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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/13/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The following is in response to the applicant’s remarks filed 01/13/26.
The applicant submits that the amendments overcome the previous rejections of claims 1 and 5.
The examiner agrees with the submission with regard to claim 1, and the previous rejections are withdrawn. However, regarding claim 5 the examiner respectfully disagrees as detailed below.
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 4 is 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 4, the claim recites in line 2 that the fixing member is a staple. This makes the claim indefinite as claim 1, which claim 4 is dependent from, recites in line 12 that the fixing member is a needle. It is unclear how the needle can also be a staple. Clarification is required.
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.
Claims 5, 7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 by Wakimoto, US20180375070A1.
Regarding claim 5, Wakimoto teaches the secondary battery comprising an electrode body,
a battery case (lid (2) and case (1)) that accommodates the electrode body (3)[fig. 12], and
current collector terminals (7)(10) attached to the battery case [fig. 1],
wherein the electrode body an electrode body main portion (3a)(3b) and comprises a plurality of current collector tabs (50)(40)[fig. 2], extending from the electrode main body portion [fig. 9]
the plurality of current collector tabs comprise a bundled portion (40a)(40b)[fig. 9] where the current collector tabs are bundled in a stacked state [fig. 9], and
a joined portion (30) joined to the current collector terminal (7)[fig. 9],
the bundled portion and the joined portion are independent from each other (joined portion (30) not covering entire bundled area of stacked tabs (40a)(40b))[fig. 9], and the current collector tabs are joined to each other at the bundled portion by solid phase joining (ultrasonic welding)[0075]
the joined portion (30) is provided on tips of a plurality of negative electrode current collector tabs (formed at the ends of the tabs within the stacked area connected to collector (6))[fig. 13] in a direction in which the plurality of current collector tabs extend from the electrode body main portion (vertical from the electrode body (3)), and the bundled portion (40a)(40b) is provided between the electrode body main portion (3) and the joined portion (tabs (40a)(40b) formed between the body (3) and the joints (30) in the vertical direction)[fig. 13].
Regarding claim 7, Wakimoto teaches the secondary battery according to claim 5, wherein, the current collector tabs are directly joined to each other without another member or material for bundling the current collector tabs at the bundled portion by solid phase joining (tabs (40) are ultrasonic welded)[0075].
Regarding claim 9, Wakimoto teaches the secondary battery according to claim 5, wherein, at the bundled portion, only the plurality of current collector tabs (40a)(40b) are integrated with each other (only tabs are integrated into a stacked state)[fig. 13]
Regarding claim 10, Wakimoto teaches the secondary battery according to claim 7, wherein, at the bundled portion, only the plurality of current collector tabs (40a)(40b) are integrated with each other (only tabs are integrated into a stacked state)[fig. 13].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 by Park, US20110311859A1, and Chang, US20210331268A1, and Wakimoto, US20180375070A1.
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a secondary battery comprising
an electrode body (electrode assembly (100))[fig. 1],
a battery case (housing) that accommodates the electrode body [0029], and current collector terminals attached to the battery case (large tabs (400) protrude to the outside of the housing)[0029][fig. 2],
wherein the electrode body comprises a plurality of current collector tabs (200)[fig. 1], and
the plurality of current collector tabs comprise a bundled portion (area between assembly (100) and coupling members (300))[fig. 8] where the current collector tabs are bundled in a stacked state (area coupled by coupling members (300))[fig. 2], and a joined portion joined to the current collector terminal (area where coupling member (300) joins tabs (200) to large tab (400))[fig. 8], and
the plurality of current collector tabs are fixed to each other at the bundled portion by a fixing member constituted with metal (metallic coupling member (300))[0075][fig. 8]
the electrode body includes a positive electrode and a negative electrode (positive and negative electrode plates)[0007]
Park does not teach the fixing member is a metal needle, and
the plurality of current collector tabs include a plurality of positive electrode current collector tabs made of aluminum, and a plurality of negative electrode current collector tabs made of copper the fixing member which fixes the plurality of positive electrode current collector tabs is made of aluminum, and the fixing member which fixes the plurality of negative electrode current collector tabs is made of copper.
Chang teaches a battery [0002] comprising a case (shell)[0039] and an electrode body (30)[0047] disposed in the case wherein the electrode body comprises tabs (tabs)[0003] which are joined by a fixing member wherein the fixing member is a needle (needle connects tabs to pole shell)[0025]. Further, Chang teaches a needle fixing member prevents destruction of the welded components [0004]. Then, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the filing date to combine the needle fixing member of Chang into the battery of Park to prevent damage during fixing.
Wakimoto teaches a secondary battery [0002] comprising a case (1), an electrode body (3), and a plurality of positive and negative electrode current collector tabs (40a)(40b)[fig. 13] wherein the positive current collector is made of aluminum [0061] and the negative electrode collector is made of copper [0062] wherein the each part of the negative and positive electrode current collecting structures (collector tabs, conductor, terminal)[0061][0062] is made of the same material (copper/aluminum). Further, copper and aluminum are commonly known materials for use in current collecting structures in secondary batteries. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art combine the current collecting structure materials of Wakimoto into the secondary battery of Park as an obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 2, combined Park teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein,
Further, Park teaches the plurality of current collector tabs (200) extend from the electrode body (100)[fig. 8], and
the bundled portion is provided on the electrode body side with respect to the joined portion in the direction in which the plurality of the current collector tabs extend from electrode body [fig. 8].
Regarding claim 11, combined Park teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1.
Further, Wakimoto teaches wherein, the plurality of current collector tabs (40a)(40b) and the current collector terminal (collector (6)) are welded (joints (32)) to each other at the joined portion (at the stacked portions comprising joints (30))[fig. 10]
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, US20110311859A1 and Chang, US20210331268A1, and Wakimoto, US20180375070A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morin, US20240372157A1.
Regarding claim 4, combined Park teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1.
Park does not teach the fixing member is a staple.
Morin teaches a secondary battery [0002] comprising a case (container)[0035] and an electrode body [0035] disposed in the case wherein the electrode body comprises tabs which are joined by a fixing member wherein the fixing member is a staple (connecting current collectors by using a conducting staple)[0116]. Further, Morin teaches that the use of a conductive staple is a common method for connecting current collectors [0056]. Then, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to before the filing date to combine the staple of Morin into the secondary battery of combined Park as a simple substitution of known parts.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-1340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)270-5256. 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.
/PATRICK MARSHALL GREENE/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights