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 .
Status of Claims
This is a final office action for application 18/019,409 in response to the amendment(s) filed on 03/11/2026. Claims 1-4 and 7-17 are under examination. Claims 14-15 are still withdrawn from consideration.
Withdrawn Objections
The amendment(s) to the claim(s), specification, and/or drawing(s) filed 03/11/2026 is acknowledged and the previous objections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 03/11/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive with respect to the previous prior art rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 based on Watanabe and the prior rejection of claims 6-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on Watanabe in view of Hellmann. Accordingly, those rejections have been withdrawn.
However, in light of the amendments a new search was conducted, and a new grounds of rejection was made below based on the newly identified prior art and/or newly applied combinations. Applicant’s arguments in regards to the prior grounds of rejection do not overcome the new rejections of claims 1-4, 7-13, and 16-17 below.
The text of 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 not reproduced in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 2-4 and 16 are 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.
Claims 2-4 and 16 recite the limitation "The electrode bundle" in the preamble. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-4 and 16 depend on claims 1 and claim 9. Claims 1 and 9 introduces “An electrochemical bundle” for the sake of expedient prosecution, claims 2-4 and 16 were read to further limit the electrochemical bundle introduced in claims 1 and 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3 and 9-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (US-20020119367-A1) and further in view of Drews et al. (US-20060194108-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Watanabe discloses an electrochemical bundle (see e.g. "secondary battery 1" in paragraph [0036] and FIG. 1) comprising at least one stack, the at least one stack (see e.g. " a plurality of positive electrodes 3 and negative electrodes 4 arranged face-to-face to each other in a battery case 2." in paragraph [0036] and FIG. 8) comprising:
an electrode of a first polarity (see e.g. "negative electrode" in paragraph [0008] and part number 4 in FIG. 1) comprising:
a first planar support (see e.g. "a band- like metal foil" in paragraph [0094] and part number 20 in FIG. 9; the first planar support is the metal like foil that the active material is coated on), the first planar support defining a first lateral edge and an upper edge extending from the first lateral edge (see e.g. part number 20 in FIG. 9);
a first layer comprising an active substance, covering the first planar support (see e.g. "electrode active material layer" in paragraph [0094 and part number 21 in FIG. 9); and
an electrical connection first tab, devoid of the layer containing the active substance, the first tab protruding from the upper edge in the vicinity of the first lateral edge (see e.g. " a current collecting tab 22 is positioned on a non-coated portion" in paragraph [0095] and part number 22 in FIG. 9);
the electrode of a first polarity defining, in the vicinity of a second lateral edge of the first planar support, a cutout extending set back from the upper edge in a continuation of the upper edge towards the second lateral edge (see e.g. "notched portion" in paragraph [0080] and part number 14 in FIG. 4),
an electrode of a second polarity (see e.g. "positive electrode" in paragraph [0037] and part number 3 in FIG. 1), comprising:
a second planar support (see e.g. "a band- like metal foil" in paragraph [0094] and part number 20 in FIG. 9; the second planar support is the metal like foil that the active material is coated on, both electrode are manufactured the same way with different active material),
a second laver comprising an active substance covering the second planar support (see e.g. "positive electrode active material" in paragraph [0102] and part number 21 in FIG. 9), and
an electrical connection second tab (see e.g. "positive electrode current collecting tab" in paragraph [0081] and part number 6 in FIG. 4), the first planar support of the electrode of a first polarity being placed facing the second planar support of the electrode of a second polarity (see e.g. FIG. 1 and FIG. 4 B) ; and
a separator interposed between the electrode of a first polarity and the electrode of a second polarity see e.g. "these are laminated in the order of separator—negative electrode—separator—positive electrode" in paragraph [0005] and part number 5 in FIG. 1),
the second tab of the electrode of a second polarity being placed facing the cutout (see e.g. "The positive electrode current collecting tab 6 is positioned face-to-face to the notched portion 14." in paragraph [0081] and part number 6 in FIG. 4 B).
Watanabe does not disclose that an upper edge of the electrode of a second polarity is placed in the cutout at a height between a height of the upper edge of the electrode of a first polarity in the vicinity of the cutout and a height of a lower edge of the cutout.
Drews, however, in the same field of endeavor, electrochemical bundles with cutouts, discloses an upper edge of an electrode of a second polarity placed in a cutout of an electrode of first polarity, at a height (i) strictly below a height of the upper edge of an electrode of a first polarity in the vicinity of the cutout and (ii) strictly above a height of a lower edge of the cutout (see e.g. FIG. 6 of Drews and annotated figure below).
Drews also teaches that by offsetting the contact tabs such that the electrode of a second polarity is in the cutout of the electrode of a first polarity the battery energy density can be increased (see e.g. paragraph [0037] of Drews). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode of a second polarity of Watanabe et al. such that it is placed in the cutout at a height strictly below a height of the upper edge of the electrode of a first polarity in the vicinity of the cutout and strictly above a height of a lower edge of the cutout as taught by Drews et al. in order have increased battery energy density as suggested by Drews.
PNG
media_image1.png
612
939
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Drews, figure 6, annotated for illustration)
Regarding Claim 2, Watanabe in view of Drews discloses the electrode bundle of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Watanabe further discloses that the first polarity is a negative polarity (see e.g. "negative electrode" in paragraph [0008] and part number 4 in FIG. 4).
Regarding Claim 3, Watanabe in view of Drews discloses the electrode bundle of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Watanabe further discloses that the cutout extends as far as the second lateral edge (see e.g. FIG. 4 and annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image2.png
617
786
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Watanabe, figure 4, annotated for illustration)
Regarding Claim 9, Watanabe in view of Drews discloses the electrode bundle of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Watanabe further discloses that a height separating the lower edge of the cutout and the upper edge of the electrode of a second polarity is 2.5 mm (see e.g. paragraphs [0107]-[0108]). Watanabe discloses a positive electrode with dimensions120 mm×65 mm×200 μm (length × width × thickness) and a negative electrode with dimensions 25 mm×70 mm×200 μm (length × width × thickness) with a cutout have dimensions 2.5 mm×15 mm (depth × width). 70 mm - 2.5 mm - 65 mm = 2.5 mm difference between upper edge of the positive electrode and lower edge of the cutout.
Watanabe discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 10, Watanabe in view of Drews discloses the electrode bundle of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Watanabe further discloses that the width of the cutout is greater than a width of the second tab of the electrode of a second polarity (see e.g. "the positive electrode current collecting tab of 10 mm in width" in paragraph [0107] and "a notched portion of 2.5 mm×15 mm (depth × width) was cut" in paragraph [0108]; the width of the cutout is 15 mm and the width of the second tab is 10 mm, 15 mm > 10 mm).
Regarding Claim 11, Watanabe discloses a battery cell (see e.g. "A lamination type secondary battery" in paragraph [0036] and part number 1 in FIG. 1), comprising:
a housing or a pouch delimiting an inner volume (see e.g. "casing" in paragraph [0040] and part number 7 in FIG. 1);
at least one electrode bundle (see e.g. part numbers 3, 4 and 5 in FIG. 1) according to claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above), arranged inside the inner volume (see e.g. FIG. 1), the second tab of the electrode of a second polarity protruding from the upper edge of the second planar support of the electrode of a second polarity by being bent (see e.g. part number 6 in FIG. 1); and
a connector attached to the bent second tab of the electrode of a second polarity (see e.g. "the tabs are connected to a positive electrode terminal " in paragraph [0039] and part number 9 in FIG. 1).
Regarding Claim 12, Watanabe in view of Drews discloses the electrode bundle of claim 11 (see e.g. claim 11 rejection above).
Watanabe further discloses in a plane perpendicular to the first planar support of the electrode of a first polarity , the bent second tab of the electrode of a second polarity has a gooseneck shape (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
621
612
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Watanabe, figure 1, annotated for illustration)
Regarding Claim 13, Watanabe in view of Drews discloses the electrode bundle of claim 11 (see e.g. claim 11 rejection above).
Watanabe further discloses a lid closing the housing (see e.g. "lid 36 of the battery" in paragraph [0008] and part number 36 in FIG. 10), the connector including a terminal borne by the lid (see e.g. "positive electrode terminal" in paragraph [0008] and part number 37 in FIG. 10) and a bent connection connecting the bent second tab of the electrode of a second polarity to the terminal (see e.g. part number 34 in FIG. 10).
Regarding Claim 16, Watanabe in view of Drews discloses the electrode bundle of claim 9 (see e.g. claim 9 rejection above).
Watanabe in view of Drews does not explicitly disclose that the height separating the lower edge of the cutout and the upper edge of the electrode of a second polarity is between 1 mm and 2 mm.
Watanabe, however, discloses notched portion on the negative electrode at the portion facing the positive electrode current collecting tab to reduce short-circuiting between the positive electrode current collecting tab and the negative electrode. Watanabe further discloses a height separating the lower edge of the cutout and the upper edge of the electrode of the second polarity greater than 1 mm (see e.g. 2.5 mm as discussed above with respect to claim 9).
Drews teaches arranging electrode tabs/recesses in the tab/cutout region to increase energy density by reducing unused space in the battery while maintaining reliable positioning and contacting of the electrodes. The particular separation height between the lower edge of the cutout and the upper edge of the electrode of the second polarity is a result effective design variable because the height affects both clearance in the tab/cutout region and the amount of usable electrode area. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select a separation height between 1 mm and 2 mm through routine optimization of the geometry of Watanabe as modified by Drews in order to provide sufficient clearance to reduce short circuiting and to reduce unused space and increase battery energy density.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (US-20020119367-A1) in view of Drews et al. (US-20060194108-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tatebayashi et al. (US-20070196732-A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Watanabe in view of Drews discloses the electrode bundle of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Watanabe in view of Drews does not disclose that the active substance contains lithium titanium oxide, or niobium titanium oxide.
Tatebayashi, however, in the same field of endeavor, electrodes in electrochemical bundles for use in secondary batteries, discloses a negative active material that is lithium titanium oxide (see e.g. "lithium-titanium oxide as the negative electrode active material" in paragraph [0134] of Tatebayashi).
Tatebayashi also teaches that in using an electrode of this type in a secondary battery internal short circuit and the breakage of the current path were unlikely to be generated in the dropping test of the secondary battery, which is ideal in secondary batteries (see e.g. paragraph [0272] of Tatebayashi). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the active substance of Watanabe et al. in view of Drews et al. such that it is lithium titanium oxide as taught by Tatebayashi et al. in order to prevent internal short circuit and breakage of current path as suggested by Tatebayashi.
Claims 7-8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (US-20020119367-A1) in view of Drews et al. (US-20060194108-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hellmann (US-20090047574-A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Watanabe in view of Drews discloses the electrode bundle of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Watanabe in view of Drews does not disclose that a zone of the electrode of a second polarity extending facing the cutout, located between the upper edge of the electrode of a second polarity and the lower edge of the cutout, is covered with the layer containing the active substance.
Hellmann, however, in the same field of endeavor, electrodes in electrochemical bundles for use in secondary batteries, discloses that at least a zone of the electrode of a second polarity extending facing the cutout, located between the upper edge of the electrode of a second polarity and the lower edge of the cutout, is covered with the layer containing the active substance (see annotated figure below).
Hellmann also teaches that electrode bundles of this type minimize volage drop and improve current distribution across the electrodes in comparison to prior art electrodes (see e.g. paragraphs [0040]-[0041] of Hellmann). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the electrode of a second polarity of Watanabe et al. in view of Drews et al. such that at least a zone of the electrode of a second polarity extending facing the cutout, located between the upper edge of the electrode of a second polarity and the lower edge of the cutout, is covered with the layer containing the active substance as taught by Hellmann in order to minimize voltage drop and improve current distribution across the electrodes as suggested by Hellmann.
PNG
media_image4.png
832
826
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(Hellmann, figures 8-11, annotated for illustration)
Regarding Claim 8, Watanabe in view of Drews discloses the electrode bundle of claim 7 (see e.g. claim 7 rejection above).
Watanabe in view of Drews does not disclose that a lower zone of the tab above the upper edge of the electrode of a second polarity is also covered with the layer comprising the active substance.
Hellmann, however, discloses that a lower zone of the tab above the upper edge of the electrode of a second polarity is also covered with the layer comprising the active substance (see annotated figure below).
Hellmann also teaches that electrode bundles of this type minimize volage drop and improve current distribution across the electrodes in comparison to prior art electrodes (see e.g. paragraphs [0040]-[0041] of Hellmann). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the electrode of a second polarity of Watanabe et al. in view of Drews et al. such that a lower zone of the tab above the upper edge of the electrode of a second polarity is also covered with the layer comprising the active substance as taught by Hellmann in order to minimize voltage drop and improve current distribution as suggested by Hellmann.
PNG
media_image5.png
853
850
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(Hellmann, figures 8-11, annotated for illustration)
Regarding Claim 17, Watanabe discloses an electrochemical bundle (see e.g. "secondary battery 1" in paragraph [0036] and FIG. 1) comprising at least one stack, the at least one stack (see e.g. " a plurality of positive electrodes 3 and negative electrodes 4 arranged face-to-face to each other in a battery case 2." in paragraph [0036] and FIG. 8) comprising:
an electrode of a first polarity (see e.g. "negative electrode" in paragraph [0008] and part number 4 in FIG. 1) comprising:
a first planar support (see e.g. "a band- like metal foil" in paragraph [0094] and part number 20 in FIG. 9; the first planar support is the metal like foil that the active material is coated on), the first planar support defining a first lateral edge and an upper edge extending from the first lateral edge (see e.g. part number 20 in FIG. 9);
a first layer comprising an active substance, covering the first planar support (see e.g. "electrode active material layer" in paragraph [0094 and part number 21 in FIG. 9); and
an electrical connection first tab, devoid of the layer containing the active substance, the first tab protruding from the upper edge in the vicinity of the first lateral edge (see e.g. " a current collecting tab 22 is positioned on a non-coated portion" in paragraph [0095] and part number 22 in FIG. 9);
the electrode of a first polarity defining, in the vicinity of a second lateral edge of the first planar support, a cutout extending set back from the upper edge in a continuation of the upper edge towards the second lateral edge (see e.g. "notched portion" in paragraph [0080] and part number 14 in FIG. 4),
an electrode of a second polarity (see e.g. "positive electrode" in paragraph [0037] and part number 3 in FIG. 1), comprising:
a second planar support (see e.g. "a band- like metal foil" in paragraph [0094] and part number 20 in FIG. 9; the second planar support is the metal like foil that the active material is coated on, both electrode are manufactured the same way with different active material),
a second laver comprising an active substance covering the second planar support (see e.g. "positive electrode active material" in paragraph [0102] and part number 21 in FIG. 9), and
an electrical connection second tab (see e.g. "positive electrode current collecting tab" in paragraph [0081] and part number 6 in FIG. 4), the first planar support of the electrode of a first polarity being placed facing the second planar support of the electrode of a second polarity (see e.g. FIG. 1 and FIG. 4 B) ; and
a separator interposed between the electrode of a first polarity and the electrode of a second polarity see e.g. "these are laminated in the order of separator—negative electrode—separator—positive electrode" in paragraph [0005] and part number 5 in FIG. 1),
the second tab of the electrode of a second polarity being placed facing the cutout (see e.g. "The positive electrode current collecting tab 6 is positioned face-to-face to the notched portion 14." in paragraph [0081] and part number 6 in FIG. 4 B).
Watanabe does not disclose that an upper edge of the electrode of a second polarity is placed in the cutout at a height between a height of the upper edge of the electrode of a first polarity in the vicinity of the cutout and a height of a lower edge of the cutout.
Drews, however, in the same field of endeavor, electrochemical bundles with cutouts, discloses an upper edge of an electrode of a second polarity placed in a cutout of an electrode of first polarity, at a height (i) strictly below a height of the upper edge of an electrode of a first polarity in the vicinity of the cutout and (ii) strictly above a height of a lower edge of the cutout (see e.g. FIG. 6 of Drews and annotated figure below).
Drews also teaches that by offsetting the contact tabs such that the electrode of a second polarity is in the cutout of the electrode of a first polarity the battery energy density can be increased (see e.g. paragraph [0037] of Drews). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode of a second polarity of Watanabe et al. such that it is placed in the cutout at a height strictly below a height of the upper edge of the electrode of a first polarity in the vicinity of the cutout and strictly above a height of a lower edge of the cutout as taught by Drews et al. in order have increased battery energy density as suggested by Drews.
Watanabe in view of Drews does not disclose that at least a zone of the electrode of a second polarity extending facing the cutout, located between the upper edge of the electrode of a second polarity and the lower edge of the cutout, is covered with the layer containing the active substance, and a lower zone of the tab above the upper edge of the electrode of a second polarity is also covered with the layer comprising the active substance.
Hellmann however discloses that at least a zone of the electrode of a second polarity extending facing the cutout, located between the upper edge of the electrode of a second polarity and the lower edge of the cutout, is covered with the layer containing the active substance (see annotated figure below) and that that a lower zone of the tab above the upper edge of the electrode of a second polarity is also covered with the layer comprising the active substance (see annotated figure below).
Hellmann also teaches that electrode bundles of this type minimize volage drop and improve current distribution across the electrodes in comparison to prior art electrodes (see e.g. paragraphs [0040]-[0041] of Hellmann). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the electrode of a second polarity of Watanabe et al. in view of Drews et al. such that a lower zone of the tab above the upper edge of the electrode of a second polarity is also covered with the layer comprising the active substance as taught by Hellmann in order to minimize voltage drop and improve current distribution as suggested by Hellmann.
PNG
media_image1.png
612
939
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Drews, figure 6, annotated for illustration)
PNG
media_image6.png
840
1082
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(Hellmann, figures 8-11, annotated for illustration)
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 JESSE EFYMOW whose telephone number is (571)270-0795. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 10:30 am - 8:30 pm EST.
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, TONG GUO can be reached at (571) 272-3066. 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.
/J.J.E./ Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights