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 .
The Applicant’s amendment filed on 6/1/2026 was received. Claims 1, 2, 4 were amended. Claims 3, 7 were cancelled.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office action issued on 6/13/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 is 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 to claim 1: "The electrode welding portion comprises three or more electrode welding portions" and "three or more slits" are not supported in the specification. Even six electrode welding portions and six slits are shown in fig. 3 of the instant application, “three or more” (e.g., 7, 8, 10) electrode welding portions and slits are not supported in the specification.
Claims 2, 4-6, 8-10 are rejected for their dependence of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 1 is 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 to claim 1: the limitation of “disc-shaped” is indefinite as it extends the scope of the expression. See MPEP 2173.05(b). For the interest of compact prosecution, claim 1 is examined as reciting “the current collector plate further comprises a body ”.
Claims 2, 4-6, 8-10 are rejected for their dependence of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jo et al. (US 20250343275 A1) on claims 1-2, 5-6, 10 are withdrawn because Applicant amended independent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Jo et al. (US 20250343275 A1) in view of Miura et al. (US 20140293510 A1) on claims 3, 4 are withdrawn because Applicant amended independent claim 1. The claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Jo et al. (US 20250343275 A1) in view of Makino et al. (US 11670815 B2) on claim 8 is withdrawn because Applicant amended independent claim 1. The claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Jo et al. (US 20250343275 A1) in view of Kelley et al. (US 20140272503 A1) on claim 10 is withdrawn because Applicant amended independent claim 1.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Jo et al. (US 20250343275 A1) in view of Miura et al. (US 20140293510 A1) and Makino et al. (US 11670815 B2).
Regarding to claim 1: Jo et al. disclose an electrode assembly, a cylindrical battery cell, and a battery pack (abstract, par. 1). The cylindrical battery cell (equivalent to a secondary battery) comprising:
an electrode assembly (100) (par. 106, fig. 3);
a battery can (200) (equivalent to a case) (par. 113, fig. 3) accommodating the electrode assembly (100) (fig. 3) and comprising a beading portion (240) (equivalent to a beading part) (par. 178, fig. 3) recessed toward an inside of the battery can (200) (fig. 3);
a lower current collector plate (700) (equivalent to a current collector plate) (par. 218, fig. 3) welded to a second uncoated region (120) of the electrode assembly (100) at an electrode welding portion (par. 221, fig. 3) and welded to the battery can (200) at a case welding portion (par. 220, fig. 3) (see fig. bent below); and
a cap plate (230) (par. 179, fig. 3) on the lower current collector plate (700) and sealing the battery can (200) (par. 181, fig. 3),
wherein the case welding portion of the lower current collector plate (700) is bent upwardly toward the cap plate (230) (fig. 3),
wherein an edge of the case welding portion is in contact with a surface of a slope portion (equivalent to a side surface) of the beading portion (240) that protrudes inwardly in a convex shape (fig. 3) and
wherein the lower current collector plate (700) has a bent portion between the electrode welding portion and the case welding portion, the bent portion protruding toward the cap plate (230) (see fig. bent below),
PNG
media_image1.png
568
837
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the lower current collector plate (700) further comprises a disc-shaped body (fig. 1, 2).
Jo et al. fail to explicitly disclose the electrode welding portion comprises three or more electrode welding portions arranged along a circumferential direction of the body. However, Makino et al. disclose a cylindrical secondary cell (1) (abstract). The cylindrical secondary cell comprises an electrode lead plate (6) (equivalent to a current collector plate) (col. 5, lines 1-11, fig. 1). The electrode lead plate (6) comprises a flange (6a) (equivalent to the electrode welding portion) which is welded to a cylindrical can (3) (col. 6, lines 29-31, col. 8, lines 56-58, fig. 1). The flange (6a) is partitioned into six parts (equivalent to three or more electrode welding portions) by six slits in fig. 8, 9 (col. 7, lines 4-24, fig. 8, 9). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use six parts of the flange (6a) of Makino et al. in the case welding portion of Jo et al. because Makino et al. teach that this design can reduce stress in the material (col. 7, lines 4-24). Further, it is a matter of engineering design to partition the case welding portion of Jo et al. into multiple parts, where the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected result, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Jo et al. and Makino et al. fail to explicitly disclose three or more slits are arranged along the circumferential direction of the body, and wherein each of the slits is arranged between a corresponding one of the electrode welding portions and the body. However, Miura et al. disclose an electric storage device (abstract). The electric storage device, which could be a capacitor or secondary battery, comprises a collector plate (33) (equivalent to a current collector plate) (par. 117, 158, figures 10A-10B). The collector plate (33) comprises a disc-shape body, wherein an element connecting part (33A) (equivalent to an electrode welding portion), which is welded onto an element end (1B) of capacitor element (1), is inside the body (par. 122, figure 14). Slit holes (33C) are arranged along the circumferential direction of the body in fig. 14. Each of the Slit holes (33C) is arranged between a corresponding one of the element connecting part (33A) and the body in fig. 14. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the slit holes (33C) of Miura et al. in the lower current collector plate (700) of Jo et al. because Miura et al. teach that the collector plate (33) can act as a damper with slit holes (33C) and long-term reliability can be improved (par. 139-140). Further, it is a matter of engineering design to arrange multiple slit holes in the collector plate of Jo et al., where the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected result, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
In addition, it is the position of the examiner that disclosure provides no evidence of criticality with regard to the number of electrode welding portions and slits.
Regarding to claim 2: Jo et al. disclose the electrode welding portion is inside the body; and wherein the case welding portion is outside of the body (fig. 3).
Regarding to claim 4: Jo et al. disclose a cylindrical battery cell as described above. Jo et al. and Makino et al. fail to explicitly disclose each of the slits is C-shaped or U-shaped. However, Miura et al. disclose an electric storage device (abstract). Slit holes (33) in a collector plate (33) are in C shape (figures 13 and 14). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the C-shape slit holes (33C) of Miura et al. in the lower current collector plate (700) of Makino Jo et al. because Miura et al. teach that the collector plate (33) can act as a damper with slit holes (33C) and long-term reliability can be improved (par. 139-140). The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP § 2144.04). In addition, it is the position of the examiner that disclosure provides no evidence of criticality with regard to the shape of the slit.
Regarding to claim 5: Jo et al. disclose the case welding portion extends from the body toward the battery can (200) (fig. 3).
Regarding to claim 6: Jo et al. disclose the case welding portion is welded to the beading portion (240) of the battery can (200) (par. 220, fig. 3).
Regarding to claim 8: Jo et al. disclose a cylindrical battery cell as described above. Jo et al. and Miura et al. fail to explicitly disclose the current collector plate has a through hole corresponding to a center of the cap plate. However, Makino et al. disclose a cylindrical secondary cell (1) (abstract). The cylindrical secondary cell comprises an electrode lead plate (6) (equivalent to a current collector plate) (col. 5, lines 1-11, fig. 1). The electrode lead plate (6) comprises a central through hole (6e) (equivalent to a through hole corresponding to a center of the cap plate) (par. 60, figure 2). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the central through hole (6e) of Makino et al. to the lower current collector plate (700) of Jo et al. because Makino et al. teach that the through hole is for filling the electrolyte (col. 2, lines 49-54) and the through hole can be on the lid side (fig. 1).
Regarding to claim 9: Jo et al. disclose a sealing gasket (260) (equivalent to an insulating gasket) (par. 179, 202 fig. 3) between the case welding portion and the cap plate (230).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Jo et al. (US 20250343275 A1) in view of Miura et al. (US 20140293510 A1) and Makino et al. (US 11670815 B2) as applied in claim 1, and further in view of Kelley et al. (US 20140272503 A1).
Regarding to claim 10: Jo et al. disclose a cylindrical battery cell as described in paragraph 5 above. Jo et al., Miura et al., and Makino et al. fail to explicitly disclose an outer diameter of the current collector plate is greater than an outer diameter of the electrode assembly. However, Kelly et al. disclose an electrochemical cell (abstract). The electrochemical cell comprises an electrode assembly (16) (par. 17, fig. 1), a case (12) (par. 17, fig. 1), and a current collector (26) (equivalent to a current collector plate) (par. 18, fig. 2). A diameter of the wound electrode assembly (16) is smaller than a diameter of the case (12), the case (12), thus, can accommodate the wound electrode assembly (16) (par. 9). A diameter of the current collector (26) is slightly larger than the inner diameter of the case (12) (par. 22) (equivalent to an outer diameter of the current collector plate is greater than an outer diameter of the electrode assembly). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the larger diameter of the current collector (26) compared to the outer diameter of the wound electrode assembly (16) of Kelly et al. as the relative diameters of the lower current collector plate (700) and the electrode assembly (100) of Jo et al. because Kelly et al. teach that the relatively larger diameter of the current collector (26) can assist in stabilizing the electrode assembly (16) in the case (12) (par. 22).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments filed on 06/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues:
The two parts of the lower current collector plate 700 indicated as the "case welding portion" and the "bent portion" by Examiner would, at most, be equated with the case welding portion as the entire portion / both portions indicated in the Office action.
The entire area of the alleged "case welding portion" and the alleged "bent portion" of the lower current collector plate 700 is welded to the battery can 200.
In annotated Figure 3 of Jo, the alleged "bent portion" "is in contact with a side surface of the beading part" while the alleged "case welding portion" extends below the beading part.
The slit holes 33C in Miura are provided as a pair opposite to each other, not as three or more arranged along the circumferential direction of the body.
In response:
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The beading part of Jo comprises two slope portions and one summit portion which is the intersection of the two slope portions. The term of “side” can be defined as “situated on the side” in Merriam-Webster. As the surface of the slope portion is situated on the side of the summit portion, the surface of the slope portion is equivalent to the side surface of the beading part. The bent portion is between the electrode welding portion and the case welding portion as shown in the annotated fig. 3 of Jo.
As Miura teaches that slit holes act as dampers (par. 139 in Miura), the number of holes acts as a design variable to increase the damping property of the collector plate. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could adjust the number of the slit holes to get the desired damping property of the collector plate.
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 PIN JAN WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7057. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on 571-272-1295. 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.
/PIN JAN WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights