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 . If status of the application as subject to 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 a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/15/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16 were rejected in the office action mailed 4/2/2025. Claims 1-16 are pending in the application and are presently examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 11/20/2025 has been considered by the examiner. The reference with a line through has not been considered by the examiner, because a translation was not provided.
Response to Amendment / Arguments
The amendment filed 10/15/2025, in response to the office action mailed 4/2/2025, has been entered. Applicant’s claim amendments overcame all objections and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections. Applicant's arguments and claim amendments, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections, have been fully considered and are persuasive; however, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on additional prior art.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims; therefore the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Claims 1 & 9 refer to a “tip portion”, a “edge of the tip portion”, a “base portion”, and “an edge of the separator”. The drawings fail to provide a reference number for these structures. Applicant’s remarks show an annotated figure 5A, with reference to the tip portion and to the base portion. The drawings should be similarly amended, plus references for the edges should be added.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor(s) regard as the invention.
Claims 1 & 9 recite:
“the positive electrode active material non-covered portion being joined to the positive electrode current collector plate at one end portion of the electrode winding body, the negative electrode active material non-covered portion being joined to the negative electrode current collector plate at the other end portion of the electrode winding body”
It seems that (a) the positive electrode current collector plate includes the positive electrode active material non-covered portion, so it is unclear how these are joined, and that (b) the negative electrode current collector plate includes the negative electrode active material non-covered portion, so it is unclear how these are joined. For present examination, Examiner presumes that the active material covered portion is joined to the active material non-covered portion, and that both are part of the current collector plate.
Claims 1 & 9 also recite:
“an edge of the tip portion is farther from the positive electrode current collector plate than an edge of the separator in the width direction”
It seems that the tip portion is part of the positive electrode current collector plate, so the tip portion can’t be farther from the positive electrode current collector plate than the edge of the separator. For present examination, Examiner presumes that following is intended:
“an edge of the tip portion is farther from the positive electrode covered portion
Furthermore, regarding this claim limitation, it is unclear which edge of the tip portion and which edge of the separator is intended. This can be clarified by drawing amendment, as discussed in the drawing objections above.
Claims 1 & 9 also recite:
“a length E in a width direction… being larger than a length F in a width direction…
“at least a part of the tip portion overlaps a part of the separator in the radial direction”
The E>F limitation is illustrated in figure 5A. The tip portion overlapping the separator is illustrated in figure 5B. It is unclear how these two claim limitations are combined. In figure 5B, E=0, and E<F, which contradicts the required E>F limitation.
Claims 2-8 & 10-16 are rejected due to their dependence on claims 1 or 9.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
The claims are in bold font, the prior art is in parentheses.
Claims 1, 3-9, and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20040237290A1 (Ura) in view of US20170279157A1 (Lee) and EP2846379A1 (Kwon), together “modified Ura”. Independent claims 1 and 9 are discussed first.
With regard to claims 1 & 9, Ura teaches the following:
A secondary battery (paragraph 19: rechargeable battery) comprising:
an electrode winding body (paragraph 20 and figure 1: “An electrode plate group 10 is constituted by winding in spiral fashion”) having a structure in which a strip-shaped positive electrode (paragraph 20 and figure 1: positive electrode plate 1) and a strip-shaped negative electrode (paragraph 20 and figure 1: negative electrode plate 2) are stacked with a separator (paragraph 20 and figure 1: separator 3) interposed therebetween and wound around a central axis (Figure A below), a positive electrode current collector plate (paragraph 22 and figure 1: positive electrode current collecting plate 8), and a negative electrode current collector plate (paragraph 22 and figure 1: negative electrode current collecting plate 9) are housed in a battery can (paragraph 20 and figure 1: battery container 4),
the positive electrode (1) having a positive electrode active material covered portion covered with a positive electrode active material layer and a positive electrode active material non-covered portion on a strip-shaped positive electrode foil, (Figure A below)
the negative electrode (2) having a negative electrode active material covered portion covered with a negative electrode active material layer and a negative electrode active material non-covered portion on a strip-shaped negative electrode foil, (Figure A below)
the positive electrode active material non-covered portion being joined to the positive electrode current collector plate (8) at one end portion of the electrode winding body, the negative electrode active material non-covered portion being joined to the negative electrode current collector plate (9) at the other end portion of the electrode winding body (Figure A below)…
the electrode winding body having… an inner peripheral portion located inside innermost peripheries of the positive electrode and the negative electrode and including only the separator (Figure A below)
Figure A: Annotated Ura Figure 1
PNG
media_image1.png
649
732
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ura, however, fails to teach the following claim 1 limitation, which is taught by Lee:
the electrode winding body having a flat surface formed by overlapping at least the base portion of the positive electrode active material non-covered portion, a groove formed in the flat surface
Lee is directed to a rechargeable battery with reduced vibration damage (paragraph 10). Lee teaches overlapping the first bent portion and a groove in the flat surface (Figure B below). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Ura’s non-covered parts to be overlapped, and to have a groove in the flat surface, as taught by Lee, as part of a battery with reduced vibration damage.
Figure B: Annotated Lee Partial Figure 3
PNG
media_image2.png
398
462
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 1 & 9 also recite:
a length E in a width direction of a portion where the positive electrode active material non-covered portion protrudes from one end of the separator in a the width direction being larger than a length F in a width direction of a portion where the separator protrudes from one end of the negative electrode in the width direction
Ura illustrates E>F (figure C below):
Figure C: Annotated Ura Partial Figure 1
PNG
media_image3.png
380
546
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Ura, however, fails to describe this relationship. Lee provides additional guidance.
Lee’s separator doesn’t extend beyond the negative electrode in the width direction (vertical in figure D below), so F=0, but Lee’s positive electrode non-covered portion does extend beyond the separator 3, so E>0. Therefore, Lee illustrates E>F:
Figure D: Annotated Lee Figure 1
PNG
media_image4.png
408
431
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Ura fails to teach the following limitations of claims 1 & 9, which are taught by Kwon:
the positive electrode active material non-covered portion including a base portion (Figures E-F below) extending along a radial direction orthogonal to a central axis of the structure of the electrode winding body, toward the central axis, and a tip portion (Figures E-F below) coupled to the base portion (Figures E-F below) on an opposite side to the positive electrode active material covered portion and extending along the central axis…
Figure E: Annotated Kwon Figure 4 Figure F: Annotated Kwon Fig. 37
PNG
media_image5.png
458
666
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
482
464
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Kwon’s first electrode tab 21 or 61 is connected to the first electrode plate 11, which is a positive electrode (paragraphs 52, 61-62, & 113).
Ura also fails to teach the following limitations of claims 1 & 9, which are taught by Kwon:
an edge of the tip portion is farther from the positive electrode current collector plate than an edge of the separator in the width direction
As illustrated in figure G below, Kwon’s separator extends past the positive electrode (paragraph 113: first electrode plates 72 and 73). Combining figures F & G, the tip portion edge of tab 61 would be farther from the positive electrode 72 & 73 than the separator 74 in the width direction.
Figure G: Annotated Kwon Fig. 38
PNG
media_image7.png
518
492
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Ura also fails to teach the following limitations of claims 1 & 9, which are taught by Kwon:
at least a part of the tip portion overlaps a part of the separator in the radial direction (Figures E-G above)
Kwon is directed to an electrode assembly with improved energy density, and that flexibly adapts to battery shape (paragraph 1). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Ura’s positive electrode active material non-covered portion to have the structure described by Kwon above, as part of an electrode assembly with improved energy density, and that flexibly adapts to battery shape.
With regard to claims 3 and 11, modified Ura teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 9 as described above. Ura also teaches the following limitations of claims 3 and 11. Ura also teaches the following claim 3 limitations:
the positive electrode foil has a thickness of 5 µm or more and 20 µm or less (paragraph 26 and figure 1: positive electrode current collector 1b is 20 µm thick), and the negative electrode foil has a thickness of 5 µm or more and 20 µm or less (paragraph 27 and figure 1: negative electrode current collector 2b is 14 µm thick)
Note that Ura paragraph 27 shows “14 pm” thickness, but this is a mistranslation. Ura claims priority to PCT/JP00/02304, publication number WO00/62356. The following USPTO human translation, of the WO00/62356 paragraph that is the equivalent of Ura paragraph 27, shows that Ura’s thickness is 14 µm, not 14 pm:
“The negative electrode material 2a was made by mixing artificial graphite and styrene butadiene rubber (SBR) as a binder in a weight ratio of 97:3. In order to knead the negative electrode material 2a into a paste, a water-soluble dispersion liquid of styrene butadiene rubber was used as a binder. The above mixing ratio is the ratio of solid content. This negative electrode material paste was applied to both sides of a negative electrode current collector 2b made of copper foil with a thickness of 14 µm, leaving a 10 mm wide uncoated area on one edge, to form a negative electrode material layer. After that, it was compression molded with a press roll with a diameter of 300 mm so that the thickness of the negative electrode plate 2 was 170 µm. At this time, the density of the negative electrode material was 1.4 g/cm³.”
With regard to claims 4 and 12, modified Ura teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 9 as described above.
Ura also teaches the following limitations of claims 4 and 12:
the electrode winding body includes a flat surface formed by bending the negative electrode active material non-covered portion toward the central axis… and a groove formed in the flat surface
Annotated Ura Figure 1
PNG
media_image8.png
651
659
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Ura, however, fails to teach the following limitation of claims 4 and 12, which is taught by Lee:
the negative electrode active material non-covered portion… overlapping each other
As discussed under claims 1 and 9, Lee teaches overlapped non-covered parts and a groove in the flat surface (see Figure B in claim 1 discussion above). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to apply this overlapping to the negative electrode like it is applied to the positive electrode because both electrodes have the similar connection issues.
With regard to claims 5-6 and 13-14, modified Ura teaches the limitations of claim 1 and 9 as described above. Ura also teaches the following limitations of claims 5-6 and 13-14:
5/13. An electronic device comprising the secondary battery according to claim 1/9. (paragraphs 2-3: electronic equipment)
6/14. A power tool comprising the secondary battery according to claim 1/9. (paragraph 4: “electric vehicle” is a transportation tool that requires power)
With regard to claims 7 and 15, modified Ura teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 9 as described above. Kwon teaches the following limitation of claims 7 and 15:
in the direction along the central axis, the edge of the tip portion is at a same height as a tip of the negative electrode in the width direction or is located above a position of the tip of the negative electrode in the width direction
Kwon fulfills this claim limitation where Kwon’s tip portion joins the base portion (Figure E above).
With regard to claims 8 and 16, modified Ura teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 9 as described above. Ura also teaches the following limitation of claims 8 and 16:
in the direction along the central axis, the edge of the tip portion is located below a tip of the separator in the width direction
Kwon fulfills this claim limitation where Kwon’s tip portion joins the base portion (Figure E above).
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20040237290A1 (Ura) in view of US20170279157A1 (Lee) and EP2846379A1 (Kwon), together “modified Ura”, as applied to claims 1 and 9, and further in view of US20200350634A1 (Suehiro).
Modified Ura teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 9 as described above. Ura, however, fails to teach the following claim 2 limitation, which is taught by Suehiro:
the separator has a thickness of 4 µm or more and 30 µm or less (paragraph 83: 5 to 30 μm separator thickness)
Suehiro is directed to a cylindrical battery with excellent cycle characteristics (paragraph 7). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Ura’s separator to have a thickness of 5 to 30 μm, as taught by Suehiro, as part of a battery with excellent cycle characteristics.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT WEST whose telephone number is 703-756-1363 and email address is Robert.West@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am - 7 pm 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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684.
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.
/R.G.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721