DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/22/26 has been entered.
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 .
Examiner’s Comments
The examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, paragraphs, or figures in the references as applied to the claims for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1 and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 111446480.
Regarding claim 1, CN ‘480 discloses a cell of an energy storage device comprising an anode sheet (2), a cathode sheet (1), and two diaphragms (31), one of the anode sheet and the cathode sheet being located between the two diaphragms, and the other one being located on an outer side of either of the two diaphragms, together the anode sheet, the cathode sheet, and the diaphragms forming a spiral winding structure, at least one diaphragm has an extension exceeding beyond an end of the anode sheet and an end of the cathode sheet (Fig. 2-3 and 5), and the two diaphragms are of dimensions greater than that of the cathode sheet along an axial direction of the winding structure (Fig. 4), an exceeding portion of the at least one diaphragm beyond the dimension of the cathode sheet forming a first protrusion from at the at least one end of the winding structure, and the first protrusion being tilted to cover the anode sheet and the cathode sheet at the end where the first protrusion is located (Fig. 2-3 and 5). Given that CN ‘480 discloses an exceeding portion or first protrusions of the diaphragms being wounded with multiple cycles, CN ‘480 would necessarily disclose the first protrusions wound again to the same position covers an inner first protrusion to form the insulating layer (Fig. 1 depicts multiple woundings, thereby the exceeding portions would necessary cover the underlying exceeding portions due to an overhang of the exceeding portions being present). Additionally, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claimed “inner first protrusion” is to be interpreted as to any area within the first protrusion. Furthermore, CN ‘480 discloses a second protrusion and third protrusions as claimed (All Figs, the combination of references (31) and (32), and annotated figure set forth below).
PNG
media_image1.png
618
702
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Given that CN ‘480 discloses that the overall area of the diaphragm is larger than that of the cathode sheet and the anode sheet (Fig. 1) and in combination of the examiner’s crude drawing of the extension of CN ‘480 set forth above, CN ‘480 discloses the third protrusion as claimed. The examiner is taking the position that the excess sidewalls of “the second protrusion” would corresponds to the claimed “third protrusion”.
Regarding claim 4, CN ‘480 discloses that the size of anode sheet is greater than the cathode sheet by 0.1-0.5 mm in the axial direction of the winding structure and the two diaphragms is at least 0.5 mm larger than the size of the anode sheet in the axial direction of the winding structure. In light of the sizing relationship of the anode sheet, cathode sheet, and the two diaphragms, the two diaphragms are greater than that of the cathode sheet by at least 0.5 mm along the axial direction of the winding structure.
Regarding claims 5-6, CN ‘480 discloses dimensions as claimed.
Regarding claim 7, please see figures 2-3 and 5.
Regarding claim 8, please see claims 8-10. With regards to the grooves at a sidewall of the cylindrical core column, the examiner is taking the position that any range of surface roughness, including microscopically, of the cylindrical core column to corresponds to the claimed grooves.
In addition, Further, it is also noted that the limitation “winding structure is formed …”, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.”, (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious different between the claimed product and the prior art product (In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP 2113). CN ‘480 discloses a winding structure as claimed.
Regarding claim 9, CN ‘480 discloses an insulation gummed paper (6) as claimed (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 10, CN ‘480 discloses an energy storage device as claimed (Disclosure of Invention).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 4, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over obvious over CN 202817039 in view of Kondo et al. (US 2015/0263376).
Regarding claim 1, CN ‘039 discloses a cell of an energy storage device comprising an anode sheet (60), a cathode sheet (50), and two diaphragms (30, 40), one of the anode sheet and the cathode sheet being located between the two diaphragms, and the other one being located on an outer side of either of the two diaphragms, together the anode sheet, the cathode sheet, and the diaphragms forming a spiral winding structure, at least one diaphragm has an extension exceeding beyond an end of the anode sheet and an end of the cathode sheet (all Figs), an exceeding portion of the at least one diaphragm beyond the dimension of the cathode sheet forming a first protrusion from at the at least one end of the winding structure, and the first protrusion being tilted to cover the anode sheet and the cathode sheet at the end where the first protrusion is located (all Figs).
CN ‘039 fails to explicitly disclose the two diaphragms are of dimensions greater than that of the cathode sheet along an axial direction of the winding structure as presently claimed.
Kondo discloses a spiral winding structure in a cell of an energy storage device comprising an anode sheet, a cathode sheet, and two diaphragms (Fig. 4), wherein the two diaphragms (70) are of dimensions greater than that of the cathode sheet (34) along an axial direction of the winding structure (Fig. 3-4).
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 dimension of CN ‘039’s diaphragms to be greater than that of the cathode sheet along an axial direction of the winding structure, as suggested by Kondo, in order to inhibit the occurrence of minor short-circuiting [0011] and to ensure insulation from the outside [0048].
Given that CN ‘039 discloses an exceeding portion or first protrusions of the diaphragms being wounded with multiple cycles and Kondo discloses that the two diaphragms are of dimensions greater than that of the cathode sheet along an axial direction of the winding structure, CN ‘039 would necessarily disclose the first protrusions wound again to the same position covers an inner first protrusion to form the insulating layer. Additionally, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claimed “inner first protrusion” is to be interpreted as to any area within the first protrusion. Furthermore, CN ‘039 discloses a second protrusion and third protrusions as claimed (All Figs). The examiner is taking the position that the excess sidewalls of “the second protrusion” of CN ‘039 and/or the excess sidewalls from the overlap areas of the diaphragm in Kondo would corresponds to the claimed “third protrusion” (emphasis added).
Regarding claim 4, although CN ‘039 in view of Kondo discloses that the two diaphragms are greater than that of the cathode sheet in the axial direction, CN ‘039 in view of Kondo fails disclose the actual dimensions of the two diaphragms as claimed. However, Kondo discloses that the dimensions of the diaphragms contribute enhance insulation properties [0048], thereby is a result effective variable.
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention would have arrived at the claimed invention by routine experimentation alone, without exercising undue experimentation.
Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue known option within his or her technical grasp. It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to optimize the dimensions of the two diaphragms are greater than that of the cathode sheet by at least 0.5 mm along the axial direction of the winding structure, since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The burden is upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the claimed amount is critical and has unexpected results. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the dimension of the diaphragms in order to obtain an enhance insulation properties.
Regarding claim 7, CN ‘039 discloses the claimed structure (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, it noted that the limitation “winding structure is formed …”, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.”, (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious different between the claimed product and the prior art product (In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP 2113). CN ‘039 discloses a winding structure as claimed.
Regarding claim 9, CN ‘039 discloses an insulation gummed paper is optional. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include an insulation gummed paper as claimed in order to further enhance the insulation properties.
Regarding claim 10, CN ‘039 discloses an energy storage device as claimed.
Claim 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over obvious over CN 202817039 in view of Kondo et al. (US 2015/0263376), and further in view of Huh et al. (US 2014/0255778).
Regarding claim 5, CN ‘039 discloses a cathode sheet and an anode sheet as set forth above, however, is silent on the cathode sheet being greater than that of the anode sheet by at least 0.1 mm along the axial direction of the winding structure.
Huh discloses a battery comprising anode sheet (70) and a cathode sheet (10) (Fig. 7), wherein the cathode sheet has an additional extension with a length 1-10 mm [0034] to improve the safety and reliability of the battery (see insulation layer, [0013]), therefore the overall cathode sheet is at least 0.1 mm greater than that of the anode sheet.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify CN ‘039 cathode sheet to be greater than that of the anode sheet by at least 0.1 mm, by including an extension, in order to improve the safety and reliability of the battery.
Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over obvious over CN 202817039 in view of Kondo et al. (US 2015/0263376), and further in view of CN 110649328.
Regarding claim 5, CN ‘039 discloses a cathode sheet and an anode sheet as set forth above, however, is silent on the cathode sheet being greater than that of the anode sheet by at least 0.1 mm along the axial direction of the winding structure.
CN ‘328 discloses a cell of an energy storage device wherein the axial length of cathode sheet is greater than that of an anode sheet. CN’ 328 discloses that this is general known configuration in order to prevent damage to the plates, thereby the length of the placement is a result effective variable. Thus, optimization of the length of the cathode sheet suggested by the above-recited combination would have been obvious in order to prevent damage to the plates. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify CN ‘039 cathode sheet being greater than that of the anode sheet by at least 0.1 mm along the axial direction of the winding structure, as suggested by CN ‘328, in order to prevent damage to the plates.
Regarding claim 8, CN ‘039 discloses a cell of an energy storage device as set forth above and comprising a plug as a means to wind up and create a spiral winding structure, however, fails to explicitly disclose that the winding structure has a through hole as presently claimed.
CN ‘328 discloses a winding type battery cell comprising a winding structure is formed with a through hole in the middle thereof, the through hole (2) is provided with a cylindrical core (1) column therein, and the cylindrical core column has an inner hole and is provided with a grooves distributed along its axial direction at a sidewall of the cylindrical core column (Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify CN ‘039’s plug to be of a through hole, since CN ‘329 discloses that this is preferable technical scheme to wind up thereby producing a winding type battery cell.
Further, it is also noted that the limitation “winding structure is formed …”, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.”, (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious different between the claimed product and the prior art product (In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP 2113). CN ‘039 discloses a winding structure as claimed.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over obvious over CN 202817039 in view of Kondo et al. (US 2015/0263376), and further in view of in view of Kenta et al. (JP 2018/097928).
Regarding claim 6, CN ‘039 fails to disclose that the dimension of the cathode sheet is greater than that of the anode sheet along a circumferential direction of the winding structure as presently claimed.
Kenta discloses an arrangement wherein cathode sheet is greater than that of the anode sheet along a circumferential direction, and vice versa (Fig. 5-9). Although Kenta fails to explicitly disclose the length difference, Kenta discloses that the dimensional structures of the cathode sheet and anode sheet would result in achieving a more reliable amount of gas generating. This thereby would result in the suppression of an increase cost or a decrease in safety [0061]. In light of Kenta’s disclosure, the specific placement of the cathode sheet and anode sheet is a result effective variable. The examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as difference in length between cathode and anode sheet in a circumferential direction, through routine experimentation, especially given the knowledge in the art that surface roughness of a substrate can impact the overall magnetic properties of the medium. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re After, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cathode sheet in CN ‘039 so that the cathode sheet is greater than that of the anode sheet by at least 3 mm along a circumferential direction of the winding structure, since dimensions between the cathode and anode is a known results effective variable in the battery art, and in order to achieve a more reliable amount of gas generation, wherein thereby suppressing an increase in cost and suppressing decrease in safety [0061].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Please refer to the advisory action, dated 6/8/26, for additional response.
Applicant argues that the examiner cannot take the position that the claimed second and third protrusions are merely disclosing the areas of the extensions of the diaphragm (emphasis added). This is because the amendment now requires “wound again” thereby forming a multi-layered overlapping structure. As a result of winding the cell, the first protrusions overlap one another, thereby creating a “multi-layered” arrangement of the first protrusions (emphasis added). Thereby, the examiner contends that the second and third protrusions does not create a “multi-layered” structure when wounded, but rather the first protrusion is “multi-layered” when wounded. Thereby the “single” layer of the claimed extension would correspond to the claimed second and third protrusions, and the covering of the ends refers to the claimed first protrusions.
Applicant argues the criticality of the claimed third protrusions:
PNG
media_image2.png
354
694
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This has been found unpersuasive. As set forth above, CN ‘039 and Kondo discloses the broadly claimed extension structure. Additionally, Applicants are reminded that a detailed description of the reasons and evidence supporting a position of unexpected results must be provided by applicant(s). A mere pointing to data requiring the examiner to ferret out evidence of unexpected results is not sufficient to prove that the results would be truly unexpected to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re D'Ancicco, 439 F.2d 1244, 1248, 169 USPQ 303, 306 (1971) and In re Merck & Co, 800 F.2d 1091, 1099, 231 USPQ 375, 381 (Fed. Cir. 1986). It is also of note that the “multi-layered insulation” is a result of the first protrusion, not the third protrusion as argued above. Thereby, any arguments directed to the criticality of the third protrusion due to “multi-layered insulation” is not persuasive.
In addition, it is noted that "the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record", In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965). It is the Examiner's position that the arguments provided by applicant(s) regarding the alleged unexpected results should be supported by a declaration or affidavit. As set forth in MPEP 716.02(g), "the reason for requiring evidence in a declaration or affidavit form is to obtain the assurances that any statements or representations made are correct, as provided by 35 U.S.C. 24 and 18 U.S.C. 1001".
Moreover, the instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions; see Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
As set forth above, the examiner is taking the position that the excess sidewalls of “the second protrusion” of CN ‘039 and/or the excess sidewalls from the overlap areas of the diaphragm in Kondo would corresponds to the claimed “third protrusion” (emphasis added). It is noted that the claimed doesn’t requires multiple layers, rather the instant claims are directed to an extension of the diaphragm comprising a second protrusion and a third protrusions. The claimed second and third protrusions are merely disclosing the areas of the extension of the diaphragm (emphasis added). Thereby, the “single” layer protrusion structures of CN ‘039 and Kondo would read upon the claimed invention.
It is noted that that the rejections set forth above is not reflected to the claimed “… an end of the first protrusion is connected with an end of the first protrusion that is wound again to a same position to form the insulating layer” (emphasis added).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDA N CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-5835. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571)272-1291. 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.
Linda Chau
/L.N.C/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/Holly Rickman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights