DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . If status of the application as subject to 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4-5, & 8-13 are pending in the application and are presently examined. Claims 1, 4-5, & 8-12 were rejected in the 3/16/2026 office action. Applicant added new claim 13.
Response to Amendment / Arguments
The 6/15/2026 amendment, in response to the 3/16/2026 office action, has been entered. Applicant's arguments, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Claim 1 states:
density of at least one of the positive electrode mixture layer or the negative electrode mixture layer increases when going to the center from the external side of the radial structure
In the prior office action, Examiner argued that it would have been obvious to make the electrode with this density change because this is one of two possible ways to make the wedge-shaped active material layers of the primary reference, JPS51065331A (Mizumoto). Applicant failed to respond to this argument; therefore, this argument is presumed sufficient to prove that this claim limitation is obvious over Mizumoto.
This claim limitation was also rejected as being obvious over CN110943222A machine translation (Li). Li describes an electrode active material layer with increased density in the middle area compared to side areas, in order to avoid edge warp (page 18, lines 19-30). Applicant argues:
“Li does not teach providing uniform pressure at one edge and gradually reducing pressure moving towards an opposite edge.”
The above claim limitation also doesn’t require “providing uniform pressure at one edge and gradually reducing pressure moving towards an opposite edge”, so it is unclear how this argument overcomes applying Li’s teachings to Mizumoto.
Regarding claim 9, US20200212495A1 (Lee) teaches a through-hole in a current collector in order to ensure flexibility (paragraphs 31-32). Applicant argues that there is no reason to make Mizumoto’s “battery flexible since it is desired to have a cylindrical shape”.
Examiner disagrees that there is no reason to make Mizumoto’s battery flexible. Lee’s battery has a flat shape, and Mizumoto’s battery is cylindrical. This difference in shape does not mean that it wouldn’t be desirable for Mizumoto’s battery to be flexible.
Lee also teaches that the hole in the current collector allows flexibility without separation of the active material (paragraphs 33). Thus, even if bending of Mizumoto’s battery was unintended, during battery use or manufacture, the current collector hole allows this bending without active material separation. Thus, Mizumoto modified by Lee results in a more robust battery.
Regarding claim 12, Applicant argues:
“Finally, regarding dependent claim 12, the Office Action relies on Imoto to teach modifying Mizumoto to provide that ‘the second separation film directly contacts the positive electrode current collector and the negative electrode current collector.’ Applicant's representative noted that such a modification would require removing one of the separator 4 or the active material protection layer 1 of Mizumoto, which is not taught by Imoto.”
Examiner disagrees.
Mizumoto teaches the alternating electrode – separator structure in radial form, as illustrated in Figure C below. Note that Mizumoto’s active material protection material 1 and separator 4 combined are interpreted to be the same as the presently-claimed separation films (1st separator & 2nd separator in Figure C below). This is not modified by Imoto.
Figure C: Annotated, partial Mizumoto Figure 1, modified by Imoto
PNG
media_image1.png
328
982
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Imoto doesn’t modify Mizumoto’s active material protection material 1 and separator 4 [together the presently-claimed separation films]. Imoto only modifies Mizumoto’s electrodes. Imoto is provided to show that it would have been obvious for Mizumoto’s electrodes to include active material only on one side of the current collector (CC in Figure C above). Figure C also illustrates the active material layer and current collector of modified Mizumoto.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
The claims are in bold font, the prior art is in parentheses.
Claims 1, 4-5, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPS51065331A machine translation (Mizumoto) in view of US20050277022A1 (Kozuki) and CN110943222A machine translation (Li), together “modified Mizumoto”.
With regard to claim 1, Mizumoto teaches the following claim limitations:
An electrode assembly (page 1, lines 26-29: storage battery) comprising:
a plurality of unit cells, each unit cell having a radial structure with reference to a center (page 1, lines 26-34; figures 1-2),
wherein a thickness of each unit cell is reduced while going to the center from an external side of the radial structure with respect to a horizontal cross-section (figures 1-5)…
wherein each unit cell includes a positive electrode, a first separation film, a negative electrode, and a second separation film that are sequentially stacked, and wherein the first separation film directly contacts the positive electrode and the negative electrode (page 1, lines 30-34; Figure A below)
Figure A: Annotated Mizumoto Figure 1
PNG
media_image2.png
554
889
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Mizumoto’s active material protective material 1 and separator 4 together are interpreted as the claimed first and second separation films. As illustrated in Figure A above, Mizumoto’s first separation film directly contacts the positive electrode and the negative electrode (see Figure A below).
Mizumoto, however, fails to teach the following claim 1 limitation, which is taught by Kozuki (paragraphs 28-29; figures 2A-3B):
at least one electrode tab (1c or 2c) is at least one of an upper edge… of at least one current collector (1a or 2a) included in each unit cell
Kozuki is directed to “an electrochemical element comprising a connection structure which improves the current collection efficiency from an electrode assembly” (paragraph 13). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Mizumoto’s storage battery to have a tab / uncoated exposed positive current collector portion on the positive current collector, as taught by Kozuki for improved current collection efficiency (paragraphs 13 & 28; figures 3A-3B).
Mizumoto fails to teach the following claim 1 limitations, which are taught by Kozuki (paragraphs 28-29; figures 2A-3B):
the positive electrode (positive electrode 1) includes a positive electrode current collector (positive current collector 1a) and a positive electrode mixture layer (positive electrode active material 1b) on the positive electrode current collector (1a),
the negative electrode (negative electrode 2) includes a negative electrode current collector (negative current collector 2a) and a negative electrode mixture layer (negative electrode active material 2b) on the negative electrode current collector (2a), and
the at least one current collector (1a or 2a) is at least one of the positive electrode current collector (1a) or the negative electrode current collector (2a)
Kozuki is directed to “an electrochemical element comprising a connection structure which improves the current collection efficiency from an electrode assembly” (paragraph 13). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Mizumoto’s storage battery to have the claimed electrode structure, as taught by Kozuki, as part of a battery with improved current collection efficiency (paragraphs 13 & 28; figures 3A-3B).
Mizumoto also teaches the following claim 1 limitation:
a thickness of at least one of the positive electrode mixture layer or the negative electrode mixture layer is reduced when going to the center from the external side of the radial structure (page 1, lines 30-37; figures 1-2: active material 1 thickness decreases towards the center)
Claim 1 also recites:
density of at least one of the positive electrode mixture layer or the negative electrode mixture layer increases when going to the center from the external side of the radial structure
As discussed above, Mizumoto teaches decreasing active material 1 thickness towards the center (page 1, lines 30-37; figures 1-2). There are two obvious options for achieving a thinner layer towards the center:
Roll the layer with increasing pressure towards the center. This would result in thinner and denser towards the center.
Apply less material towards the center. This would result in thinner towards the center, but not denser.
MPEP 2144.05(II)(B) provides guidance for this issue:
“When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under §103.”
With only two options for achieving thinner towards the center, and one of these resulting in denser towards the center, it would have been obvious, to try each option and to reach the claimed arrangement.
Li provides additional guidance. Li describes an electrode active material layer with increased density in the middle area compared to side areas, in order to avoid edge warp (page 18, lines 19-30). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for modified Mizumoto’s active material to be denser towards the center, in order to avoid edge warp.
With regard to claims 4-5, modified Mizumoto teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Mizumoto fails to teach the following limitations of claims 4-5, which are taught by Kozuki (paragraphs 28-29; figures 2A-3B):
Claim 4
the at least one electrode tab (1c or 2c) is a positive electrode tab (1c) on the at least one of the upper edge… of the positive electrode current collector (1a)
Claim 5
the at least one electrode tab (1c or 2c) is a negative electrode tab (2c) on the at least one of the upper edge… of the negative electrode current collector (2a)
With regard to claim 10, modified Mizumoto teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Mizumoto fails to teach the following limitation of claim 10, which is taught by Kozuki:
an electrode lead bonded to the at least one electrode tab (paragraph 32: “positive lead 9 is bonded to the exposed positive current collector portion”)
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for modified Mizumoto’s current collector to be bonded to a positive lead, as taught by Kozuki, to provide a connection for an external device to modified Mizumoto’s storage battery.
With regard to claim 11, modified Mizumoto teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Mizumoto fails to teach the following claim 11 limitations, which are taught by Kozuki:
A secondary battery (paragraphs 21, 27, & 32-34) comprising:
an electrode assembly according to claim 1 (see discussion above);
a battery case (paragraph 32: battery case 12) for receiving the electrode assembly; and
a cap assembly (paragraph 32: sealing plate 14) disposed on the electrode assembly,
wherein the at least one electrode tab is connected to the cap assembly or the battery case (paragraph 32: “positive lead 9 is welded to the external positive connection terminal 21 insulatingly attached to the sealing plate 14”)
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention—
for modified Mizumoto’s storage battery to be a secondary battery, as taught by Kozuki, to provide uses for the storage battery; and
for modified Mizumoto’s current collector to include a case and a sealing plate, and for the positive lead to be attached to the sealing plate, as taught by Kozuki, to provide a structure for the electrode assembly and a connection for an external device.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPS51065331A machine translation (Mizumoto), US20050277022A1 (Kozuki), and CN110943222A machine translation (Li), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US20200212495A1 (Lee). Modified Mizumoto teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Mizumoto fails to teach the following limitation of claim 9, which is taught by Lee:
a through-hole is formed in the at least one current collector
Lee teaches a through-hole in a current collector in order to ensure flexibility (paragraphs 31-32). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for modified Mizumoto’s current collector 1a or 2a to have a through-hole, as taught by Kozuki, to ensure flexibility.
Claims 8 & 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPS51065331A machine translation (Mizumoto), US20050277022A1 (Kozuki), and CN110943222A machine translation (Li), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US20200052343A1 (Imoto).
With regard to claim 8, modified Mizumoto teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Mizumoto fails to teach the following limitations of claim 8, which are taught by Kozuki (paragraphs 28-30; Figure B below):
the positive electrode current collector (1a), the positive electrode mixture layer (1b), the first separation film (3), the negative electrode mixture layer (2b), the negative electrode current collector (2a), and the second separation film (3) are sequentially stacked
Figure B: Annotated Kozuki Figure 3A
PNG
media_image3.png
654
859
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Although Kozuki teaches the above structures sequentially stacked, Kozuki fails to teach that they are sequentially stacked to directly contact each other. Kozuki’s active material on both sides of the current collectors prevents the separators from contacting the adjacent current collector.
Imoto teaches that “the positive electrode active material layer 11B may be provided only on one side of the positive electrode current collector 11A” (paragraph 47) and “the negative electrode active material layer 12B may be provided only on one side of the negative electrode current collector 12A” (paragraph 49). Imoto is directed to a battery with improved characteristics (paragraph 7). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to apply Imoto’s teaching of applying the active material layer only on one side of each current collector, for a battery with improved characteristics.
Applying Imoto’s teaching, to Mizumoto modified by Kozuki, results in the following configurations:
positive active material, positive current collector, separator2, negative active material, negative current collector, separator1, positive active material, positive current collector, separator2, negative active material, negative current collector, separator1…
positive active material, positive current collector, separator2, negative current collector, negative active material, separator1, positive active material, positive current collector, separator2, negative current collector, negative active material, separator1…
Configuration #2 is the same as the claimed configuration. Mizumoto modified according to configuration #2 is illustrated in Figure C below.
Figure C: Annotated, partial Mizumoto Figure 1, modified by Imoto
PNG
media_image1.png
328
982
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Imoto, however, doesn’t specify configuration #1 or #2. Thus, there are two options for applying Imoto to modified Mizumoto. MPEP 2144.05(II)(B) provides guidance for this issue:
“When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under §103.”
With few options for the arrangement of separator, active material layers, and current collectors, with the active material layer only on one side of each current collector, it would have been obvious, to try each option and to reach the claimed arrangement.
With regard to claim 12, modified Mizumoto teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Mizumoto fails to teach the following limitations of claim 12:
the second separation film directly contacts the positive electrode current collector and the negative electrode current collector
Mizumoto modified by Kozuki results in the second separator directly contacting the positive & negative active material layers, because Kozuki teaches applying the positive & negative active material layers on both sides of the current collectors (paragraphs 28-29).
As discussed under claim 8, Imoto teaches the active material only on one side of the current collector. Applying Imoto’s teaching, to Mizumoto modified by Kozuki, results in the two configurations discussed and illustrated under claim 8. Configuration #2 is the same as the claimed configuration, with the second separator directly contacting both current collectors. As discussed under claim 8, it would have been obvious, to try each option and to reach the claimed arrangement.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPS51065331A machine translation (Mizumoto), US20050277022A1 (Kozuki), and CN110943222A machine translation (Li), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US20200212495A1 (Lee), as applied to claim 9, and further in view of US20200052343A1 (Imoto). Modified Mizumoto teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Mizumoto fails to teach the following limitations of claim 13:
the second separation film directly contacts the positive electrode current collector and the negative electrode current collector
Mizumoto modified by Kozuki results in the second separator directly contacting the positive & negative active material layers, because Kozuki teaches applying the positive & negative active material layers on both sides of the current collectors (paragraphs 28-29).
As discussed under claim 8, Imoto teaches the active material only on one side of the current collector. Applying Imoto’s teaching, to Mizumoto modified by Kozuki, results in the two configurations discussed and illustrated under claim 8. Configuration #2 is the same as the claimed configuration, with the second separator directly contacting both current collectors. As discussed under claim 8, it would have been obvious, to try each option and to reach the claimed arrangement.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT WEST whose telephone number is 703-756-1363 and email address is Robert.West@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am - 7 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/R.G.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights