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
1. Applicant's election with traverse of Species B in the reply filed on 02/11/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that each of the species identified by the Examiner are within a single set of claims with only one independent claim therefore the division within the dependent claims is improper, and there is no undue burden to examine all of the claims in the application. This is not found persuasive because first, the MPEP 1850(II) teaches no problem of lack of unity arises in respect to any claims that depend from an independent claims if the independent claims avoid the prior art. Further, MPEP 1850(II) teaches “If, however, an independent claim does not avoid the prior art, then the question whether there is still an inventive link between all the claims dependent on that claim needs to be carefully considered. If there is no link remaining, an objection of lack of unity a posteriori (that is, arising only after assessment of the prior art) may be raised. Similar considerations apply in the case of a genus/species or combination/subcombination situation”. Therefore as the Examiner has shown there is no unity of invention for the independent claims 1 and 10, the election of separate genus/species is proper. Further, regarding the search and examination burden, Species A and Species B would each require unique search queries, and prior art that infringes on one species is not expected to necessarily infringe on the other species, and although the applicant has pointed out the examiner in the international PCT examined all the claims, this is performed by a different examiner in a different patent office in a different country therefore said examiner may have a different opinion of what presents as undue examination or search burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 2 and 11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 03/11/2026.
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/09/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. Claim 6 and 12 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.
Regarding claim 6, the recitation “the third metal plate having a length less than or equal to the length of the second metal plate” in claim 6, lines 3-4 is indefinite because in claim 3 each metal plate of the plurality of metal plates has a different length, therefore it is unclear how the second and third metal plate can be equal in length and have different lengths. For examination purposes the aforementioned recitation will be interpreted as “the third metal plate having a length less than the length of the second metal plate”.
Regarding claim 12, the recitation “the thickness” in claim 12 lines 3 and 5 lacks proper antecedent basis in the claim. For examination purposes the aforementioned recitation will be interpreted as “a thickness”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. Claim(s) 1, 3-10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ryu et al. (Pub. No. US 20100028770 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ryu teaches an electrode assembly (10, Fig. 1, see [0006], the examiner would like to note the embodiment of Fig. 1 and 2 is not the preferred embodiment, however it has been held that prior art is relevant to all they contain as described in MPEP 2123) comprising: a positive electrode plate (20, Fig. 1, see [0006]) including a positive electrode active material (22, Fig. 1, see [0006]) on a collector (21, Fig. 1, see [0006]); a negative electrode plate (30, Fig. 1, see [0006]) including a negative electrode active material (32, Fig. 1, see [0006]) on a collector (31, Fig. 1, see [0006]); a separator (70, Fig. 1, see [0006]) interposed between the positive electrode plate (20, Fig. 1, see [0006]) and the negative electrode plate (30, Fig. 1, see [0006] where 70 is interposed between each of 20 and 30); and an electrode tab (electrode tab, Fig. 2 below, see [0008] where each of the tabs are overlapped and brough into tight contact with the electrode lead and each other, it is the Examiner’s position this overlapping of individual tabs acts as a single tab) connected to the positive electrode plate (20, see Fig. 1 where the electrode tab is connected to each 20) and an electrode tab (electrode tab, Fig. 2 below, see [0007] where the plurality of tabs for anodes and cathodes are joined in separate joint portions, therefore Fig. 2 below will be used to teach both the electrode tabs connected to the anodes or cathodes) connected to the negative electrode plate (30, Fig. 1, see [0006], see [0007] where the overlapping tabs in Fig. 2 below are representative of both the connected to anode and cathode), each electrode tab (electrode tab, Fig. 2 below, see above this tab represents both tabs) having a plurality of metal plates (60 and plates circled by A, Fig. 2 below, see [0060], note again this tab in Fig. 2 below represent both plurality of metal plates for both electrode tabs).
PNG
media_image1.png
414
646
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Ryu teaches wherein each metal plate (individual plates circled by A and 60, Fig. 2 above) of the plurality of metal plates (60 and plates circled by A, Fig. 2 above) has a different length (see Fig. 2 above each plate has a different length), and wherein a first end (first end, Fig. 2 above) of each of the electrode tabs (electrode tab, Fig. 2 above, see above this tab represents both tabs) has a thickness greater (see Fig. 2 above where the thickness of first end is thicker than second end) than that of a second end (second end, Fig. 2 above) of each of the electrode tabs (electrode tab, Fig. 2 above, see above this tab represents both tabs).
Regarding claim 4, Ryu teaches wherein each of the plurality of metal plates (60 and plates circled by A, Fig. 2 above) comprises: a first metal plate (60, Fig. 2 below, see [0007]) having a length (L.sub.2, Fig. 2 below); and a second metal plate (2nd plate, Fig. 2 below) stacked on the first metal plate (60, Fig. 2 below, see [0007], see Fig. 2 below each of the plates including the 2nd plate are stacked on top of 60), the second metal plate (2nd plate, Fig. 2 below) having a length (length 2nd plate, see Fig. 2 below) less than the length (L.sub.2, Fig. 2 below) of the first metal plate (60, Fig. 2 below, see [0007]).
PNG
media_image2.png
414
646
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Ryu teaches wherein the length (length 2nd plate, see Fig. 2 above) of the second metal plate (2nd plate, Fig. 2 above) is less than ½ of the length (L.sub.2, Fig. 2 above) of the first metal plate (60, Fig. 2 above, see [0007], see in Fig. 2 above the length of the 2nd plate is much less than half of L.sub.2).
Regarding claim 6, Ryu teaches wherein each of the plurality of metal plates (60 and plates circled by A, Fig. 2 above) further comprise a third metal plate (3rd plate, see Fig. 2 above) stacked on the second metal plate (2nd plate, Fig. 2 above where 3rd plate is stacked on top of 2nd plate), the third metal plate (3rd plate, see Fig. 2 above) having a length (see length of 3rd plate in Fig. 2 above) less than or equal to that the length (length 2nd plate, see Fig. 2 above) of the second metal plate (2nd plate, Fig. 2 above, see 3rd plate has a smaller length than 2nd plate). See 112 rejection above for interpretation.
Regarding claim 7, Ryu teaches wherein, for each of the electrode tabs (electrode tab, Fig. 2 above, see above this tab represents both tabs), the plurality of metal plates (60 and plates circled by A, Fig. 2 above) having the different lengths (see Fig. 2 above where each plate has a different length) are disposed so that ends of the metal plates (60 and plates circled by A, Fig. 2 above) match each other at the first end (first end, Fig. 2 above) of the electrode tab (electrode tab, Fig. 2 above, see above this tab represents both tabs, note the labelled 3rd plate is slightly angled up at the end, however the beginning of each plate of the plurality of plates is considered to begin parallel to the first end of 60 all the way up through the different plates).
Regarding claim 8, Ryu teaches wherein the first end (first end, Fig. 2 above) of each of the electrode tabs (electrode tab, Fig. 2 above, see above this tab represents both tabs), which has a relatively thick thickness (see the first end in Fig. 2 above has a larger thickness than the second end), is connected to the positive electrode plate (20, Fig. 1, see [0006], since all components of the assembly 10 are connected together, the first end is therefore connected to the positive electrode plate 20) and the negative electrode plate (30, Fig. 1, see [0006], since all components of the assembly are connected together the first end is therefore connected to the negative electrode plate 30).
Regarding claim 9, Ryu teaches wherein, the second end (second end, Fig. 2 above) of each of the electrode tabs (electrode tab, Fig. 2 above, see above this tab represents both tabs), which has a relatively thin thickness (see Fig. 2 above where the second end has a thin thickness compared to the first end), is connected to the positive electrode plate (20, Fig. 1, see [0006], since all components of the assembly 10 are connected together, the second end is therefore connected to the positive electrode plate 20) and the negative electrode plate (30, Fig. 1, see [0006], since all components of the assembly are connected together the second end is therefore connected to the negative electrode plate 30).
Regarding claim 10, Ryu teaches an electrode tab (electrode tab, Fig. 2 below, see [0008] where each of the tabs are overlapped and brough into tight contact with the electrode lead and each other, it is the Examiner’s position this overlapping of individual tabs acts as a single tab) connected to a positive electrode plate (20, see Fig. 1 where the electrode tab is connected to each 20) or a negative electrode plate (30, Fig. 1, see [0006], see [0007] where the overlapping tabs in Fig. 2 below are representative of both the connected to anode and cathode)m the electrode tab (electrode tab, Fig. 2 below, see [0008] where each of the tabs are overlapped and brough into tight contact with the electrode lead and each other, it is the Examiner’s position this overlapping of individual tabs acts as a single tab) comprising a plurality of metal plates (60 and plates circled by A, Fig. 2 below, see [0007]) that are stacked on each other (see Fig. 2 below where the plurality of plates are stacked on top of each other).
PNG
media_image3.png
331
517
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Ryu teaches wherein each metal plate (60 and each plate circled in A, Fig. 2 above) of the plurality of metal plates (60 and plates circled by A, Fig. 2 below, see [0007]) has a different length (see Fig. 2 above where 60 and each plate has a different length), and wherein the thickness (thickness 1, Fig. 2 below) of a first metal plate (60, Fig. 2 below) of the plurality of metal plates (60 and plates circled by A, Fig. 2 below, see [0007]) at a first side (first side, Fig. 2 below) of the electrode tab (electrode tab, Fig. 2 below, see [0008] where each of the tabs are overlapped and brough into tight contact with the electrode lead and each other, it is the Examiner’s position this overlapping of individual tabs acts as a single tab) is greater than the thickness (thickness 2, see Fig. 2 below) of a second metal plate (2nd plate, Fig. 2 below) of the plurality of metal plates (60 and plates circled by A, Fig. 2 below, see [0007]) at a second side (2nd side, Fig. 2 below) of the electrode tab (electrode tab, Fig. 2 below, see [0008] where each of the tabs are overlapped and brough into tight contact with the electrode lead and each other, it is the Examiner’s position this overlapping of individual tabs acts as a single tab).
PNG
media_image4.png
414
648
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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 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.
8. Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu et al. (Pub. No. US 20100028770 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Urano et al. (Pub. No. US 20060073382 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Ryu teaches the electrode assembly (10, Fig. 1, see [0006] the examiner would like to note the embodiment of Fig. 1 and 2 is not the preferred embodiment, however it has been held that prior art is relevant to all they contain as described in MPEP 2123) of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to teach a secondary battery comprising: the electrode assembly of claim 1; a battery case configured to accommodate the electrode assembly therein; and a cap assembly coupled to an upper portion of the battery case.
However, Urano teaches a secondary battery (sealed prismatic battery, Fig. 3, see [0035] where the prismatic battery is a lithium ion secondary battery) comprising: an electrode assembly (electrode body 2, Fig. 3, see [0035]); a battery case (1, Fig. 3, see [0035]) configured to accommodate the electrode assembly (electrode body 2, Fig. 3, see [0035]) therein (see 2 is contained in 1 in Fig. 3); and a cap assembly (lid 3, Fig. 3, see [0035]) coupled to an upper portion (upper surface of can 1, see [0035], see [0037] where the lid 3 is welded to 1) of the battery case (1, Fig. 3, see [0035]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ryu such that the electrode assembly 10 as taught by Ryu is contained in the battery case 1 with a lid 3 coupled to the opening of the battery case 1 to form a sealed prismatic battery as taught by Urano to prevent the current collector lead from being short-circuited with the lid of the sidewall of the battery can (see [0007] of Urano). Further Ryu teaches that modifications can be made (see [0042] of Ryu).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS CALEB MARROQUIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5:00 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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at 571-270-7078. 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.
/DOUGLAS C MARROQUIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights