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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group A, claims 1-16 & 18-27 in the reply filed on January 6th, 2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 14 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.
Claim 14 claims a “first section” and a “second section”. Neither of these elements are disclosed in the specifications. It is unclear what is being defined as first section or second section as the claim language only describes the “first section” as the part of the electrode layer that is used to for the electrode roll, and a second section and a cutting step.
The examiner notes that the cutting step disclosed in the instant specifications refers to cutting an electrode sheet that are not used to form the electrode may be removed by cutting. Neither of these two components are formed by the cutting are defined as “first section” or “second section”.
The examiner further notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that in electrode sheet assembly processes, to form an electrode roll formed from an electrode sheet would require that the sheet would need to be cut at some point in order to wind the electrode sheet into an electrode roll.
For purposes of examination the examiner will interpret “cutting the first and second sections apart” to mean any cutting to form the electrode sheet into an electrode sheet.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 14, 19, 20, 21, 26 & 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kasahara (JP2004095487, see Machine Translations for citations, examiner will refer to page numbers from the machine citation) (Provided in Applicant’s IDS filed on March 27th, 2023).
Regarding Claim 1, Kasahara discloses a method of preparing a tabless energy storage device (pg. 1), comprising:
Providing an electrode layer having an active material disposed over a foil (active material layer coated on metal substrate which acts as foil, pg. 6, pg. 7);
Forming a series of flags in the foil to form a flagged electrode (connecting pieces formed by cuts or notches which are bent inward form series of flags, pg. 7);
Winding the flagged electrode to form an electrode roll comprising a series of rolled flags (winding positive and negative electrode plates in spiral shape, pg. 8-9, Fig. 7); and
Electrically connecting the rolled flags to a current collector to form an energy storage device (connecting pieces forming flags are connected to current collector, pg. 9).
Regarding Claim 14, Kasahara discloses the limitations as set forth above.
The examiner notes the 112(b) rejection above for the interpretation of the claim language.
Kasahara discloses wherein the electrode sheet is formed by rolling the electrode sheet and cutting it in a predetermined dimension to form the electrode sheet (pg. 21).
Therefore it is the examiner’s position that Kasahara discloses wherein the electrode layer comprises a first section used to form the electrode roll and a second section, wherein the method further comprises cutting the first and second sections apart.
Regarding Claim 19, Kasahara discloses a method of preparing a tabless energy storage device (pg. 1), comprising:
A wound flagged electrode layer comprising an active material disposed over a foil (active material layer coated on metal substrate which acts as foil, pg. 6, pg. 7);
Wherein the foil comprises a series of flags (connecting pieces formed by cuts or notches which are bent inward form series of flags, pg. 7); and
The examiner notes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims in view of the specifications, that “interleaved configuration” can be any structure that is similar to the structure disclosed in instant Fig. 11B, where the series of flags are overlapping with each other.
Kasahara further discloses wherein the folded flags are in a substantially interleaved configuration (current collecting pieces are folded to form a flat surface with each other, pg. 9, each connecting pieces has a portion of each side edge folded over the adjacent connecting piece, Fig. 3, pg. 14).
Regarding Claim 20, Kasahara discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Kasahara further discloses wherein the active material is selected from a group consisting of nickel oxide ([0027]).
Regarding Claim 21, Kasahara discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Kasahara further discloses wherein the flags are square or trapezoidal in shape (Fig. 4 and Fig. 7 show that the flags can be square or trapezoidal).
Regarding Claim 26, Kasahara discloses the limitations as set forth above. Kasahara further discloses wherein the electrode is mounted inside of a can comprising a lid (battery call has a cap structure, pg. 16).
Regarding Claim 27, Kasahara discloses the limitations as set forth above. Kasahara further discloses wherein the series of flags are in electrical communication with the lid of the can (battery case-1, positive electrode current collector-9 acts as lid, Fig. 1, pg. 19).
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.
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) 2, 6, 7, 11, 18, 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasahara (JP2004095487, see Machine Translations for citations, examiner will refer to page numbers from the machine citation).
Regarding Claim 2 & 6, Kasahara discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Kasahara does not directly disclose wherein prior to winding the flagged electrode the flags are folded to become a series of folded flags.
Kasahara discloses wherein the positive electrode and negative electrode side striped-shaped current collector has notches formed radially from the winding axis which form the current collection portions that form the flags (pg. 21-22). Kasahara teaches that this structure can be formed before winding the electrode plate group without adding errors in the formation process (pg. 24).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Kasahara to have wherein prior to winding the flagged electrode the flags are folded to become a series of folded flags.
Regarding Claim 7, Kasahara discloses the limitations as set forth above. Kasahara further discloses wherein the folding is performed successively (Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 11, Kasahara discloses the limitations as set forth above.
The examiner notes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims in view of the specifications, that “interleaved configuration” can be any structure that is similar to the structure disclosed in instant Fig. 11B, where the series of flags are overlapping with each other.
Kasahara further discloses wherein the folded flags are in a substantially interleaved configuration (current collecting pieces are folded to form a flat surface with each other, pg. 9, each connecting pieces has a portion of each side edge folded over the adjacent connecting piece, Fig. 3, pg. 14).
Regarding Claim 18, Kasahara discloses a method of preparing a tabless energy storage device (pg. 1), comprising:
Providing an electrode layer having an active material disposed over a foil (active material layer coated on metal substrate which acts as foil, pg. 6, pg. 7);
Forming a series of flags in the foil to form a flagged electrode (connecting pieces formed by cuts or notches which are bent inward form series of flags, pg. 7);
Winding the flagged electrode to form an electrode roll comprising a series of rolled flags (winding positive and negative electrode plates in spiral shape, pg. 8-9, Fig. 7); and
Electrically connecting the rolled flags to a current collector to form an energy storage device (connecting pieces forming flags are connected to current collector, pg. 9).
The examiner notes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims in view of the specifications, that “interleaved configuration” can be any structure that is similar to the structure disclosed in instant Fig. 11B, where the series of flags are overlapping with each other.
Kasahara further discloses wherein the folded flags are in a substantially interleaved configuration (current collecting pieces are folded to form a flat surface with each other, pg. 9, each connecting pieces has a portion of each side edge folded over the adjacent connecting piece, Fig. 3, pg. 14).
Kasahara does not directly disclose wherein prior to winding the flagged electrode the flags are folded to become a series of folded flags.
Kasahara discloses wherein the positive electrode and negative electrode side striped-shaped current collector has notches formed radially from the winding axis which form the current collection portions that form the flags (pg. 21-22). Kasahara teaches that this structure can be formed before winding the electrode plate group without adding errors in the formation process (pg. 24).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Kasahara to have wherein prior to winding the flagged electrode the flags are folded to become a series of folded flags.
Regarding Claim 22, Kasahara discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Kasahara does not directly disclose wherein the flags are angled from 5-10 degrees, 11-20 degrees, from 21-30 degrees, or from 10-15 degrees.
The examiner notes that Kasahara discloses wherein the flags are bent in angles that allows them to overlap each other (current collecting pieces are folded to form a flat surface with each other, pg. 9, each connecting pieces has a portion of each side edge folded over the adjacent connecting piece, Fig. 3, pg. 14) in the same manner as the instant specifications.
In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Therefore it would be obvious to have one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Kasahara to have wherein the flags are angled from 5-10 degrees, 11-20 degrees, from 21-30 degrees, or from 10-15 degrees.
Regarding Claim 23, Kasahara discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Kasahara does not directly disclose wherein each of the flags of the flags is from 1-10 mm in height.
The examiner notes that the height of the flags is based on the portion of the current collector that is not coated with positive electrode active material layer.
Kasahara discloses wherein the height of the electrode group can be 36.5 to 27mm (pg. 21), and wherein the width of the strip shaped current collector including 1mm, which overlaps the instant claim range of 1-10mm.
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Kasahara to have wherein each of the flags of the flags is from 1-10 mm in height.
Regarding Claim 24, Kasahara discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Kasahara does not directly disclose wherein each of the flags is from 1-10 mm in width.
Kasahara discloses wherein the notches that form the width of each flag can range from 1-5 mm (pg. 21), which overlaps the instant claim range of 1-10 mm.
Therefore it would be obvious to have one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Kasahara to have wherein each of the flags is from 1-10 mm in width.
Claim(s) 3-5, 12 & 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasahara (JP2004095487) in view of Suzuki (US20190319296).
Regarding Claim 3 & 13, Kasahara discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Kasahara discloses wherein the positive electrode and negative electrode are rolled to be form (pg. 21). However, Kasahara does not directly disclose wherein folding is performed by a deflector, a roller, a scoring spool, a directed air device, or combinations thereof.
Suzuki discloses a method of forming flagged electrode sheet where a roller is used to create a series of flags in an uncoated portion of a current collector foil (current collector foil for positive and negative electrode strips, [0047-0048], Fig. 8 shows roller system, Fig. 10 shows cutting blade-37 on first roller-30, that formed raised parts that form series of flags, [0034]) Suzuki discloses wherein the electrode can be used for wound electrodes ([003]). Suzuki discloses wherein the folded regions of the current collector are formed by rollers ([0051-0052]). Suzuki teaches that this method provides a current collector with improved rigidity ([0062-0063]). Suzuki teaches that this method provides a current collector with improved rigidity ([0062-0063]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kasahara with the teachings of Suzuki to have wherein folding is performed by a deflector, a roller, a scoring spool, or combinations thereof. This modification would yield the expected result of improved current collector rigidity.
Regarding Claim 4, 5 & 12 Kasahara in view of Suzuki discloses the limitations as set forth above.
The examiner notes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims in view of the specifications, that “interleaved configuration” can be any structure that is similar to the structure disclosed in instant Fig. 11B, where the series of flags are overlapping with each other.
Kasahara discloses wherein the folded flags are wound into a substantially interleaved configuration (current collecting pieces are folded to form a flat surface with each other, pg. 9, each connecting pieces has a portion of each side edge folded over the adjacent connecting piece, Fig. 3, pg. 14).
However, Kasahara does not directly disclose wherein the as the folded flags are wound a flag management device moves the folded flags into a substantially interleaved configuration, and wherein the flag management device comprises a diverter, a wheel, or an air nozzle.
The examiner notes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language in view of the specification, that a diverter can be any piece of machinery in conjugation with a roller that creates the shapes and bending of the flags.
Suzuki discloses a folding protrusion and cutting blade that bends the current collector cutouts that form the series of flags (folding protrusion-38, [0053], Fig. 10). Suzuki discloses that this structure runs through the uncoated portion of the current collector ([0054]).
It is the examiner’s position that Suzuki’s folding protrusion and cutting blade, because they create the series of flags in the same manner as the diverter disclosed in instant Fig. 8, can be interpreted to act as a diverter.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kasahara with the teachings of Suzuki to have wherein the as the folded flags are wound a flag management device moves the folded flags into a substantially interleaved configuration, and wherein the flag management device comprises a diverter, a wheel, or an air nozzle. This modification would yield the expected result of improved current collector rigidity.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasahara (JP2004095487) in view of Suzuki (US20190319296) further in view of Park (US20210050580).
Regarding Claim 8, Kasahara in view of Suzuki discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Kasahara does not directly disclose wherein the folding is performed by a roller, a directed air device, and combinations thereof.
Park discloses a method of forming electrode leads where cathode leads are bent to form overlapping portions ([0019]). Park further discloses wherein a plurality of air nozzles are used to create the overlapping cent cathode leads ([0020]). Park teaches that this method provides improved stability of the cell ([006]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Kasahara with the teachings of Park to have wherein the folding is performed by a roller, a directed air device, and combinations thereof. This modification would yield the expected result of improved stability of the cell.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasahara (JP2004095487) in view of Park (US20210050580).
Regarding Claim 9, Kasahara discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Kasahara does not directly disclose wherein the folding is performed concurrently.
Park discloses a method of forming electrode leads where cathode leads are bent to form overlapping portions ([0019]). Park further discloses wherein a plurality of air nozzles are used to create the overlapping cent cathode leads ([0020]). Park further discloses wherein the bending can be performed simultaneously ([0020]). Park teaches that this method provides improved stability of the cell ([006]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kasahara with the teachings of Park to have wherein folding is performed concurrently. This modification would yield the expected result of improved stability of the cell.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasahara (JP2004095487) in view of Park (US20210050580) further in view of Shibata (US20080206640).
Regarding Claim 10, Kasahara discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Kasahara does not directly disclose wherein folding is performed by a press, a directed air device, and combinations thereof.
Park discloses a method of forming electrode leads where cathode leads are bent to form overlapping portions ([0019]). Park further discloses wherein a plurality of air nozzles are used to create the overlapping cent cathode leads ([0020]). Park teaches that this method provides improved stability of the cell ([006]).
Shibata discloses a cylindrical battery cell ([[0100]]). Shibata further discloses the use of a press used to bend electrode leads ([0072]) that bonded to a current collector ([0013]). Shibata teaches that this structure provides improved conductivity of the battery ([0012]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kasahara with the teachings of Park and Shibata to have wherein folding is performed by a press, a directed air device, and combinations thereof. This modification would yield the expected result of improved stability and conductivity of the cell.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasahara (JP2004095487) in view of Kim (US20190319256).
Regarding Claim 15, Kasahara discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Kasahara does not directly disclose wherein the method further comprising inspecting the rolled flags of the electrode roll.
Kim discloses a process of forming an electrode sheet ([007]). Kim further discloses the use of an inspection device ([008]). Kim teaches that this structure provides improved accuracy of quality control of the electrode sheet ([0029]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Kasahara with the teachings of Kim to have wherein the method further comprising inspecting the rolled flags of the electrode roll. This modified structure would the expected result of improved accuracy of quality control of the electrode sheet
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasahara (JP2004095487) in view of Tsuchiya (US20110010928).
Regarding Claim 16, Kasahara discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Kasahara does not directly disclose wherein the electrode winding process is performed at a speed of about 1-3 m/s.
Tsuchiya discloses a method of producing a would electrode assembly ([006]). Tsuchiya further discloses wherein the winding speed exceeds about 2m/s ([006]), which overlaps the instant claim range of 1-3 m/s. Tsuchiya teaches that this structure provides improved production efficiency ([006]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Kasahara with the teachings of Tsuchiya to have wherein the electrode winding process is performed at a speed of about 1-3 m/s. This modified structure would the expected result of improved production efficiency.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasahara (JP2004095487, see Machine Translations for citations, examiner will refer to page numbers from the machine citation) in view of Bando (US20130048340).
Regarding Claim 25, Kasahara discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Kasahara does not directly disclose wherein the series of flags are formed from copper or aluminum.
Bando discloses a current collector for use in an electrode sheet where the current collector uncoated portion is punched out to form flags (current collector can be formed of copper, [0083] or aluminum, [0096], flags form in current collector- [0157]). Bando teaches that structure provides improved capacity ([007]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Kasahara with the teachings of Bando to have wherein the flags are formed of copper or aluminum. This modification would yield the expected result of improved capacity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANKITH R SRIPATHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30 am - 5:00pm.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 571-270-7871. 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.
/ANKITH R SRIPATHI/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728