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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1, 3-4, and 7 have been amended. Support for the amendment can be found in instant specification par. [0066]-[0067] and [0077]-[0080].
Claims 2 and 6 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-10 have been evaluated on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 09/04/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 108461829 A). Reference is made to previously provided machine translation.
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches an electrode assembly for a battery, the electrode assembly comprising: a winding main body, wherein the winding main body has a side end face; and a plurality of tabs provided on the side end face and extending from the side end face (Fig. 1; [0021]), wherein: the plurality of tabs are stacked to form a tab group, each of the plurality of tabs comprises a first side edge, a second side edge, a third side edge and a fourth side edge connected in sequence, the first side edge is opposite to the third side edge, the second side edge is opposite to the fourth side edge, the fourth side edge is fixedly connected with the side end face (Fig. 1-2), the first side edge of the outermost topmost tab of the plurality of tabs and the first side edge of at least one tab in the remaining tabs are staggered in a first direction, and the first direction is parallel to an extending direction of the second side edge (Fig. 1; [0014]; [0021]); and in a direction perpendicular to surfaces of the plurality of tabs, the plurality of tabs in the tab group have an overlapping area; wherein sizes and shapes of the plurality of tabs in the tab group are all identical ([0008]; [0021]).
Liu does not teach where and the first side edges of the tabs on even-numbered layers in the tab group are sequentially staggered along the first direction, the third side edges of the tabs on odd-numbered layers in the tab group are sequentially staggered along a second direction, and the first direction and the second direction are opposite to each other.
However, Liu teaches that misalignment of tabs is desirable to ensure current carrying capacity and facilitate welding ([0014]). Liu teaches using tabs of the same size and controlling the spacing between individual tabs ([0006]; [0008]; [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the distance between individual tabs such that the first side edges of the tabs on even-numbered layers in the tab group are sequentially staggered along the first direction, the third side edges of the tabs on odd-numbered layers in the tab group are sequentially staggered along a second direction, and the first direction and the second direction are opposite to each other.
One of ordinary skill in the art could mod modify the distance between individual tabs such that the first side edges of the tabs on even-numbered layers in the tab group are sequentially staggered along the first direction, the third side edges of the tabs on odd-numbered layers in the tab group are sequentially staggered along a second direction, and the first direction and the second direction are opposite to each other with a reasonable expectation of producing a tab group with misaligned portions and overlapping portions.
Changes in relative dimensions are within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See in Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 3, modified Liu teaches the electrode assembly for a battery according to claim 1, wherein the first side edge of the topmost tab of the plurality of tabs overlaps the first side edge of at least one tab in the remaining tabs (Fig. 1; annotated below).
PNG
media_image1.png
471
482
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, modified Liu teaches the electrode assembly for a battery according to claim 1. Modified Liu further teaches wherein the first side edges of two adjacent tabs in the tab group are staggered along the first direction (Fig. 1 annotated above; [0021]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Liu teaches the electrode assembly for a battery according to claim 4. Modified Liu further teaches wherein the first side edges of the plurality of tabs are sequentially staggered along the first direction (Fig. 1 annotated above; [0021]).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 108461829 B) in view of Daidoji et al. (US20080060189A1) hereinafter “Daidoji” and Shen et al. (CN106058137A) hereinafter “Shen”. Reference is made to previously provided translations.
Regarding claim 7, modified Liu teaches the electrode assembly for a battery according to claim 1. Modified Liu teaches wherein a tab width is 15mm and each tab is staggered by 2mm and a total thickness of a positive electrode plate, negative electrode pole piece, and diaphragm, i.e. each winding layer, is 0.276mm ([0008]; [0021]).
Modified Liu does not teach wherein: in each tap of the plurality of tabs, a center line parallel to the second side edge and the fourth side edge is located in a center of the second side edge and the fourth side edge, a distance between a first intersection point of the center line and the first side edge and a second intersection point of the center line and the third side edge is S, a distance between the first side edge of the tab in the tabs on even-numbered layers in the tab group and the first side edge of the topmost tab of the tab group is smaller than 1/19S, and a distance between the third side edge of the tab in the tabs on odd-numbered layers in the tab group and the third side edge of the topmost tab of the tab group is smaller than 1/19S.
However, Daidoji teaches an electrode tab configuration where tabs are sequentially shifted to facilitate bonding to a terminal lead ([0075]; [0072]-[0076]; Fig. 6B). Daidoji teaches that it is preferable to shift the tabs in such a way that tab are stably bonded to a lead terminal at the junction in the area where the number of positive electrode current collection tabs that overlap becomes largest ([0076]-[0078]). Daidoji teaches that tabs are sequentially and slightly shifted ([0075]) and that any number of tabs can be bonded under the predefined welding conditions by changing the extent to which tabs are sequentially shifted according to the number of tabs ([0079]; [0013]-[0015]).
Further, Shen teaches a tab group with an offset of a distance between the first side edge of the tab staggered along the first direction and the first side edge of the first tab of the tab group is 1.82mm, and contemplates the use of different offset distances ([0060]; when S = 30mm then each tab is offset by 0.06S1). Shen teaches that tabs are located in a close position with an overlap area to facilitate welding ([0062]).
Shen contemplates varying the offset distance of tabs and Daidoji teaches varying offset distance to maintain a stable welding process (Shen [0060]; Daidoji [0076]-[0079]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the electrode taught by modified Liu by modifying the offset distance between the first side edge of the tab staggered along the first direction and the first side edge of the outermost tab of the tab group and the distance between the third side edge of the tab staggered along the second direction and the third side edge of the outermost tab of the tab group, near the range taught by modified Shen. Absent a showing of criticality, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 74-75, 70 USPQ 204, 205-206 (CCPA 1946).
Claim(s) 8-9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 108461829 B) in further view of Daidoji et al. (US20080060189A1) hereinafter “Daidoji”.
Regarding claim 8, modified Liu teaches the electrode assembly according to claim 1. Liu teaches a battery with the tab group having a welding area ([0006]).
Modified Liu does not teach a connection plate, welded and fixed to the weld mark area of the tab group.
However, Daidoji teaches an electrode tab configuration where tabs are sequentially shifted to facilitate bonding to a terminal lead ([0075]; [0072]-[0076]; Fig. 6B). Daidoji teaches a connection plate, welded and fixed to the weld mark area of the tab group (Fig. 6B; [0076]-[0078]). Absent a structure associated with the connection plate, the lead terminal 9 taught by Daidoji, meets the limitation of a connection plate.
PNG
media_image2.png
371
425
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the battery taught by modified Liu by including a lead terminal, welded and fixed to the weld mark area of the tab group as taught by Daidoji.
Connecting tabs to a lead terminal in a battery is a known configuration of a battery in the art. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the battery taught by modified Liu by including a lead terminal, welded and fixed to the weld mark area of the tab group as taught by Daidoji to achieve the predictable result of a working battery.
Regarding claim 9, modified Liu teaches the electrode assembly according to claim 8.
Modified Liu does not teach wherein an area ratio of an effective welding area in the weld mark area to the overlapping area is smaller than or equal to 0.5.
However, modified Liu teaches tabs with an overlapping portion (Fig. 1, above). Modified Liu teaches shifting tabs and controlling the extent to which each tab is shifted such that the tabs can be stably bonded to an electrode lead terminal (Daidoji [0075]-[0076]; [0079]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the overlapping area of tabs in the battery taught by modified Liu to arrive at the claimed range of area ratio of an effective welding area in the weld mark area to the overlapping area through routine optimization of the tab configuration taught by modified Liu.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform routine optimization of the tab configuration taught by modified Liu to ensure the welding resulted in a stable bond. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of successfully producing a battery with a tab group wherein an area ratio of an effective welding area in the weld mark area to the overlapping area is smaller than or equal to 0.5 because modified Shen teaches a large overlapping area and minimal offset (Liu [0021]; Daidoji [0075]-[0076]; in light of the instant specification a large overlapping area results in a reduced ratio of the effective welding area to the overlapping area [0014]; [0070]; [0009]; [0011]; [0063]-[0065]; [0085]).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 108461829 B) in view of Daidoji (US20080060189A1) in further view of Zhang et al. (CN213936468U) hereinafter “Zhang”. Reference is made to previously provided machine translations.
Regarding claim 10, modified Liu teaches battery according to claim 8.
Modified Liu does not teach wherein when the tab group is welded to the connection plate, the second side edges of the plurality of tabs are sequentially staggered along a third direction, and the third direction is perpendicular to the first direction.
However, Zhang teaches a battery with a tab group wherein the second side edges of the plurality of tabs are sequentially staggered along a third direction, and the third direction is perpendicular to the first direction ([0015]; [0028]-[0030]; [0033]; Fig. 2 reproduced below). Zhang teaches that the design of the pole piece 200 can simplify the manufacturing process, improve the power safety of a battery, and improve conductivity of the tabs ([0046]; Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the tab group configuration in the battery taught by modified Liu by sequentially staggering the second side edges of the plurality of tabs along a third direction, and the third direction is perpendicular to the first direction as taught by Zhang.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the tab group configuration in the battery taught by modified Liu by sequentially staggering the second side edges of the plurality of tabs along a third direction, and the third direction is perpendicular to the first direction as taught by Zhang to simplify the manufacturing process, improve the power safety of a battery, and improve conductivity of the tabs ([0046]; Fig. 2).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FELICITY B. ALBAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 571-270-7871. 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.
/F.B.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
1 When S=30 then 1/19xS = 0.052xS = 1.57
Prosecution Insights