 20120202105 A1, IDS of 10/5/2023).
Shinyashiki discloses and renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1 as set forth above in this office action. With respect to claim 6, since the first surface of the monolithic body (45B, [0111-0112] and FIG. 8 and Annotated FIG. 9) is mapped to include the top and the left side surfaces of 45B shown in FIG. 8 and Annotated FIG. 9, the first surface of the unitary bending block is not flat. A skilled artisan would not have found it obvious to modify the first surface of Shinyashiki to be flat because in doing so would make the monolithic body (45B, Annotated FIG. 9) of Shinyashiki not operable to finish the secondarily bending in a second direction with respect to that the first surface of the monolithic body pushes the electrode tab in the second direction which is perpendicular to the first direction, as required in base claim 1.
Thus, the closest prior art when considered separately and/or in combination fails to disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious claim 6 when taken as a whole.
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant’s arguments regarding amended claim 1 filed on 9/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Shinyashiki’s approach lacks the claimed primary and secondary bending steps; and Shinyashiki fails to disclose or suggest using a single bending block to perform both the primary and secondary bends (primary upward bend followed by secondary horizontal bend using the same block). (Remarks on P6).
The Examiner respectfully submits that:
1) the term “followed by” is not required in the claim and the scope of instant claim 1 includes, as a non-limiting example, the primary and secondary bends to be completed simultaneously;
2) Shinyashiki explicitly discloses in [0111-0112] that upward in FIG. 8 and inward bent in FIG.9, as indicated by arrow A14 ([0112]), which reads on the primary (upward) and secondary (inward) bends. Further, since the positive electrode current collector joint portion F11 was bent as indicated by arrow A14 (Annotated FIG. 9) via inward bending following and/or simultaneous upward bending in FIG. 8) ([0112]), with the 45B disposed initially on one side of the electrode tab (bottom side, [0111] and FIG. 8), Shinyashiki discloses the single bending block 45B upward bending and inward bending to accomplish the bending indicated by arrow A14, and the primary upward bending followed by secondary inward bending using the same singular block 45B to make the bending indicated by arrow A14.
Thus, the argument is not found persuasive.
Conclusion
12. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAN LUO whose telephone number is (571)270-5753. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30AM -5:00PM EST.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached on (571)270-1292. 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.
/K. L./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
12/17/2025
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 12/18/2025
Prosecution Insights