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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/29/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9 are currently pending;
Claim 1 is amended;
Claim 9 is new.
Status of Objections and Rejections Pending Since the Office Action of 10/01/2025
The 102(a)(1) rejections of claims 1 and 7-8 are maintained;
The 103 rejections of claims 2-6 are maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In regards to the amendment of claim 1, the newly added limitation of “the sheet-like member is a rectangular shape as viewed in a direction of a winding axis of the electrode assembly” does not require the sheet-like member to be rectangular as viewed along a winding axis. Instead, the newly added limitation allows the sheet-like member to be a rectangular shape when viewed in a direction of a winding axis without limiting the exact direction. For example, the sheet-like member can be viewed in a direction of a winding axis toward the winding axis, in a direction of a winding axis away from the winding axis, a direction of a winding axis along a winding axis, etc. With this interpretation, when viewing the sheet-like member in a direction toward the winding axis, in this case , along the direction “y” of Byun, (see Byun figs. 5-7), the sheet-like member is rectangular in shape.
The Examiner agrees that none of the cited art teaches the features of new claim 9. As such, a new 103 rejection in view of Byun in view of Ueno is presented.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 5-6 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-2, 5-6, and 9 all include the limitation “the electrode assembly” in multiple instances that should be corrected to “the flattened electrode assembly” for consistency with its antecedent basis in claim 1, line 2 of “a flattened electrode assembly formed by winding…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Byun (US-20150311482-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Byun teaches an energy storage device ([0011] rechargeable battery) comprising: a flattened electrode assembly formed by winding a belt-like electrode in a longitudinal direction thereof ([0034]) and including two curved surface portions and a flat portion located between the two curved surface portions (fig. 5; fig. 7; see annotated fig. 5 below as an example; the same is applicable to fig. 7); a case housing the electrode assembly ([0038] case 15; [0076] case 16); and a sheet-like member disposed between the electrode assembly and the case (fig. 7; [0075] retainer 80 in considered sheet-like as it is rectangular and flat/planar on one side; alternatively, fig. 5 retainer 70), wherein an inside of the case is in a negative pressure state, the case includes a recessed side wall which protrudes inward of the case due to the negative pressure state of the inside of the case ([0008]; [0078]; fig. 1; fig. 5; fig. 7), the electrode assembly is pressed by the recessed side wall of the case with the sheet-like member interposed between the electrode assembly and the recessed side wall and the sheet-like member is in contact only with the flat portion with respect to the electrode assembly (fig. 5; fig. 6; fig. 7), and the sheet-like member is a rectangular shape as viewed in a direction of a winding axis of the electrode assembly (see Byun fig. 5-7; when viewing the sheet-like member in a direction toward the winding axis in direction y, the sheet-like member 70 or 80 is rectangular in shape).
PNG
media_image1.png
722
433
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Byun teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Byun also teaches that the sheet-like member is flat in the energy storage device before being charged-discharged (fig. 5, fig. 6 the retainers/sheet-like members 70/80 maintain their shape before and after being charged/discharged and remain flat on the portion facing the electrode assembly).
Regarding claim 8, Byun teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Byun also teaches that the sheet-like member is flat in a state where the sheet-like member is taken out from the case (fig. 5, fig. 6 the retainers/sheet-like members 70/80 maintain their shape and remain flat on the portion facing the electrode assembly regardless of whether or not they are in the case).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byun, as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, Byun teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Byun fails to explicitly teach that a ratio of a thickness of the sheet-like member to the thickness of the electrode assembly is 0.030 or more. Byun discloses adjusting the thickness of the retainers/sheet-like members such that the electrode assembly is pressed with a more uniform pressure and a fixing force of the electrode assembly in the case can be reinforced ([0076]-[0081]). In an effort to optimize the role of the retainers/sheet-like members, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed ratio of a thickness of the sheet-like member to the thickness of the electrode assembly of 0.030 or more in order to improve the fixing force of the electrode assembly in the case ([0081]). It has been held that when the general conditions are discloses in the art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claim(s) 2 – 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byun, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kazuki et al., (WO-2021065420-A1), hereinafter Kazuki.
Regarding claim 2, Byun teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Byun fails to teach that when a thickness of the electrode assembly is defined as T, both ends of the sheet-like member in an opposing direction for the two curved surface portions are present in a range inside a position of T/2 inner side from both ends of the flat portion on a side of the two curved surface portions.
Kazuki is analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of flat wound electrodes for secondary batteries (pg. 2, paragraph 4). Unlike the retainers/sheet-like member in Byun and the instant application, Kazuki teaches spacers including ribs to press on the electrode assembly outside of the battery case ([Abstract]). While outside of the battery case, the ribs along the spacers still achieve pressing the flat portion of the electrode assembly evenly upward or downward in the height direction (pg. 9, paragraph 7). Kazuki teaches that when a thickness of the electrode assembly is defined as T, both ends of the sheet-like member in an opposing direction for the two curved surface portions are present in a range inside a position of T/2 inner side from both ends of the flat portion on a side of the two curved surface portions. Example 1 is given wherein the thickness of the electrode assembly is 10.5 mm, the flat region height is 50 mm, and the pressing member length is 35 mm (pg. 10, paragraph 6 – pg. 11). With a T/2 of 5.25 mm, both ends of the sheet-like member/pressing member in an opposing direction of the two curved surface portions are present in a range inside a position on a T/2 inner side from both ends of the flat portion on a side of the two curved surface portions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Byun to adjust the length of the sheet-like member disposed inside the electrode case in relation to the length of the flat portion of the electrode assembly as claimed above to press the flat portion of the electrode assembly evenly upward or downward in the height direction (Kazuki pg. 9, paragraph 7). The above pressing region in relation to the flat region height is also advantageous for resistance degradation rate and discharge resistance reversible degradation rate. This can be seen in example 1 in Table 1 in comparison to, for example, comparative examples 2 and 3 wherein the pressing region in relation to the height of the flat region is outside one or more of the limits specified in the instant application (Kazuki pg. 10, paragraph 6 – pg. 11, paragraph 4; Table 1).
Regarding claim 3, Byun teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Byun fails to teach that both ends of the sheet-like member in the opposing direction of the two curved surface portions are present in a range inside a position on a 0.1 L inner side from both ends of the flat portion on a side of the two curved surface portions.
Kazuki is analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of flat wound electrodes for secondary batteries (pg. 2, paragraph 4). Unlike the retainers/sheet-like member in Byun and the instant application, Kazuki teaches spacers including ribs to press on the electrode assembly outside of the battery case ([Abstract]). While outside of the battery case, the ribs along the spacers still achieve pressing the flat portion of the electrode assembly evenly upward or downward in the height direction (pg. 9, paragraph 7). Kazuki teaches that both ends of the sheet-like member in the opposing direction of the two curved surface portions are present in a range inside a position on a 0.1 L inner side from both ends of the flat portion on a side of the two curved surface portions (the ribs, hereinafter pressing members, have a length of 60 to 100 when the height of the flat section, interpreted as the claimed L, is 100 ([Abstract]). As such, by overlapping of ranges, the ends of the sheet-like member in the opposing direction of the two curved surface portions can be present in a range inside a position on a 0.1 L inner side from both ends of the flat portion on a side of the two curved surface portions). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Byun to adjust the length of the sheet-like member disposed inside the electrode case in relation to the length of the flat portion of the electrode assembly as claimed above to press the flat portion of the electrode assembly evenly upward or downward in the height direction (Kazuki pg. 9, paragraph 7). The above pressing region in relation to the flat region height is also advantageous for resistance degradation rate and discharge resistance reversible degradation rate. This can be seen in example 1 in Table 1 in comparison to, for example, comparative examples 2 and 3 wherein the pressing region in relation to the height of the flat region is outside one or more of the limits specified in the instant application (Kazuki pg. 10, paragraph 6 – pg. 11, paragraph 4; Table 1).
Regarding claim 4, Byun teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Byun fails to teach that when a length in the opposing direction of the two curved surface portions of the flat portion is defined as L, both ends of the sheet-like member in the opposing direction of the two curved surface portions are each present in a range outside a position on a 0.2 L inner side from both ends of the flat portion on the side of the two curved surface portions.
Kazuki is analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of flat wound electrodes for secondary batteries (pg. 2, paragraph 4). Unlike the retainers/sheet-like member in Byun and the instant application, Kazuki teaches spacers including ribs to press on the electrode assembly outside of the battery case ([Abstract]). While outside of the battery case, the ribs along the spacers still achieve pressing the flat portion of the electrode assembly evenly upward or downward in the height direction (pg. 9, paragraph 7). Kazuki teaches that when a length in the opposing direction of the two curved surface portions of the flat portion is defined as L, both ends of the sheet-like member in the opposing direction of the two curved surface portions are each present in a range outside a position on a 0.2 L inner side from both ends of the flat portion on the side of the two curved surface portions (the ribs, hereinafter pressing members, have a length of 60 to 100 when the height of the flat section, interpreted as the claimed L, is 100 ([Abstract]). As such, by overlapping of ranges, the ends of the sheet-like member in the opposing direction of the two curved surface portions can be present in a range outside a position on a 0.2 L inner side from both ends of the flat portion on the side of the two curved surface portions). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Byun to adjust the length of the sheet-like member disposed inside the electrode case in relation to the length of the flat portion of the electrode assembly as claimed above to press the flat portion of the electrode assembly evenly upward or downward in the height direction (Kazuki pg. 9, paragraph 7). The above pressing region in relation to the flat region height is also advantageous for resistance degradation rate and discharge resistance reversible degradation rate. This can be seen in example 1 in Table 1 in comparison to, for example, comparative examples 2 and 3 wherein the pressing region in relation to the height of the flat region is outside one or more of the limits specified in the instant application (Kazuki pg. 10, paragraph 6 – pg. 11, paragraph 4; Table 1).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byun, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Ono et al. (JP-2015118828-A), hereinafter Ono.
Regarding claim 6, Byun teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Byun also teaches that the case includes metal ([0039] the case may be aluminum).
Byun fails to teach that the energy storage device comprises an insulating member which covers the electrode assembly and insulates the electrode assembly and the case from each other, and the sheet-like member is disposed between the electrode assembly and the insulating member.
Ono is analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of flat wound electrodes for secondary batteries. Ono teaches a flat wound electrode group 3 accommodated in a rectangular battery can 1 (Abstract), including curved portions 30a/30b (Abstract) and a flat portion (pg. 7 paragraph 2; fig. 7; flat portion 30e). There are pressing members (pg. 7 paragraph 2; fig. 7; pressing members 200a/200b) interposed between the electrode group and the rectangular battery can 1 (fig. 7). There is also an insulating sheet 2 wrapped around the electrode group 3, wherein the pressing members 200a/200b (sheet-like member) are disposed between the electrode group 3 and the insulating sheet 2 (pg. 4, paragraph 1; fig. 2).
Byun and Ono are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of flat wound electrodes for secondary batteries. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Byun to incorporate the insulating sheet of Ono between the battery case and electrode assembly including the sheet-like member in order to insulate the electrode assembly from the metal battery case.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byun, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Ueno et al (US-20150194705-A1), hereinafter Ueno.
Regarding claim 9, Byun teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Byun fails to teach wherein each of the two curved surface portions is thicker than the flat portion in a thickness direction of the electrode assembly.
Ueno is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wound electrodes ([0008]). Ueno teaches wherein each of the two curved surface portions is thicker than the flat portion in a thickness direction of the electrode assembly (fig. 3 the edge exposed portions 51/52/61/62 are gathered and welded to respective electrode terminals).
Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Byun such that each of the two curved surface portions is thicker than the flat portion in a thickness direction of the electrode assembly by gathering and welding the electrode current collector exposed portions. Doing so secures connection between the electrode current collector foils exposed portions of the terminals (Ueno [0055])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON L KYLE whose telephone number is (571)272-0164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 AM - 5 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/M.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722