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 .
Claim Status
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments filed June 4th, 2026 have been received and entered into the file. Currently claims 1, 5, and 7 are amended and claims 2, 4, 6, 8-10 are cancelled, resulting in claims 1, 5, and 7 pending for examination.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed June 4th, 2026 have been received.
The amendments to the drawings and the specification submitted June 4th, 2026 have been received and entered. The objection to the drawings and the specification set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed March 4th, 2026 has therefore been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment with respect to Paragraph 00104 of the disclosure has overcome the objection to the disclosure set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed March 4th, 2026.
Applicant’s amendment to claims 1 and 7 with respect to the deletion of limitations pertaining to the variables A, Σ electrode active material layer thickness of the N-th electrode, and α has overcome the 35 USC § 112(a) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed March 4th, 2026.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the recitation of “the protrusion being an unbent portion of the substrate tab between the second guide line and the substrate” in claim 7 has been found persuasive and therefore the 35 USC § 112(a) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed March 4th, 2026 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment to claims 1 and 7 with respect to the deletion of limitations pertaining to the variables A, Σ electrode active material layer thickness of the N-th electrode, α, and ε has overcome the 35 USC § 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed March 4th, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 7 are objected to for the following informalities: the Examiner believes the recitation of “a length (ℓ’) from the protrusion to the second guide line of the substrate tab increases as a stack number of plurality of electrode plates increases” should be corrected to include “…as a stack number of the plurality of electrode plates increases.”
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu (U.S. 8846243 A1) in view of Arcraft (Non-Patent Literature, “Weld and Welding Symbols”) (hereafter “Arcraft”) and Geomiq (Non-Patent Literature, “Sheet Metal Design Guide”) (hereafter “Geomiq”).
Regarding claim 1, Ryu teaches an electrode assembly (Column 1, Lines 20-21) comprising:
a plurality of electrode plates (cathode plates, but also applied to anodes as per Column 4, Lines 60-61) (Column 1, Lines 22-23). Ryu teaches each electrode plate of the plurality of electrode plates comprising a substrate (collector) (Figure 3, Element 210) (Column 4, Lines 62-67) and a substrate tab (electrode tabs) (Figure 3, Element 300) (Column 1, Lines 25-30).
Ryu teaches a plurality of separators interposed between the plurality of electrode plates (Column 3, Lines 29-32).
Ryu teaches the differing lengths of the cathode (substrate) tabs being joined to each other so that they have a minimum length (Column 5, Lines 10-15). The length of the tabs of Ryu shown in the figure below are comparable with Ln of the instant claim, as both represent a length from an end of the substrate tab of an N-th electrode plate to the first guide line of the N-th electrode plate. The length of the electrode tab on each electrode plate of the plurality of electrode plates of Ryu are taught to be being the smallest at the lowermost position while the protruding length is the largest at the uppermost position, with the protruding length of the cathode tabs increasing from lowermost to uppermost position (Column 5, Lines 2-8), as shown in the annotated Figure below. Therefore, Ryu is considered to teach the limitation of a length LN from an end of the substrate tab of an N-th electrode plate of the plurality of electrode plates to the first guide line of the N-th electrode plate varies across the plurality of electrode plates.
PNG
media_image1.png
476
765
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4 of Ryu
As shown in the annotated Figure below, Ryu teaches the substrate tab of each of the plurality of electrode plates including a protrusion. As the protrusion of Ryu exposes the substrate tab, whose minimum length is desired, to an outside of the plurality of separators in the electrode stack assembly, it is considered the minimum protrusion length and therefore meets the instant claimed limitations.
PNG
media_image2.png
562
1053
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3 of Ryu
As seen in Figures 3-4, Ryu teaches the electrode tabs are bent, Ryu further teaches the electrode tabs may be joined to the electrode lead by welding (Column 3, Lines 55-60).
Ryu teaches the electrode tabs may be joined to the electrode lead by welding (Column 3, Lines 55-60).
Ryu is silent as to the substrate tab having a first guide line for guiding a welding position of a substrate tab.
However, Arcraft teaches welding symbols as engineering tools to convey information regarding the type of weld to be made, its location, dimensions, extent, contour, and other supplementary information (Paragraphs 1-2). The use of such symbols provide instructions from the designer of the welded structure to the workman (Paragraph 1). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrode tabs of Ryu to incorporate the teachings of Arcraft in which the tab contains a first guide line (welding symbol) for guiding a welding position at the joint portion of the tabs (Figure 4, Element B). Doing so would ensure the workman can successful complete the weld to the specifications (type of weld, location, dimensions, extent, contour) as set by the designer, as recognized by Arcraft.
Ryu is silent as to a second guide line for guiding a position at which the substrate tab is bent is formed on the substrate tab.
However, Geomiq discloses the basic guidelines for sheet metal fabrication. Geomiq is considered an analogous art because it solves the same problem as the instant disclosure, namely to provide guide lines to indicate where to bend a substrate metal. Further, Geomiq teaches that parts to be bent include flat patterns with bending information, wherein bend positions can be etched and or cut to show benders where to bend the metal (Page 4, Paragraph 1). Geomiq also teaches that when the bend is made to be close to an edge of the material, a bend relief notch should be cut into the part in order to prevent tearing (Page 10, Paragraphs 1-4).
As discussed above, Ryu provides the electrode tabs are portions of the electrode which are not coated with active material (Column 2, Lines 12-16). Electrode plates are known in the art as being comprises of metal, therefore Ryu is open to the modification of Geomiq which discusses bending metal plates.
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 substrate tab of the electrode plate of Ryu to incorporate the teaching of Geomiq in which a bend relief notch (bending guide line) is included in the plate to guide the bending of the substrate tab. Doing so would advantageously result in the prevention of tearing, as recognized by Geomiq.
Ryu is silent as to a length (ℓ’) from the protrusion to the second guide line of the substrate tab increases as a stack number of the plurality of electrode plates increases.
However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that by minimizing the bending length of the electrode tabs according to the teachings of Ryu, the length ℓ’ from the protrusion to the second guide line of the substrate tab would necessarily increase as a stack number of the plurality of electrode plates increases.
As shown in the annotated diagram below, when ℓ’ of the N+1 electrode plate is the same length as ℓ’ of the Nth electrode plate (bottom photo), the bending length of the tab is larger than when the bending length of the tab when ℓ’ of the N+1 electrode plate is larger than the length ℓ’ of the Nth electrode plate (top photo).
PNG
media_image3.png
505
952
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in order to minimize the bending length according to the teachings of Ryu, the ordinary artisan would find it obvious to increase the length ℓ’ from the protrusion to the second guide line of the substrate tab as a stack number of the plurality of electrode plates increases, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 3, Ryu teaches the electrode assembly of claim 1.
As discussed above, Ryu teaches the electrode tabs may be joined to the electrode lead by welding and Ryu in view of Arcraft teach a first guide line for guiding a welding position of the substrate tab.
Therefore, as shown in the annotated figure below, Ryu in view of Arcraft teaches the length of the substrate tab is a length ranging from the protrusion to the first guide line.
PNG
media_image4.png
564
1079
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3 of Ryu
Regarding claim 5, Ryu teaches the electrode assembly of claim 4.
As discussed above in the rejection of claim 2, Ryu teaches each of the plurality of electrode plates comprising a substrate tab whose length is minimized (Column 5, Lines 10-15). As shown in the annotated Figure below, Ryu teaches the substrate tab including a protrusion. As the protrusion of Ryu exposes the substrate tab, whose minimum length is desired, to an outside of the plurality of separators in the electrode stack assembly, it is considered the minimum protrusion length and therefore meets the instant claimed limitations.
PNG
media_image2.png
562
1053
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3 of Ryu
Regarding claim 7, Ryu teaches an electrode assembly (Column 1, Lines 20-21) comprising a plurality of electrode plates (cathode plates, but also applied to anodes as per Column 4, Lines 60-61) in a stacked configuration (Column 1, Lines 22-23). Ryu teaches each electrode plate of the plurality of electrode plates comprising a substrate (collector) (Figure 3, Element 210) (Column 4, Lines 62-67) and a substrate tab (electrode tabs) (Figure 3, Element 300) (Column 1, Lines 25-30).
As discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, Ryu in view of Arcraft teaches the substrate tab having a first guide line for guiding a welding position of the substrate tab.
As discussed above in the rejection of claim 4, Ryu in view of Geomiq teaches the substrate tab having a second guide line for guiding a position at which the substrate tab is bent.
As discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, Ryu teaches a plurality of separators respectively interposed between the plurality of electrode plates (Column 3, Lines 29-32).
As discussed above in the rejection of claim 5, Ryu teaches the substrate tab of each electrode plate of the plurality of electrode plates includes a protrusion having a minimum protrusion length (minimum bending length) to expose the substrate tab to an outside of the plurality of separators.
As discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, Ryu teaches a length ℓ’ from the protrusion to the bending (second) guide line of the substrate tab increases as a stack number of the plurality of electrode plates increases, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
As illustrated in the annotated Figure below, Ryu teaches the protrusion is an unbent portion of the substrate tab between the second guide line and the substrate.
PNG
media_image5.png
584
601
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3 of Ryu
Ryu teaches the protruding length of the electrode tab being the smallest at the lowermost position while the protruding length is the largest at the uppermost position, with the protruding length of the cathode tabs increasing from lowermost to uppermost position (Column 5, Lines 2-8), as shown in the annotated Figure below.
PNG
media_image6.png
476
765
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4 of Ryu
Therefore, it follows that the length from an end of the protrusion of the substrate tab of an N-th electrode plate of the plurality of electrode plates to the first guide line of the N-th electrode plate (LN) is less than a length from an end of the protrusion of the substrate tab of an (N+1)-th electrode plate of the plurality of electrode plates to the first guide line of the (N +1)-th electrode plate (LN+1), as illustrated in the annotated Figure above, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Claims 1 and 7 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu, Arcraft, and Geomiq as applied to claims 1, 3, 5, and 7 above, further in view of Wei (U.S. 20190027712 A1).
Regarding claim 1, as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over Ryu in view of Arcraft and Geomiq presented above, the Examiner established that the prior art taught an electrode assembly comprising:
a plurality of electrode plates, each electrode plate of the plurality of electrode plates comprises a substrate and a substrate tab having a first guide line for guiding a welding position of the substrate tab and a second guide line for guiding a position at which the substrate tab is bent; and
a plurality of separators interposed between the plurality of electrode plates, wherein a length (LN) from an end of the substrate tab of an N-th electrode plate of the plurality of electrode plates to the first guide line of the N-th electrode plate varies across the plurality of electrode plates, wherein N is a number of the plurality of electrode plates,
wherein the substrate tab of each of the plurality of electrode plates includes a protrusion having a minimum protrusion length to expose the substrate tab to an outside of the plurality of separators.
In the case that Ryu in view of Arcraft and Geomiq is found not to teach the limitation of a length (ℓ’) from the protrusion to the second guide line of the substrate tab increases as a stack number of the plurality of electrode plates increases, as alternate rejection in view of Wei is presented below:
Wei discloses a pouch-type secondary battery comprising an electrode assembly (Abstract). Wei teaches an embodiment shown in annotated Figure 4, wherein the length (ℓ’) from the protrusion to the second guide line of the substrate tab increases as a stack number of the plurality of electrode plates increases. Wei teaches it is known in the art to configure the tabs of the electrode this way, 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 Ryu to incorporate the teachings of Wei in which the electrode tabs so that ℓ’ increases as stack number increases, as this is a known way of designing an electrode assembly.
PNG
media_image7.png
622
1055
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4 of Wei
Cited Art Not Relied Upon
Han (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20200075921 A1) discloses an electrode assembly including electrode tabs which are bent in specific ways which account for the stress bending places on the tabs (Abstract, Paragraphs 0033-0034).
Koo (Korean Patent Publication No. 20170093776 A) discloses a stack electrode assembly (Paragraph 0001) wherein the protruding length of electrode tabs formed at one end or both ends of the electrode units is arranged to sequentially increase in the direction from the first electrode unit to the n^th electrode unit and to wind the electrode tabs (Paragraph 0023).
Park (Korean Patent Publication No. 20180072065 A) discloses a battery cell having a structure in which the dead space of the welded portion of an electrode tab is reduced (Paragraph 0001) in order to improve the energy density per volume of the electrode stack (Paragraph 0013).
Miyake (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20160118640 A1) discloses a power storage unit comprising positive and negative electrodes which have tabs (Abstract) whose folding and positioning is performed such that the distance between the folded portion of the lead electrode and the connection portion between the tab and the lead is small (Paragraph 0073).
Response to Arguments
Response: Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 103
In the remarks filed June 4th, 2026 applicant argues that the teaching of Ryu directed toward the cathode tabs having a minimum bending length does not mean that the length ℓ’ from the protrusion to the second guide line of the substrate tab would necessarily increase as a stack number of the plurality of electrode plates increases. Applicant argus that Ryu fails to disclose that the cathode tabs have any protruding portions prior to being bent, let alone protrusions that get progressively longer as the electrode plate increases. Applicant argues that the bending length of Ryu appears to refer to a horizontal distance of the bent portion, and therefore Ryu fails to teach the aforementioned limitation, which is not remedied by any of the other cited references.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that as set forth above and in the Non-Final Rejection mailed March 4th, 2026, Ryu teaches that the tabs have protruding portions prior to being bent. As seen in the annotated Figure 3 of Ryu below, Ryu teaches the electrode tabs protruding from the assembly which are then bent and gathered at a joint portion. Further, Ryu explicitly teaches the tabs having a protruding length (Paragraph 0034) and a bending angle (Paragraph 0035). Thus applicant’s arguments that Ryu fails to disclose the cathode tabs have any protruding portions prior to being bent are not founded, as Ryu clearly and explicitly discloses this feature.
PNG
media_image8.png
704
790
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figures 3 and 4 of Ryu
Thus, the ordinary artisan can deduce that from the disclosure of Ryu and the embodiments illustrated in Figures 3 and 4, that the tabs of the electrode assembly have the following structure:
PNG
media_image9.png
340
535
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Ryu teaches that the structure of the assembly is that the lengths of the electrode tabs at a joint portion between the electrode tabs and electrode lead are the same while bending of the tabs is minimized (Paragraph 0015). Particularly, Ryu teaches that the tabs are joined to each other with minimum bending length (Paragraph 0034), and that the cathode tab at the lowermost position has the smallest bending length (Paragraph 0037).
As described above in the rejection of claim 1 and in the rejection of claim 6 mailed March 4th, 2026, the Examiner maintains that the length ℓ’ from the protrusion to the second guide line of the substrate tab would necessarily increase as a stack number of the plurality of electrode plates increases. Support for this assertion was found in the following annotated Figures provided in the aforementioned rejections:
PNG
media_image3.png
505
952
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The disclosure of Ryu has two fundamental teachings: the bending length of the electrode tabs being minimized, and the bending length at the lowermost tab being the smallest, increasing gradually to be the largest at the uppermost tab.
Therefore, in order to satisfy these two foundational teachings of Ryu, the ordinary artisan can imagine two scenarios with respect to the length ℓ’ from the protrusion to the second guide line of the substrate tab: the length ℓ’ is constant as stack number increases or the length ℓ’ increases as the stack number increases. As is seen in the annotated figure above, the length ℓ’ being constant results in a bending length which is not minimized, when compared to the configuration when length ℓ’ increases as stack number increases. Thus, as described in the rejection of this limitation, in order to preserve the teaching of Ryu with respect to minimized bending length, the ordinary artisan would recognize that length ℓ’ increasing as a stack number of a plurality of electrode plates increases flows naturally therefrom.
Further, the Examiner presents that an alternate rejection of this limitation was presented in view of Ryu and Wei, where Wei was used as additional evidence that the configuration of length ℓ’ increases as a stack number of the plurality of electrode plates is a known configuration in the art.
Conclusion
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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA A JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-1718. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
/O.A.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/JENNIFER A BOYD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights