DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment of September 30, 2025 is considered herein.
Claims 1-8 have been amended to correct the claim number only.
Claims 9-14 have been added.
Claims 1-14 are pending and have been considered herein.
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 9, 12 and 14 are 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.
Claim 9 requires the multiple tabs of P and Q to be “collected at a position biased toward the first region P” but there is no discussion of bias in the specification as filed. It is unclear if they Applicant intends to draw support from the figures for this position, but this was also not articulated in the response. For this reason, the final limitation of claim 9 lacks support from the specification as filed.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected as depending on rejected base claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-7, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUN et al (US PG PUB 2023/0238667, wherein priority document CN113437444B is also cited herein with a corresponding machine English translation), in view of TSUKAMOTO et al (US PG PUB 2022/0200107).
Regarding claims 1-3, SUN et al teaches a battery ([0064]) comprising:
a flat wound electrode body ([0041] and [0046]) including a first electrode (21), a second electrode (22), and a separator (23), the first electrode and the second electrode being wound via the separator ([0041], see figures 2-4); and
a battery case housing (10, “housing”) the wound electrode body,
wherein the wound electrode body has a lamination structure in which multilayers of the first electrode and the second electrode are stacked via the separator (figures 2-4 show stacking of these components but the specification does not say “lamination”. However, the priority document published as CN113437444B states the connection between the layers via lamination (p. 5, 3rd paragraph), indicative of the intent of the PG PUB of the same invention.),
multiple tabs (31/301/302) connected to the first electrode ([0043]) protrude from one end of the wound electrode body in the winding axis direction (see figures 2-4),
and
when a region encompassing five layers of the first electrode (21) counting from one of outer surfaces at both ends (left side of figure 3, counting from edge 80 inward) of the lamination structure in the stacking direction is a first outermost periphery neighboring region, and a region encompassing five layers counting from the other outer surface (right side of figure 3, counting from edge 70 inward) is a second outermost periphery neighboring region,
in the first outermost periphery neighboring region (left side), the number of the tabs is A (counting components 31 = 3 tabs), and the number of layers of the first electrode is B (5 layers of 21, also as defined in the previous limitation), and in the second outermost periphery neighboring region (right side), the number of the tabs is C (counting components 31 = 3 tabs), and the number of layers of the first electrode is D (5 layers of 21, also defined by the previous limitation), at least either one of A/B or C/D is less than 1 (both of these ratios are 3/5, fulfilling claims 1-3 as written).
SUN et al is silent to a maximum value of base widths of the multiple tabs is 15 mm or more.
TSUKAMOTO et al teaches a secondary battery having electrode tabs, just as in SUN et al, in the abstract. TSUKAMOTO et al further teaches the tabs to have a base width of 4 to 15 mm ([0039]) to suppress crack formation.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a base width of the tabs of SUN et al, of 15 mm, as in YSUKAMOTO et al so as to suppress crack formation.
Regarding claim 4, SUN et al shows an average value of shortest distances of the tabs (31/302) present on one side of the wound electrode body (right side of figure 3) with respect to a winding center of the wound electrode body from one end to tips of the tabs (point of meeting 21 to meeting component 2012) in the protruding direction is smaller than an average value of shortest distances of the tabs (31/302) present on the other side (left side of figure 3) with respect to the winding center (the relationship of smaller or shorter tabs is clear by the longer distance for the components 302 on the left side to reach component 3012 than the right side).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, in the first outermost periphery neighboring region (left side), the number of the tabs is A (counting components 31 = 3 tabs), and the number of layers of the first electrode is B (5 layers of 21, also as defined in the previous limitation), and in the second outermost periphery neighboring region (right side), the number of the tabs is C (counting components 31 = 3 tabs), and the number of layers of the first electrode is D (5 layers of 21, also defined by the previous limitation), at least either one of A/B or C/D is less than 1 (both of these ratios are 3/5, fulfilling the claims as written).
Regarding claim 7, modified SUN et al renders obvious the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach a specific width. However, TSUKAMOTO et al teaches an electrode length (which is equivalent to the width of the electrode in the instant application, as the coordinate systems are defined differently) of 4000-5000 mm to give sufficient length for tab placement ([0039]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize an electrode width of TSAUKAMOTO et al for the electrode of SUN et a so as to give space for tab attachment. Moreover, modification of the electrode stack of SUN et al via routine experimentation with the width of the electrode stack to optimize the electrode for the battery is further obvious.
Regarding claim 13, modified SUN et al teaches the number of stacked tabs connected to the first electrode is 10 or more in a cross section extending along the winding axis direction of the wound electrode body and extending along the thickness direction of the wound electrode body (Paragraph [0045] of SUN et al teaches the number of layers is not limited, therefore the use of a number of layers, greater than 10, which preserves if relationship between layers and tabs discussed in paragraph [0045] of SUN et al is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as selection of more layers and therefore more tabs than shown is a simple process of scaling).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUN et al, in view of TSUKAMOTO et al. The provided NPL reference “Sigma Aldrich Data Sheet for Lithium Cobalt Oxide” is cited here as evidence.
Regarding claim 8, SUN et al teaches wherein the first electrode is a positive electrode ([0042], last sentence), the positive electrode includes a positive electrode collecting unit (electrode plate) and positive electrode active material layers (active material layer) existed on both surfaces of the positive electrode collecting unit ([0018]), the positive electrode collecting unit is made of aluminum or an aluminum alloy ([0042], first electrode plate is a metal foil, not limited. The use of an aluminum material (as listed as an option for the other current collector) would be an obvious substitution, as the substitution of one known conductive material for another would render the same predictable result of conduction). The use of the current collector in a lithium oxide battery ([0064]) is consistent with the structure presented in the evidence, which teaches a density of 4.82 g/cm3, within the claimed range.
Claim(s) 9, 10, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUN et al (wherein priority document CN113437444B is also cited herein), in view of OHTA et al (US PG PUB 2021/0020895) and TSUKAMOTO et al.
Regarding claim 9, SUN et al teaches a battery ([0064]) comprising:
a flat wound electrode body ([0041] and [0046]) including a first electrode (21), a second electrode (22), and a separator (23), the first electrode and the second electrode being wound via the separator ([0041], see figures 2-4); and
a battery case housing (10, “housing”) the wound electrode body,
wherein the wound electrode body has a lamination structure in which multilayers of the first electrode and the second electrode are stacked via the separator (figures 2-4 show stacking of these components but the specification does not say “lamination”. However, the priority document published as CN113437444B states the connection between the layers via lamination (p. 5, 3rd paragraph), indicative of the intent of the PG PUB of the same invention.),
the electrode body includes a pair of curved portions (figure 2, left and right sides) and a pair of flat portions (figure 2, top and bottom of figure) which connects the curved pairs (see figure 2),
multiple tabs (31/301/302) connected to the first electrode ([0043]) protrude from one end of the wound electrode body in the winding axis direction (see figures 2-4),
multiple tabs (41) connected to the second electrode (22) protrude from the other end of the wound electrode body (other side of the body, see figure 1)
and
when a region encompassing five layers of the first electrode (21) counting from one of outer surfaces of the flat portions (tabs and layers shown on the flat portions in figure 2) at both ends (right side of figure 3, counting from edge 80 inward) of the lamination structure in the stacking direction is a first outermost periphery neighboring region, and a region encompassing five layers counting from the other outer surface of the flat portion (left side of figure 3, counting from edge 70 inward, wherein figure 3 reflects the flat portions shown in figure 2) is a second outermost periphery neighboring region,
in the first outermost periphery neighboring region (right side), the number of the tabs is A (counting components 31 = 3 tabs), and the number of layers of the first electrode is B (5 layers of 21, also as defined in the previous limitation), and in the second outermost periphery neighboring region (left side), the number of the tabs is C (counting components 31 = 3 tabs), and the number of layers of the first electrode is D (5 layers of 21, also defined by the previous limitation), at least either one of A/B or C/D is less than 1 (both of these ratios are 3/5, fulfilling claims 1-3 as written).
While SUN et al teaches multiple tabs (41) connected to the second electrode (22) protrude from the wound body, the second electrode tabs are on the same side as the first electrode tabs in the winding axis direction, failing to teach the second electrode tabs protruding from the other end of the wound electrode body In the winding axis direction. SUN et al also fails to teach a maximum value of base widths of the multiple tabs is 15 mm or more.
OHTA et al teaches a wound electrode for a battery, just as in SUN et al. OHTA et al teaches the first electrode tabs to protrude from one side and second electrode tabs to protrude from the opposing side in the axis direction (see figures 1B, 2B etc.) to allow for connection to external terminals on each end ([0052]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to place the first and second electrode tabs of SUN et al, on opposing ends of the wound body in the axis direction as in OHTA et al so as to allow for electrical connection externally at opposing ends. The rearrangement of the electrode tab directionality (from top to bottom) as needed for electrical connection is well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill, as it amounts to engineering choice of a known orientation.
Modified SUN et al also fails to teach a maximum value of base widths of the multiple tabs is 15 mm or more.
TSUKAMOTO et al teaches a secondary battery having electrode tabs, just as in SUN et al, in the abstract. TSUKAMOTO et al further teaches the tabs to have a base width of 4 to 15 mm ([0039]) to suppress crack formation.
Regarding claim 10, SUN et al teaches when a region including the first outermost periphery neighboring region (right side of figure 3) from one outer surface of the flat portion to the winding center O in the stacking direction is defined as a first region P, and a region including the second outermost periphery neighboring region (left side of figure 3) from the other outer surface of the flat portion to the winding center O in the stacking direction is defined as a second region Q,
all of the multiple tabs (31/302) connected to the first electrode (21) present in the first region P and the second region Q (left and right sides) are collected at a position biased toward the first region P (collection to component 3012, positionally closer to the right side, region P, than the left, region Q, see figure 3).
Regarding claim 14, modified SUN et al teaches the number of stacked tabs connected to the first electrode is 10 or more in a cross section extending along the winding axis direction of the wound electrode body and extending along the thickness direction of the wound electrode body (Paragraph [0045] of SUN et al teaches the number of layers is not limited, therefore the use of a number of layers, greater than 10, which preserves if relationship between layers and tabs discussed in paragraph [0045] of SUN et al is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as selection of more layers and therefore more tabs than shown is a simple process of scaling).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUN et al, in view of OHTA et al, TSUKAMOTO et al, and MORISHIMA et al (US PG PUB 2010/0081052).
Regarding claim 11, modified SUN et al does not teach wherein the shape of each tab of the multiple tabs connected to the first electrode is trapezoidal and the width of the tip of the tab is smaller than the width of the base of the tab.
MORISHIMA et al teaches a wound battery electrode body comprising tabs, per [0117], just as in SUN et al. MORISHIMA et al further teaches the use of a trapezoidal shaped tab ([0117], [0143], figure 13) to improve the strength of the tab.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the trapezoidal shaped tabs of MORISHIMA et al for the tabs of modified SUN et al so as to fabricate a stronger tab. The shaping of MORISHIMA et al fulfills the claimed language directed to the shaping. Moreover, the selection of a known, alternative shape tab is well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill, as changes of shape are routine and obvious.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUN et al, in view of TSUKAMOTO et al, and MORISHIMA et al.
Regarding claim 11, modified SUN et al does not teach wherein the shape of each tab of the multiple tabs connected to the first electrode is trapezoidal and the width of the tip of the tab is smaller than the width of the base of the tab.
MORISHIMA et al teaches a wound battery electrode body comprising tabs, per [0117], just as in SUN et al. MORISHIMA et al further teaches the use of a trapezoidal shaped tab ([0117], [0143], figure 13) to improve the strength of the tab.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the trapezoidal shaped tabs of MORISHIMA et al for the tabs of modified SUN et al so as to fabricate a stronger tab. The shaping of MORISHIMA et al fulfills the claimed language directed to the shaping. Moreover, the selection of a known, alternative shape tab is well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill, as changes of shape are routine and obvious.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as
being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of copending Application No. 17/991856 (reference
application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from
each other because both are drawn to a wound flat battery comprising a plurality of tabs
disposed on either end of the electrode assembly with tab:layer ratios of less than 1.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably
indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8 of Remarks filed September 30, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-9 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of SUN et al, in view of TSUKAMOTO et al.
Conclusion
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on August 26, 2025, prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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 KOURTNEY SALZMAN CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5117. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-3PM EST M-F.
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. 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.
/KOURTNEY R S CARLSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721 9/30/2026
Prosecution Insights