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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 09/18/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 10-13 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a non-elected group.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/14/2023, 05/16/2024, and 10/22/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner’s note: Claim 3 recites wherein the connection member is made of a low-melting-point metal. The term “low-melting-point” is a relative term. A review of the instant specification Para. [76] defines a low-melting-point metal as having a melting point between 60°C and 250°C and Para. [63] indicates that the metal may be an alloy of two or more selected from the group consisting of bismuth, tin, lead, cadmium, zinc, and indium. In view of the scope provided in the instant specification, the relative term “low-melting-point” metal is not considered indefinite because the meets and bounds are disclosed in the instant specification.
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.
Claims 1-9 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The term “tight contact” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “tight” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear from the instant disclosure how tightly the tabs must be in contact to meet the limitation of being in “tight contact”. Examiner suggests removing the relative term “tight”. For purposes of compact prosecution, any contact that allows for electrical communication between the tabs is considered “tight contact”. Claims 2-9 are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon claim 1 and because they fail to cure the deficiencies of the indefinite limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Isao et al. (JP 2012185938 A, machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Isao discloses an electrode assembly (multilayer structure of electrodes [abstract]), comprising:
a plurality of positive electrodes each having a positive electrode tab extending from an outer periphery of one side thereof (plurality of positive electrodes 10 include positive electrode tab 11a extending from an outer periphery of one side [Para. 0069; Figs. 1-3]);
a plurality of negative electrodes each having a negative electrode tab extending from an outer periphery of one side thereof (plurality of negative electrodes 20 include a negative electrode tab 21a extending from an outer periphery of one side [Para. 0080; Figs. 1-3]);
a plurality of separators interposed between the positive electrodes and the negative electrodes (plurality of separators 30 are interposed between the positive electrodes 10 and the negative electrodes 20 [Para. 0043; Figs. 1-3]);
a connection member made of an electrically conductive material (conductive member 80 [Para. 0047; Figs. 1, 5-7, 12]);
an electrode lead (tab electrodes 41/42 [Para. 0045; Figs. 1-2]);
wherein the negative electrode tabs or the positive electrode tabs are coupled to each other in tight contact in a stacking direction to constitute an electrode tab bundle (negative electrode tabs 21a and positive electrode tabs 11a are coupled together to form a bundle with a reduced contact resistance and are electrically connected to tab electrodes 42 and 41, respectively[Para. 0090; Figs. 1-3, 6-7, 12]);
a through-hole is formed thorough the electrode tab bundle (through-hole 11b is formed through the electrode tab bundle formed by the electrode tabs 11a [Para. 0069; Figs. 1-3, 6-7, 12]);
the connection member extends through the through-hole (conductive member 80 extends through the through-hole 11b [Para. 0069; Figs. 5-7, 10-12]);
the electrode lead is electrically connected to the electrode tab bundle via the connection member (tab electrode 41 is electrically connected to the bundle of electrode tabs 11a via the conductive member 80 [Para. 0046; Figs. 1, 5-7]).
Regarding claim 2, Isao further discloses wherein the connection member has a shape of a bar, and the connection member extends through the electrode tab bundle (the conductive member 80 is formed in a rod shape and is inserted into the through-hole 11b of the positive electrode stack [Para. 0069; Figs. 1, 5-7]).
Regarding claim 3, Isao further discloses wherein the connection member is made of a low-melting-point metal (the conductive member 80 is made of a low melting point metal including alloys of indium, zinc, gallium, tin, and bismuth; specific examples include a tin-bismuth alloy with a melting point of about 130-160°C or indium with a melting point of 156.4°C [Para. 0087]).
Regarding claim 4, Isao further discloses wherein the electrode lead has a recess or an opening having a width approximately equal to a width of the through-hole of the electrode tab bundle (the through-hole 11b is formed so that its diameter is approximately the same as the diameter of the conductive member 80 [Para. 0088]), and the electrode lead is coupled to an upper surface or a lower surface of the electrode tab bundle (the tab electrode 41 is coupled to the upper or lower surface of the electrode tab bundle 11a [Figs. 1, 6-7]).
Regarding claim 6, Isao further discloses wherein each of the positive electrode and the negative electrode comprises an electrode current collector having two metal layers coupled to each of opposite surfaces of an insulation layer (positive electrode current collector 11 has a multilayer structure wherein metal conductive layers 14 are formed on both sides of an insulating resin layer 13 [Paras. 0050-0051] and wherein the negative electrode current collector is formed of a similar multilayer structure with two metal conductive layers formed on both sides of an insulating resin layer [Paras. 0144-0146]).
Regarding claim 7, Isao further discloses wherein a thickness of the insulation layer is greater than a thickness of one of the metal layers (the conductive layer 14 is formed to a thickness of about 4-10μm while the thickness of the resin layer 13 is preferably 10μm or more and 50 μm or less [Paras. 0051, 0054, 0145; Note, given the scope of the disclosed ranges and the limited overlap, especially in view of relative dimensions in Fig. 8, Isao anticipates the limitations of the instant claims]).
Regarding claim 8, Isao further discloses wherein a density of the insulation layer is lower than a density each of the metal layers (the metal layers comprise aluminum, titanium, stainless steel, nickel and/or copper [Paras. 0051, 0145] which have a density much greater than the density of the resin made of thermoplastic resins including polyolefin resins [Para. 0053]).
Regarding claim 9, Isao further discloses wherein a melting point of the connection member is lower than a melting point of the insulation layer (the conductive member 80 may have a melting point lower than the melting point of the resin layer 13 [Para. 0087]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(a) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Isao.
Regarding claim 5, Isao further discloses wherein the electrode lead has an opening having a width approximately equal to a width of the through-hole of the electrode tab bundle, the electrode lead is disposed within the electrode tab bundle, and the connection member extends through the opening of the electrode lead and the through-hole of the electrode tab bundle (Isao discloses wherein the through-hole 11b that extends through electrode 10 is formed so that its diameter is approximately the same as the diameter of the conductive member 80 and also teaches that in an alternative configuration the tab electrode 41 may be fixed in the intermediate layers of the positive electrode 10 rather than an outermost layer [Paras. 0088, 0091]). Examiner takes the position that such configuration would necessarily yield wherein the tab electrode 41 has a through hole because in order for the conductive member 80 to extend through the through-hole 11b with the tab electrode 41 disposed in the intermediate layers of the electrode 10, the tab electrode 41 must also comprise a through-hole approximately the diameter of the conductive member 80.
To the extent that Isao may not expressly teach or imply that the tab electrode 41 has a through-hole such that the conductive member 80 extends through the through-hole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure of Isao wherein the tab electrode 41 is disposed between the layers of the electrode tabs 11a such that the tab electrode has a through-hole and the conductive member 80 extends through all of the layers of the electrode tabs 11a and the tab electrode 41 because such configuration would provide the obvious and predictable benefit of ensuring an electrical connection between the tab electrode 41 and the positive electrode stack 10 [Para. 0046].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Satomi et al. (JP 2012129114 A) and Satomi et al. (JP 2013008564 A) discloses a similar configuration as Isao discussed above. Kiyoshi et al. (JP 2007266000 A) and Ryu et al. (US 20090317717 A1) disclose wherein the electrode lead is disposed between the layers of the electrode tab bundle.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3176. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-4:30pm ET Mon-Thurs, 7:30am-11:30pm Fri.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
/JOSHUA L ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1713