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 Application
Claims 1-6, 12, 14-16 are currently pending. Claims 14-16 are new. Claims 7-8, 10-11, 13 are withdrawn. Claim 9 is canceled. Claim 1 is amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant appears to argue that the amended claim 1 is not disclosed or suggested by Chun. However, Chun in Fig 2 appears to anticipate the newly added limitation of claim 1. See the rejection below.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 2. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claims 15-16 are also objected to as they depend from claim 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 12, 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chun (US20120009450A1, previously cited, IDS cited 05/17/2023).
Regarding claim 1, Chun discloses a cylindrical secondary battery (Fig 1, 2) comprising:
a jelly-roll type electrode assembly (electrode assembly 110 in Fig 2; [0049]);
a cylindrical case (case 120; [0046]); and
a positive electrode tab (positive electrode tab 135a or 135b in Fig 2) and a negative electrode tab (negative electrode tab 136 b in Fig 2) which are coupled to the jelly-roll type electrode assembly [0041],
wherein the cylindrical secondary battery comprises a plurality of quadrants (see annotated Fig 2 below),
wherein the plurality of quadrants are defined by dividing a horizontal cross section perpendicular to a winding axis of the jelly-roll type electrode assembly into a plurality of sections, and
wherein in which the positive electrode tab (positive electrode tab 135 b in Fig 2) and the negative electrode tab (negative electrode tab 136 b in Fig 2) are positioned in a first quadrant of the plurality of quadrants.
PNG
media_image1.png
861
418
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chun further anticipates a physical structure which inherently possesses the physical dimensions and structural relationships dictated by Equation 1 below:
[Equation 1] an = an-1 + 2b, wherein, in Equation 1:
an (i.e., a3 in Fig 3 below) denotes a diameter of the jelly-roll type electrode assembly at n number of windings;
an-1 (i.e., a2 in Fig 3 below) denotes a diameter of the jelly-roll type electrode assembly at n-1 number of windings;
b denotes a thickness of a repeating layer at n number of windings (i.e., the repeating layer in Fig 3 below);
n is an integer greater than or equal to 1 (i.e., n=4 in Fig 3 below) and denotes the number of windings of the jelly-roll type electrode assembly; and
when n is 1, a0 denotes a diameter of the winding core (i.e., a3 = a2 + (2*thickness of the repeating layers)).
Since Chun discloses the identical jelly-roll structure with tabs in the identical quadrant, the positions of Chun’s tabs are inherently based on the geometry of Equation 1. Thus, Chun anticipates “wherein a position of the negative electrode is based on a calculated predicted circumference of the jelly-roll type electrode assembly according to a number of windings”.
PNG
media_image2.png
869
423
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2 and 14 (see objection above for Claim 14), Chun discloses the cylindrical secondary battery of claim 1, wherein
a first radial line from a winding core on the horizontal cross section of the jelly-roll type electrode assembly to the positive electrode tab (see the arrow extending from the core of the jelly-roll type electrode to positive electrode tab 135 b in the annotated Fig 2 below) and
a second radial line from the winding core to the negative electrode tab (see the arrow extending from the core of the jelly-roll type electrode to the negative electrode tab 136 b in the annotated Fig 2 below) are positioned in the first quadrant, and
wherein the first radial line and the second radial line are not collinear with each other (“collinear” interpreted as lying on or passing through the same straight line. Since the two radial lines do not lie on the same straight line, they are considered non-collinear)
PNG
media_image3.png
741
368
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Chun discloses the cylindrical secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the plurality of quadrants comprises four quadrants (see annotated Fig 2 in claim 1 rejection).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun (US20120009450A1, previously cited, IDS cited 05/17/2023).
Regarding claim 3, Chun discloses the cylindrical secondary battery of claim 1, wherein
a first radial line from a winding core on the horizontal cross section of the jelly-roll type electrode assembly to the positive electrode tab (see the arrow extending from the core of the jelly-roll type electrode to positive electrode tab 135 b in the annotated Fig 2 below) and
a second radial line from the winding core to the negative electrode tab (see the arrow extending from the core of the jelly-roll type electrode to the negative electrode tab 136 b in the annotated Fig 2 below) are positioned in the first quadrant.
PNG
media_image3.png
741
368
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Since each quadrant has an angle of 90° and the two radial lines lie within the same quadrant as shown in the annotated Fig 2 above, a person having ordinary skill in the art would envisage an angle between the first radial line and the second radial line to necessarily be between 0° to 90°, which encompasses the claimed range of “15° to 80°”. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have optimized the angle between the two radial lines, where at 0° angle, the tabs would perfectly overlap causing unwanted localized thickness and bulge and less than 90° would ensure proper tab separation, to arrive at an angle ranging between 15-85°.
Regarding claims 4-5, Chun discloses the cylindrical secondary battery of claim 1, wherein an average radius value is 7 mm to 10 mm [0056]. While Chun does not explicitly disclose wherein “the average radius value of each of the plurality of quadrants has a deviation of 1% or less when compared to another one of the plurality of quadrants” (claim 4) or “a first deviation between a first average radius value of the first quadrant and a second average radius value of an adjacent quadrant is 1% or less” (claim 5), it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have controlled the average radii within the electrode assembly such that they have a deviation of 1% or less, with a reasonable expectation to provide an electrode assembly having a cylindrical shape ([0040, 0049]; Fig 4).
Regarding claim 15, Chun discloses the cylindrical secondary battery of claim 14, wherein the battery includes non-colinear positive and negative electrode tabs in the first quadrant of a wound jelly-roll assembly. However, Chun does not disclose calculating and positioning the unwound tabs spaced apart by Equation 2, as claimed.
The claimed “positioning” step is a product-by-process limitation, where Chung’s final wound structure is identical to the claimed battery. Because Equation 2, defined as:
L
n
=
∑
k
=
1
n
a
k
π
wherein Ln denotes a separation distance between the positive electrode tab and the negative electrode tab on an unwound jelly-roll type electrode assembly when the first radial line and the second radial line are positioned to be collinear with each other,
ak denotes a diameter of the wound jelly-roll type electrode assembly; and
n is an integer equal to or greater than 1 and denotes the number of windings of the jelly-roll type electrode assembly”, merely defines the inherent geometric configuration of unwinding an Archimedean spiral, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have separated the tabs by this mathematically predictable distance, to predictably achieve Chun’s known, non-colinear wound tab arrangement.
Thus, Chun envisages “wherein the position of the negative electrode tab is based on positioning the positive tab before winding the jelly-roll type electrode assembly and positioning the negative electrode tab to be spaced apart from the positive electrode tab in accordance with a distance calculated by Equation 2”.
Regarding claim 16, Chun discloses the cylindrical secondary battery of claim 15, comprising the positive electrode tab 135b positioned near the winding core of the electrode assembly and negative electrode tab 136b, wherein the distance between the two when unwound is equivalent to the sum of circumferences at n=1, 2, 3, 4 (see Fig 2 in the claim 15 rejection). However, Chun fails to explicitly disclose positioning the positive tab exactly at the start point of the winding. However, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, as a matter of routine optimization, to place Chun’s center-positioned tab exactly at the winding start point to reliably anchor the calculation for the negative tab’s spacing and ensure proper alignment in the final wound state.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun (US20120009450A1, IDS cited 05/17/2023, previously cited), in view of Akou (US20100112434A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 6, Chun discloses the cylindrical secondary battery of claim 1 comprising a positive electrode tab 135 b and a negative electrode tab 136 b (see Fig 2). Chun does not disclose that the cylindrical secondary battery further comprises “an electrode lead electrically connected to the positive electrode tab or the negative electrode tab by binding or welding”.
In this regard, Akou teaches a cylindrical secondary battery having tab parts 15 and 16 (see Fig 3; [Akou 0094] bound to a positive current collector lead 10 [Akou 0094] to electrically connect the current collector and the sealing cover 38 [Akou 0097]. Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have added an electrode lead connected to the positive electrode tab of Chun, with a reasonable expectation to electrically connect the positive electrode current collector to the cap assembly of Chun.
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 TAEYOUNG SON whose telephone number is (703)756-1427. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5pm.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.
/T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights