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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 15th, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments filed December 19th, 2025 have been received and entered into the file. Currently claims 1, 3, and 7 are amended and claims 2, 8-9 are cancelled, resulting in claims 1, 3-7, and 10 pending for examination
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed December 19th, 2025 have been received.
Applicant’s amendment to claims 1 and 7 with respect to “α is a scalar weight value” has overcome the 35 USC § 112(a) rejection previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed October 20th, 2025.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 3 with respect to “the length of the substrate tab” has overcome the 35 USC § 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed October 20th, 2025.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 7 with respect to “N is a number of the plurality of electrode plates” has overcome the 35 USC § 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed October 20th, 2025.
Applicant’s cancellation of claim 8 have rendered the 35 USC § 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed October 20th, 2025 moot, however the incorporation of the claimed limitations of claim 8 into claim 7 have resulted in new 35 USC § 112(b) rejections set forth in the forthcoming office action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because with respect to the graph presented in Figure 10, the y axis reads “Length Increment by Layer α (a.u.).” However, as described in the instant amended claims and disclosure of the application, α is a weight value and not a length value. Therefore, it is unclear how the y axis of the Figure 10 is defining the variable alpha as a length increment and assigning it arbitrary units. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Specification
In the amendments to the specification filed December 19th, 2025, applicant recites the amendment to Paragraph 0080 as follows:
[0080] where NL is the layer number of the stacked negative electrode plate 110or positive electrode plate 120 (in FIG. 7, the negative electrode is a reference), and Tn, Tp, and Ts are the thicknesses of the negative electrode plate 110, the positive electrode plate 120, and the separator 130, respectively. In addition, Tnc and Tpc are the thicknesses of the substrate of the negative electrode plate 110 and the substrate of the positive electrode plate 120, respectively, and εn εp are the expansion rates of the negative electrode plate 110 and the positive electrode plate 120, respectively. α (alpha) is a weight for a bending processpc from Tp is the thickness of the positive electrode active material layer, and the value obtained by subtracting Tnc from Tn is the thickness of the negative electrode active material layer.
This amendment changes the scope of the variable alpha as outlined in the originally filed disclosure. Therefore, the amendments to the specification filed December 19th, 2025 were not entered into the file.
In the amendment to the specification filed December 19th, 2025, applicant recites the amendment to Paragraph 0094 as follows:
[0094] Therefore, as shown in FIG. 10, the length of the substrate tab should be set in consideration of the additional length
However, because the amendments to the specification submitted September 10th, 2025 were not entered as described in the Final Rejection mailed October 20th, 2025, the Examiner believes the amendments to the specification requested above should be recited as:
[0094] Therefore, as shown in FIG. 10, the length of the substrate tab should be set in consideration of the additional length
Appropriate correction is required for entry of the amendments into the file.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: contrasting definitions for the variable A. Paragraph 0047 of the disclosure defines the variable A as “a fixed welding portion”, with Paragraph 0065 describing A as “a portion ranging from the first guide line 200 to the end of the substrate tabs 104.” However, Paragraphs 0011 and 0089 define A with respect to the formula, saying that A is “Σ current collector thickness + Σ separator thickness.” It is unclear how A can represent both a fixed welding portion and the sum of the current collector thickness and separator thickness.
Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: inconsistent description of Figure 14. The instant specification provides that Figure 14 is a table showing the lengths of the negative electrode substrate tab when the weight alpha of the bending process is set to 1 (Paragraph 00104). However, the table in Figure 14 of the instant drawings describe the conditions as 10 being applied as the bending process weight (alpha).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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.
Claims 1, 3-7, and 10 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 7, the claims recites “A is a sum of a sum of a thickness of each current collector of the plurality of electrode plates and a sum of thickness of each separator of the plurality of separators” The originally filed disclosure supports that A is the sum of the thickness of the current collector and the sum of the thickness of the separator (Paragraph 0089), Σ current collector thickness + Σ separator thickness (Paragraphs 0011 and 0089). However, the disclosure never defines which current collector is considered in the sum of A, nor are any appropriate bounds provided in the sigma representing the sum of current collector thickness or in the sigma representing the sum of separator thickness.
Therefore, the amendment as filed changes the scope of A without proper support from the instant disclosure. Appropriate correction is required.
Further regarding claims 1 and 7, applicant recites “Σ electrode active material layer thickness of the N-th electrode” However, the originally filed disclosure only supports Σ electrode active material layer thickness (Paragraph 0009). The disclosure never defines which electrode active material layer thickness is considered in the sum or the appropriate bounds provided in the sigma representing the sum of the electrode active material layer thickness.
Therefore, the amendment as filed changes the scope of the sum without proper support from the instant disclosure. Appropriate correction is required.
Further regarding claim 1, applicant recites “α is a weight value…”. The instant disclosure supports that alpha is an “arbitrary constant” (Paragraph 0080). Therefore, the amendment to the instant claim 1 to remove the scalar descriptor of alpha is a broader recitation of alpha than what is originally supported in the disclosure. Appropriate correction is required.
Further regarding claim 7, applicant recites “the protrusion being an unbent portion of the substrate tab between the second guide line and the substrate.” However, the originally filed disclosure lacks support for this amendment. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 3-6, and 10, they are further rejected based on their dependence on independent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 7, applicant recites “α is a weight value selected based on a bending process.” It is unclear what the metes and bounds of the variable alpha are, as there is no range of acceptable values which define the scalar. In the disclosed examples captured by Figures 11-12, the weight alpha of the bending process is set to one, assuming that the type of positive electrode active material is LCO and the length a is 2 mm (Paragraphs 0098, 00100). In the disclosed examples captured by Figures 13-14, the weight alpha of the bending process is set to one, assuming that the type of positive electrode active material is LCO and the length a is 5 mm (Paragraphs 00102, 00104). Therefore, it remains unclear to the examiner if alpha is a weight value, how it depends on one or both of the positive electrode active material and the length a.
Further, a weight value is understood in the art to represent a value with units of weight (such as lbs). However, the instant disclosure does not provide any guidance to determine the value of alpha nor does it give the units of alpha. Therefore, it is unclear to the examiner is alpha is a value with units of weight or if it represents an arbitrary constant value as filed (Paragraph 0080).
Further, it is unclear what is the bending process and how it informs (is taken into consideration when determining) the value alpha.
Appropriate clarification is required.
Further regarding claims 1 and 7, applicant recites “A is a sum of a sum of a thickness of each current collector of the plurality of electrode plates and a sum of a thickness of each separator of the plurality of separators.
However, the instant disclosure also assigns two definitions (a position and a sum) to A as stated above (Paragraphs 0047, 0065, and 0089). It is unclear if A is representative of a sum of thickness, how one could arrive at a position of welding. Appropriate clarification is required.
Further regarding claims 1 and 7, applicant recites “ε is an expansion rate of the N-th electrode plate.” It is unclear what kind of expansion rate the claim refers to, as no units of this value are given in the disclosure. Figures 9-10 express the expansion rate as a percent. In the remarks submitted December 19th, 2025, applicant provides the reference IEST as evidence that expansion rates are known in the art during lithium intercalation. IEST discusses the expansion rate in terms of volume, while the instant disclosure (both in the specification and in the Figures), does not indicate if the expansion rate is a volume expansion rate. Appropriate clarification is required.
Further regarding claims 1 and 7, applicant recites “Σ electrode active material layer thickness of the N-th electrode” It is unclear how the summation of electrode active material layer thickness of the N-th electrode, represents a sum if it is only account for the thickness of the N-th electrode. The lack of bounds on the summation terms Σ of the instant claim does not provide clarification of which thicknesses of the electrode active material layer thickness is being taken into consideration (some subset of N electrode plates (e.g., 1 to N electrode plates) or just the N-th electrode as amended. Appropriate clarification is required.
Further regarding claims 1 and 7, it is unclear to the examiner, based on the definitions of the variables a, α, N, ε, and A given in the instant claim, how the formula of the instant claims provides a measurement of length.
If “a” is a length then a2 of the formula provides units of length2. The product of a weight (α) and a constant (N) is multiplied by a thickness times a percentage (expansion rate ε), giving a value whose units are weight * thickness, which is then added to a unit of length (A is a thickness sum). It is unclear to the examiner how the value whose units are weight * thickness can be added to the value of the variable A, whose units are length. Further, it is unclear to the examiner how the sum of these two values squared and added to a2 (length2 unit) provides a unit of length as described by the instant formula. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 3-6, and 10, they are rejected based on their dependence on a previously rejected claim.
Claim Interpretation
As discussed above in the 35 USC § 112(b) rejections, the variables α and ε as well as the significance of the summation Σ of the instant claimed formula for the length Ln remain indefinite, therefore it remains unclear to the examiner how to calculate the length Ln of the N-th electrode plate according to the instant claimed limitation. Therefore, for the purposes of examination, the instant claims 1 and 7 are understood to require Ln (length from an end of the substrate tab of the N-th electrode plate to the first guide line of the Nth electrode plate) to be greater than LN-1 (length from an end of the substrate tab of the (N-1)-th electrode plate to the first guide line of the (N-1)-th electrode plate) and less than LN+1 (length from an end of the substrate tab of the (N+1)-th electrode plate to the first guide line of the (N+1)-th electrode plate).
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 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”).
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 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 guide line for guiding a welding position.
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 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 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
476
765
media_image1.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 to the guide line of the N-th electrode plate of Ryu in view of Arcraft is less than that same length measured for the (N+1) electrode plate (LN+1) and is greater than that same length measured for the (N-1) electrode plate (LN-1), as illustrated in the annotated Figure above, meeting the instant claimed limitations of the formula for LN (See above “Claim Interpretation”).
As discussed above, 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 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_image3.png
564
1079
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3 of Ryu
Claims 4-8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu in view of Arcraft as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Geomiq (Non-Patent Literature, “Sheet Metal Design Guide”).
Regarding claim 4, Ryu teaches the electrode assembly of claim 3.
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.
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 6, Ryu teaches the electrode assembly of claim 5.
As discussed above, Ryu teaches that electrode tabs are brought into tight contact with each other at the lead so that each of the tabs has a minimum bending length (Column 5, Lines 10-15).
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_image4.png
505
952
media_image4.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 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 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.
Regarding claim 10, Ryu teaches the electrode assembly of claim 7.
As discussed above in the rejection of claim 6, modified 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.
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, 3-7, and 10 above, further in view of Hirose (W.O. 2014027606 A1).
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 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 guide line for guiding a welding position.
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 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 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 guideline 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
476
765
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4 of Ryu
Ryu is silent as to 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 is obtained by a formula given in the instant claim.
However, Hirose teaches a storage cell wherein all tabs are brought together in the stacking direction of an electrode assembly (Abstract). Hirose teaches the tabs being folded prior to gathering them into a welded portion formed at the position where all the tabs overlap (Paragraph 0007). Further, Hirose teaches prior to folding and gathering, the height of the current collecting tabs are different (Figure 5a). Hirose discloses various expressions (1-3) to calculate the tab length of the current collector tabs (Paragraphs 0048-0053).
Therefore, Hirose discloses varying lengths of the tabs of the electrodes of a battery assembly. It is known in the art to bend the tabs of the electrodes in a battery arrangement so that the group of anode tabs and the group of cathode tabs may be collected. It is further known that in a battery assembly, the tabs protruding from the electrode plate must be different lengths to account for the distance between the electrode plate and the point where the tabs are to be welded together. Hirose teaches that by increasing the length of the tab as it goes outward in the stacking direction, it is possible to prevent the tabs from separating from each other (Paragraph 0013).
It would be obvious to an ordinary artisan to modify the electrode tabs of Ryu to incorporate the teachings of Hirose and to tune the length of the electrode tabs and the angle at which they are bent so that all of the tabs may be joined at a single point. Doing so would advantageously result in the suppression of the tabs from separating, as recognized by Hirose. In order for the entirety of the electrode tabs in a stacked battery assembly to be collectively joined or folded as described in Ryu and Hirose, an ordinary artisan would recognize the need to account for variables such as the thickness of the electrode active material layer, current collector, and separator along with the angle of bending, expansion of the assembly over time, and thickness of the assembly, among other factors, in order to ensure all of the electrode tabs reach the desired point of connection. The ordinary artisan would seek to tune these variables in order to obtain an optimal length of the substrate tab of the N-th electrode plate, particularly accounting for the length of the electrode tabs which lie above (N+1) and below (N-1) the tab of interest, meeting the instant claimed limitation.
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 to expose the substrate tab to an outside of the plurality of separators.
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_image7.png
584
601
media_image7.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.
Ryu is silent as to 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 is obtained by a formula given in the instant claim.
However, Hirose teaches a storage cell wherein all tabs are brought together in the stacking direction of an electrode assembly (Abstract). Hirose teaches the tabs being folded prior to gathering them into a welded portion formed at the position where all the tabs overlap (Paragraph 0007). Further, Hirose teaches prior to folding and gathering, the height of the current collecting tabs are different (Figure 5a). Hirose discloses various expressions (1-3) to calculate the tab length of the current collector tabs (Paragraphs 0048-0053).
Therefore, Hirose discloses varying lengths of the tabs of the electrodes of a battery assembly. It is known in the art to bend the tabs of the electrodes in a battery arrangement so that the group of anode tabs and the group of cathode tabs may be collected. It is further known that in a battery assembly, the tabs protruding from the electrode plate must be different lengths to account for the distance between the electrode plate and the point where the tabs are to be welded together. Hirose teaches that by increasing the length of the tab as it goes outward in the stacking direction, it is possible to prevent the tabs from separating from each other (Paragraph 0013).
It would be obvious to an ordinary artisan to modify the electrode tabs of Ryu to incorporate the teachings of Hirose and to tune the length of the electrode tabs and the angle at which they are bent so that all of the tabs may be joined at a single point. Doing so would advantageously result in the suppression of the tabs from separating, as recognized by Hirose. In order for the entirety of the electrode tabs in a stacked battery assembly to be collectively joined or folded as described in Ryu and Hirose, an ordinary artisan would recognize the need to account for variables such as the thickness of the electrode active material layer, current collector, and separator along with the angle of bending, expansion of the assembly over time, and thickness of the assembly, among other factors, in order to ensure all of the electrode tabs reach the desired point of connection. The ordinary artisan would seek to tune these variables in order to obtain an optimal length of the substrate tab of the N-th electrode plate, particularly accounting for the length of the electrode tabs which lie above (N+1) and below (N-1) the tab of interest, meeting the instant claimed limitation.
Claims 6 and 10 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu, Arcraft, and Geomiq as applied to claims 1-8, 10 above, further in view of Wei (U.S. 20190027712 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Ryu teaches the electrode assembly of claim 5.
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, 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_image8.png
622
1055
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4 of Wei
Regarding claim 10, Ryu teaches the electrode assembly of claim 7.
Ryu is silent as to a length (ℓ’) from the protrusion to the bending guide line of the substrate tab increases as a stack number of the plurality of electrode plates increases.
However, 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_image8.png
622
1055
media_image8.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
For clarity of the record, the arguments submitted with the amended claims entered in this Office Action, submitted in the Response after Final Action received December 19th, 2025 are included below.
Response : Specification Objection
The response filed December 19th, 2025 requests that, regarding the objection to the specification set forth in the Final Rejection mailed October 20th, 2025, the objection to the specification be withdrawn in light of the amendments to the specification presented in the response. The Examiner's acknowledges this request but submits that as outline above, a new objection to the specification has been set forth.
Response: Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)
The response filed December 19th, 2025 requests that, regarding the 112(a) rejections of claims 1-6, 8 set forth in the Final Rejection mailed October 20th, 2025, the rejection of the claims be withdrawn in light of the amendments to claims 1 and 7 presented in the response. The Examiner's acknowledges this requests but submits that as outlined above, outstanding 112(a) rejections of claims 1 and 7 have been set forth, necessitated by the cancellation of claim 8 and the amended subject matter of claims 1 and 7.
Response: Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
The response filed December 19th, 2025 requests that, regarding the 112(b) rejections of claims 1-10 set forth in the Final Rejection mailed October 20th, 2025, the rejection of the claims be withdrawn in light of the amendments to claims 1 and 7 presented in the response.
The Examiner's acknowledges this requests but submits that as outlined above, outstanding112(b) rejections of claims 1, 3-7 and 10 have been set forth, necessitated by the cancellation of claim 8 and the amended subject matter of claims 1 and 7.
Response: Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 103
The response filed December 19th, 2025 requests that, regarding the 103 rejection of claim 1 set forth in the Final Rejection mailed October 20th, 2025, the rejection of the claim be withdrawn in light of the amendments to claim 1 presented in the response. Particularly, applicant argues on page 10 that Ryu fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the lengths of the electrode tabs are calculated based on the formula recited in amended independent claim 1. Further, applicant argues that none of the other cited prior art references remedy the deficiencies of Ryu.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
As outlined above, claim 1 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over the prior art of record.
The response filed December 19th, 2025 requests that, regarding the 103 rejection of claim 7 set forth in the Final Rejection mailed October 20th, 2025, the rejection of the claim be withdrawn in light of the amendments to claim 7 presented in the response. Particularly, applicant argues on pages 11-12 that Ryu fails to disclose, teach, or suggest an unbent protrusion between a second guide line and the substrate as recited in amended independent claim 7. Further, applicant argues that none of the other cited prior art references remedy the deficiencies of Ryu.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
As outlined above, claim 7 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
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
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789