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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-7, in the reply filed on 1/14/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (US-20200127269-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Park’
Regarding Claim 1,
Park teaches a secondary battery (Park, “Meanwhile, the lithium secondary battery, which is one of the secondary batteries, has lower weight and higher energy density than other secondary batteries”, see [0008]) comprising: an electrode assembly having a plurality of electrodes (Park, “which is configured to have a structure in which a plurality of positive electrodes having a predetermined size and a plurality of negative electrodes having a predetermined size.”, see [0006]), a plurality of separators respectively interposed between the plurality of electrodes (Park, “battery cell configured such that an electrode assembly, including a positive electrode and a negative electrode stacked in the state in which a separator is interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode”, see [0015]), and a plurality of electrode tabs respectively connected to the plurality of electrodes (Park, tabs, 141, Fig. 1) ; an electrode lead coupled to the plurality of electrode tabs (Park, lead end, 111, Fig. 3); and a pouch accommodating the electrode assembly therein in a state in which a front end of the electrode lead the state in which a separator is interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, is mounted in a pouch-shaped cell case”, see [0015]), wherein the plurality of electrode tabs each comprise a connection part connected to a respective one of the plurality of electrodes, a coupling part coupled to the electrode lead, and a bent part
PNG
media_image1.png
262
491
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(The examiner notes that the first angle is more obtuse than the second angle).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20200127269-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Park’
Regarding Claim 2,
Park teaches the secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the first-b angle of the first bent surface of each of the plurality of electrode tabs is 100° to 120° with respect to the respective coupling part (Park, “The coupling portion of the electrode tabs and the first lead end may be bent at an angle of 75 to 105 degrees toward the side surface of the electrode assembly on the basis of the direction in which the electrode tabs protrude.”, see [0022]).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 75 to 105 degrees broadly overlaps the claimed range of 100 to 120. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20200127269-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Park’, in view of (US-20190189979-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Choi’
Regarding Claim 3,
Park does not teach wherein the first-b angle of the first bent surface of each of the plurality of electrode tabs is 109° to 116° with respect to the respective coupling part.
Choi teaches an wherein the first-b angle of the first bent surface of each of the plurality of electrode tabs is 109° to 116° with respect to the respective coupling part (Choi, “housing slant portion 211 may have a slant surface forming an angle of about 60° to about 70° with the ground. However, the slant angle may be varied according to factors such as the shape of the sensing assembly 200 or the cell assembly 100, the shape of the electrode leads 111, or the number of the secondary batteries 110.”, see [0074]) (The examiner notes the angle is complementary and when adjusted for the instant application would be 110-120 degrees. )
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 110-120 degrees broadly overlaps the claimed range of 109 to 116. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Choi teaches that this angle allows for the assembly of the cell stack to be improved (Choi, “According to the structure in which the housing slant portion 211 is formed…Therefore, the assemblability and processability of the sensing assembly 200 and the cell assembly 100 may be improved.”, see [0075]).
Park and Choi are analogous as they are both of the same field of battery tabs.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tabs as taught in Park with the tab angle as taught in Choi in order to improve the ease of assembly.
Regarding Claim 4,
Park does not teach, wherein the second-b angle of the second bent surface of each of the plurality of electrode tabs is 94° to 104° with respect to the respective connection part.
Choi teaches an wherein the first-b angle of the first bent surface of each of the plurality of electrode tabs is 109° to 116° with respect to the respective coupling part (Choi, “housing slant portion 211 may have a slant surface forming an angle of about 60° to about 70° with the ground. However, the slant angle may be varied according to factors such as the shape of the sensing assembly 200 or the cell assembly 100, the shape of the electrode leads 111, or the number of the secondary batteries 110.”, see [0074]) (The examiner notes the angle is complementary and when adjusted for the instant application would be 110-120 degres).
Choi teaches that this angle allows for the assembly of the cell stack to be improved (Choi, “According to the structure in which the housing slant portion 211 is formed…Therefore, the assemblability and processability of the sensing assembly 200 and the cell assembly 100 may be improved.”, see [0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the angle as taught in Park to be the angle as taught Choi and to further have modified the angle to 94° to 104° with respect to the respective connection part as a process of optimization for the assemblability of the battery cell (see MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)).
Regarding Claim 5,
Park does not teach wherein the second-b angle of the second bent surface of each of the plurality of electrode tabs is 98° to 100° with respect to the respective connection part.
Choi teaches an wherein the first-b angle of the first bent surface of each of the plurality of electrode tabs is 109° to 116° with respect to the respective coupling part (Choi, “housing slant portion 211 may have a slant surface forming an angle of about 60° to about 70° with the ground. However, the slant angle may be varied according to factors such as the shape of the sensing assembly 200 or the cell assembly 100, the shape of the electrode leads 111, or the number of the secondary batteries 110.”, see [0074]) (The examiner notes the angle is complementary and when adjusted for the instant application would be 110-120 degres).
Choi teaches that this angle allows for the assembly of the cell stack to be improved (Choi, “According to the structure in which the housing slant portion 211 is formed…Therefore, the assemblability and processability of the sensing assembly 200 and the cell assembly 100 may be improved.”, see [0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the angle as taught in Park to be the angle as taught Choi and to further have modified the angle to 98° to 100° with respect to the respective connection part as a process of optimization for the assemblability of the battery cell (see MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20200127269-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Park’ in view of (US-20170214028-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Oh’
Regarding Claim 6,
Park does not teach the secondary battery of claim 1, wherein, when viewed in a longitudinal direction of the electrode assembly, a distance (α) from a first end to a second end of the connection surface each of the plurality of electrode tabs is 0.5 mm to 2.0 mm.
Oh teaches when viewed in a longitudinal direction of the electrode assembly, a distance (α) from a first end to a second end of the connection surface each of the plurality of electrode tabs is 0.5 mm to 2.0 mm (Oh, “In the present disclosure, the length of the electrode tabs may be from 5 mm to 25 mm, or preferably, from 6 mm to 23 mm. Also, the length of the tab-lead coupler may be from 0.5 mm to 5 mm, or preferably, from 1 mm to 4 mm. However, the above numerical values are just specific examples, and the present disclosure is not limited hereto”, see [0044])(see annotated figure below)(The examiner notes the section from the first end to a second end of the connection surface is the same length as the lead coupler as pictured below).
PNG
media_image2.png
196
498
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Oh teaches that this arrangement of tabs this length allows for high process efficiency and tabs too long are not desirable in terms of energy (Oh, “When the lengths of the electrode tabs are same as one another, the electrode assembly may be manufactured by using a same type of the electrode plates. In this case, high process efficiency can be obtained compared to when using different types of the electrode plates”, see [0040]) (Oh, “However, the electrode tabs having the longer than desired lengths may be included, in which case these electrode tabs may occupy some of the internal space of the battery cell such that it may not be desirable in view of energy density.”, see [0041]).
Park and Oh are analogous as they are both of the same field of battery pouches.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the length as taught in Park to be the length as taught Oh in order to have maximized energy density.
Regarding Claim 7,
Park does not teach wherein, for each of the plurality of electrode tabs, when viewed in a longitudinal direction of the electrode assembly, a distance (β) from an end of a respective one of the separators to an end of the respective coupling part
Oh teaches wherein, for each of the plurality of electrode tabs, when viewed in a longitudinal direction of the electrode assembly, a distance (β) from an end of a respective one of the separators to an end of the respective coupling part is 2.0 mm to 4.5 mm, the end of the respective one of the separators and the end of the respective coupling part facing each other (Oh, “In the present disclosure, the length of the electrode tabs may be from 5 mm to 25 mm, or preferably, from 6 mm to 23 mm. Also, the length of the tab-lead coupler may be from 0.5 mm to 5 mm, or preferably, from 1 mm to 4 mm. However, the above numerical values are just specific examples, and the present disclosure is not limited hereto”, see [0044])(The examiner notes that a 5mm tab subtracted from 0.5 mm coupler would be 4.5 mm, see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
202
498
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Oh teaches that this arrangement of tabs this length allows for high process efficiency and tabs too long are not desirable in terms of energy (Oh, “When the lengths of the electrode tabs are same as one another, the electrode assembly may be manufactured by using a same type of the electrode plates. In this case, high process efficiency can be obtained compared to when using different types of the electrode plates”, see [0040]) (Oh, “However, the electrode tabs having the longer than desired lengths may be included, in which case these electrode tabs may occupy some of the internal space of the battery cell such that it may not be desirable in view of energy density.”, see [0041]).
Park and Oh are analogous as they are both of the same field of battery pouches.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the length as taught in Park to be the length as taught Oh in order to have maximized energy density.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAMUS PATRICK MCNULTY whose telephone number is (703)756-1909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00am to 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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/S.P.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752