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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/24/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4-5, & 8-12 are pending in the application and are presently examined. Claims 1 & 3-11 were rejected in the 11/24/2025 office action. Applicant cancelled claims 3 & 6-7, and incorporated these claim limitations into claim 1. Applicant added new claim 12.
Response to Amendment / Arguments
The amendment filed 2/24/2026, in response to the 11/24/2025 office action, has been entered. Applicant’s claim amendments and arguments, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Also, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 due to additional prior art.
Claim 1 now states (previously claims 6-7) that the electrode mixture layer is thinner and denser toward the center.
JPS51065331A (Mizumoto) teaches thinner towards the center (page 1, lines 30-37; figures 1-2), but fails to teach denser towards the center.
In the 11/24/2025 office action, Examiner argued that it would have been obvious to have achieved Mizumoto’s thinner towards the center by pressing harder on the active material moving towards the center. This would result in increased density towards the center.
Applicant argues in response that “designing the density of the electrode mixture layers 220, 320 to increase from the outer side toward the central side of the radial structure is not an inherent or inevitable result of adopting a radial structure”. Examiner never argued that it was inherent. Examiner agrees that this is not inherent or inevitable; however, an argument that it is not inherent does not prevent a conclusion of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection.
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.
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, 8, 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_image1.png
554
889
media_image1.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 8, modified Mizumoto teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Mizumoto fails to teach the following limitation of claim 8, which is 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_image2.png
654
859
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim 12 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 US20200052343A1 (Imoto). Modified Mizumoto teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Mizumoto fails to teach the following limitation 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 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).
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 two configurations:
positive active material, positive current collector, separator, negative active material, negative current collector, separator, positive active material, positive current collector, separator, negative active material, negative current collector, separator…
positive active material, positive current collector, separator, negative current collector, negative active material, separator, positive active material, positive current collector, separator, negative current collector, negative active material, separator…
Configuration #2 is the same as the claimed configuration, with the separator directly contacting both current collectors. 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 only two 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.
Conclusion
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