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 .
2. The Applicant's amendments filed on December 2, 2025, were received. Claims 1 and 16 have been amended. None of the Claims have been cancelled, withdrawn from consideration, or added as new. Therefore, Claims 1-21 are pending in this office action.
3. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office Action issued on September 2, 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. Information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted September 12, 2025, has been received and considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. The rejection of Claims 1-11 and 16-19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thomas et al. (US 6,515,449 B1), has been overcome based on the amendments to the Claims and the arguments presented on pages 6-9 of the Remarks dated December 2, 2025.
6. Claims 1-3, 5-8, 11-12 and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takeuchi et al. (US 2007/0231685 A1).
With regard to Claim 1, Takeuchi et al. disclose in Figures 1-3, a battery cell, comprising: an electrode assembly, called a battery element (1), including a cell body and an electrode tab, called current collector parts (11, 12), provided to at least one of both sides of the cell body; a cell case, called laminated films (2), configured to accommodate the electrode assembly (1) therein; an electrode lead, called electrode terminals (41, 42), drawn out of the cell case (2) by a predetermined length and connected to the electrode assembly (1) through the electrode tab (11, 12); and a tab protection module, called a deformation restricting member (3), accommodated in the cell case (2) and configured to cover at least a part of the electrode tab (11, 12), wherein the tab protection module (3) is positioned apart from the electrode lead (41, 42) (paragraphs 0036-0038).
With regard to Claim 2, Takeuchi et al. disclose in Figure 3, wherein a coupling portion (see annotated figure) between the electrode tab (11, 12) and the electrode lead (41, 42) is located in an inner space, called a deformation restricting space (22), of the tab protection module (3) (paragraphs 0038, 0042).
PNG
media_image1.png
310
521
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 3, Takeuchi et al. disclose in Figure 3, wherein a part of the electrode tab (11, 12) adjacent to the coupling portion is at least partially bent (see annotated figure) (paragraphs 0038, 0042).
With regard to Claim 5, Takeuchi et al. disclose in Figure 3, wherein the tab protection module (3) is configured to have a shape corresponding to an inner surface of the cell case (2) facing the tab protection module (3) (paragraph 0038).
With regard to Claim 6, Takeuchi et al. disclose in Figure 4B, wherein the tab protection module (3) is configured such that at least a part thereof is in close contact with the cell body (1) (paragraph 0046).
With regard to Claim 7, Takeuchi et al. disclose in Figure 3, wherein the tab protection module (3) has a slot through which the electrode lead (41, 42) passes, and the slot has a greater height than the electrode lead (41, 42) (paragraph 0038).
With regard to Claim 8, Takeuchi et al. disclose in Figure 3, wherein the tab protection module (3) is configured to be coupled in close contact with an inner surface of the cell case (2) facing the tab protection module (3) (paragraph 0041).
With regard to Claim 11, Takeuchi et al. disclose in Figure 3, wherein the tab protection module (3) includes a curved portion in close contact with a facing inner surface of the cell case (2) (paragraph 0041).
With regard to Claim 12, Takeuchi et al. disclose in Figures 6A-6C, wherein the curved portion includes: a first curve formed at a front side of the tab protection module (3) (see annotated figure below); a second curve formed on at least one of both sides of the tab protection module (3); and a third curve formed in a part of the tab protection module (3) that meets the first curve and the second curve (paragraph 0049; See Figures).
PNG
media_image2.png
317
244
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 16, Takeuchi et al. disclose in Figure 3, wherein the cell case (2) includes a bent portion (see annotated figure), and wherein the tab protection module (3) is configured to be in close contact with the bent portion (paragraph 0041).
Th recitation, “formed by bending in multiple stages in a region corresponding to the electrode tab”, is considered a product-by-process limitation. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. 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.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
With regard to Claim 17, Takeuchi et al. disclose wherein the bent portion includes: a first inclined portion configured to face the electrode tab (11, 12); and a second inclined portion configured to be in close contact with the tab protection module (3) and having a greater inclination angle than the first inclined portion based on the electrode lead (11, 12) (paragraph 0041) (see annotated figure).
With regard to Claim 18, Takeuchi et al. disclose in Figure 3, wherein the bent portion further includes a connection portion (see annotated figure) configured to connect the first inclined portion and the second inclined portion to each other and to be in close contact with the tab protection module (3) in an upper and lower direction (paragraph 0041).
With regard to Claim 19, Takeuchi et al. disclose in Figure 7, a battery module comprising at least one battery cell noted above (paragraph 0051).
With regard to Claim 20, Takeuchi et al. disclose in Figure 8, a battery pack, comprising at least one battery module noted above (paragraph 0052).
With regard to Claim 21, Takeuchi et al. disclose a vehicle, comprising at least one battery pack noted above (paragraph 0053).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. The rejection of Claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas et al. (US 6,515,449 B1), as applied to Claims 1-11 and 16-19 above, has been overcome based on the amendments to the Claims and the arguments presented on pages 6-9 of the Remarks dated December 2, 2025.
8. The rejection of Claims 20-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas et al. (US 6,515,449 B1), as applied to Claims 1-11 and 16-19 above, and in further view of Kanai et al. (US 7,597,992 B2), has been overcome based on the amendments to the Claims and the arguments presented on pages 6-9 of the Remarks dated December 2, 2025.
9. Claims 4 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi et al. (US 2007/0231685 A1), as applied to Claims 1-3, 5-8, 11-12 and 16-21 above.
With regard to Claim 4, Takeuchi et al. disclose the battery cell in paragraph 6 above, but do not specifically disclose wherein the at least partially bent part of the electrode tab is configured to be coupled to the electrode lead in a multiple-folded state. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to manufacture the at least partially bent part of the electrode tab to be coupled to the electrode lead in a multiple-folded state, since such a modification would only involve a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV).
With regard to Claim 13, Takeuchi et al. disclose the battery cell in paragraph 6 above, including a tab protection module, called a deformation restricting member (3), in a solid piece, so as to partially surround and protect the electrode tab (see Figures 3, 6A-6C). Takeuchi et al. do not specifically disclose wherein the tab protection module includes: a first protection cap provided to at least one side of the cell body and configured to at least partially cover an upper side of the electrode tab; and a second protection cap provided to at least one side of the cell body and connected to the first protection cap, the second protection cap being configured to at least partially cover a lower side of the electrode tab, wherein the first protection cap and the second protection cap are assembled with each other in an upper and lower direction of the electrode tab to at least partially surround the electrode tab. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to integrally form a first protection cap provided to at least one side of the cell body and configured to at least partially cover an upper side of the electrode tab; and a second protection cap provided to at least one side of the cell body and connected to the first protection cap, the second protection cap being configured to at least partially cover a lower side of the electrode tab, wherein the first protection cap and the second protection cap are assembled with each other in an upper and lower direction of the electrode tab to at least partially surround the electrode tab, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article what has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.
With regard to Claim 14, Takeuchi et al. disclose the battery cell in paragraph 6 above, but do not specifically disclose wherein the first protection cap and the second protection cap are assembled with each other through hook-coupling, any one of the first protection cap and the second protection cap has a fastening hook for the hook-coupling, and the other of the first protection cap and the second protection cap has a hook groove into which the fastening hook is fitted. The recitation, “assembled with each other through hook-coupling, any one of the first protection cap and the second protection cap has a fastening hook for the hook-coupling, and the other of the first protection cap and the second protection cap has a hook groove into which the fastening hook is fitted”, is considered a product-by-process limitation. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. 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.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
With regard to Claim 15, Takeuchi et al. disclose wherein when the first protection cap and the second protection cap are coupled, the tab protection module (3) is configured to prevent the electrode lead (41, 42) from being pulled from the cell case (2) due to sealing parts (23) (paragraphs 0038-0041).
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 9-10 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.
11. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art, Takeuchi et al. (US 2007/0231685 A), do not teach or fairly suggest wherein the cell case includes a protruding portion formed to protrude toward the electrode assembly, and the tab protection module includes a recessed portion having a shape corresponding to the protruding portion and formed to be recessed from an outer surface of the tab protection module to accommodate at least a part of the protruding portion; and, wherein the protruding portion and the recessed portion are formed such that outer surfaces thereof are at least partially rounded, and outer surfaces of the protruding portion and the recessed portion have the same radius of curvature.
Response to Arguments
12. Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-9, filed December 2, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claims 1-11 and 16-19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thomas et al. (US 6,515,449 B1), have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Takeuchi et al. (US 2007/0231685 A1).
Conclusion
13. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARIE O APICELLA whose telephone number is (571)272-8614. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:00AM to 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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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.
/KARIE O'NEILL APICELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725