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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 17 Jun 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 Jun 2026 with regard to the rejection of claims 1, 3, and 5-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. With particular regard to Applicant’s argument that Kim et al. (KR 101156954B1) in view of Jeong et al. (US 2014/0170470) and Ohta et al. (US 2021/0119304) do not teach a plurality of depressions that are aligned in a width direction of the current collector tab, the Examiner submits that this feature is taught by Jeong et al. ‘059 (US 2022/020059), as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 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.
The rejection of claims 1, 3, and 5-7 under 35 USC § 112(b) set forth in the previous office action is withdrawn in view of the amended claims.
Claims 5 and 7 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the depression" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the depressions" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the depression" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the depressions" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 101156954B1, as read via machine translation) in view of Jeong et al. (US 2014/0170470) and Jeong ‘059 et al. (US 2022/0200059).
As to claim 1, Kim et al. discloses a battery comprising:
an external body (see e.g. the external casing surrounding electrode assembly 500, Fig. 3);
a power generating element housed in the exterior body (see e.g. electrode assembly 500, which generates electrical power and is housed in an exterior body, [0060] and Fig. 3), the power generating element being formed by stacking a plurality of layers (see e.g. electrode assembly 500 is formed by stacking electrode plates 100, [0060] and Fig. 3); and
wherein the power generating element has a current collector tab (see e.g. electrode assembly 500 has negative electrode tab 110, which reads on the claimed current collector tab, [0060] and Fig. 3) extending outward from an edge of a flat plate part that is one of the layers, the one layer being stacked on the rest of the layers (see e.g. tab 110 extends outward from the edge of electrode plate 100, which is one of the layers of the power generating element 500, Fig. 3).
Kim et al. does not disclose a filler placed between the power generating element and the exterior body.
Jeong et al., also working in the field of housings for battery assemblies, teaches a battery comprising an external body (see e.g. battery casing 200, Jeong et al.: [0035], Fig. 4) housing a power generating element (see e.g. electrode assembly 100, Jeong et al.: [0035] and Fig. 4) and an analogous set of current collector tabs (electrode tabs 110, Jeong et al.: [0035], Fig. 4). Jeong et al. teaches a filler (see e.g. hardened polymer solution 300, Jeong et al.: [0047], Fig. 4) placed between the power generating element and the exterior body (see e.g. hardened polymer solution 300 fills the space between 200 and 100, Jeong et al.: Fig. 4), and further teaches that this filler suppresses damage to the current collector tabs (see e.g., Jeong et al.: [0051]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to add to the battery of Kim et al. the filler placed between the power generating element and the exterior body as taught by Jeong et al.. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification to Kim et al.’s battery because Jeong et al. teaches that this filler suppresses damage to the current collector tabs.
Further regarding claim 1, Kim et al. in view of Jeong et al. as applied above does not teach that the current collector has a plurality of depressions, wherein the plurality of depressions each has a bottom, and a side wall arranged vertically from a periphery of the bottom, the bottom has a length at least 0.5 times as long as a length of the plurality of the depressions in an extending direction of the current collector tab, and at least part each of the plurality of depressions is positioned not at a center of the current collector tab but closer to the flat plate part in the extending direction; wherein the plurality of depressions are arranged to align in a width direction of the current collector tab.
Jeong ‘059 et al., also working in the field of battery cell design, teaches an analogous battery comprising a metal electrode plate (see e.g. electrode plate 2110, Jeong ‘059 et al.: [0070], Fig. 5) in which a plurality of depressions are formed wherein the plurality of depressions each has a bottom, and a side wall arranged vertically from a periphery of the bottom (see e.g. embossing patterns 2112-1, Jeong ‘059 et al.: [0071] and Fig. 5. As per [0041], the embossed features 1112-1 have a thickness of 30% to 70% of the thickness of the surrounding region 1112, and therefore read on a plurality of depressions with each having a bottom and sidewalls that are arranged vertically from a periphery of the bottom). The bottom of the plurality of depressions has a length at least 0.5 times as long as a length of the plurality of the depressions in an extending direction of the electrode plate (see e.g. Jeong ‘059 et al.: Fig. 5, the embossed features 2112-1 appear to have vertical sidewalls, such that the bottom of the plurality of depressions have a shape that is similar to that of the depressions and therefore have a length that is as long as the length of the depressions, and therefore is at least 0.5 times the length of the depressions). Further, Jeong ‘059 et al. teaches several rows of depressions such that at least part each of the plurality of depressions is positioned not at a center of the uncoated portion of the electrode plate in the extending direction but closer to one end of the uncoated portion (see e.g. Jeong ‘059 et al.: Fig. 5, showing an embossing pattern in which there are four rows of embossed features, see also Illustration 1 below), and the plurality of depressions are arranged to align in a width direction of the current collector tab (see e.g. Jeong ‘059 et al.: Fig. 5 and Illustration 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
738
1146
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Illustration 1: Reproduction with annotation of Fig. 5 of Jeong ‘059 et al..
Still further, Jeong ‘059 et al. teaches that these depressions act as a reinforcing portion for the metal electrode plate that improves the structural stability of the plate (see e.g. Jeong ‘059 et al.: [0005]-[0007] and [0066])
One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to provide the current collector tab of the battery of Kim et al. in view of Jeong et al. with depressions similar to the ones taught by Jeong ‘059 et al., such that the current collector has a plurality of depressions, wherein the plurality of depressions each has a bottom, and a side wall arranged vertically from a periphery of the bottom, the bottom has a length at least 0.5 times as long as a length of the plurality of the depressions in an extending direction of the current collector tab, and at least part each of the plurality of depressions is positioned not at a center of the current collector tab but closer to the flat plate part in the extending direction; wherein the plurality of depressions are arranged to align in a width direction of the current collector tab. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification to Kim et al. in view of Jeong et al.’s battery in order to improve the structural stability of the metal current collector, in a manner that is analogous to the way that the electrode plate taught by Jeong ‘059 et al. is improved by adding a plurality of depressions.
As to claim 5, Kim et al. in view of Jeong et al. and Jeong ‘059 et al. teaches the battery according to claim 1, wherein there is a certain distance between an edge of the flat plate part and an end of each of the depressions, the end being on the side of the flat plate part (see e.g. Jeong ‘059: Fig. 5 and Illustration 2 below, the end of the uncoated portion of Jeong ‘059 et al.’s structure would correspond to the edge of the flat plate part of Kim et al. in view of Jeong et al. and Jeong ‘059 et al.’s battery).
The cited prior art does not explicitly state that this length is at least 0.5 mm in the extending direction.
PNG
media_image2.png
451
1164
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Illustration 2: Reproduction with annotation of Fig. 5 of Jeong ‘059 et al..
However, in the prior art structure, the length between an edge of the flat plate part and an end of the depression is a function of the overall size of the battery. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to scale up the size of the battery of Kim et al. in view of Jeong et al. and Jeong ‘059 et al. (and therefore scale up the claimed length) in order to meet the power and space requirements of a given application. Further, it has been held that a mere change in the scale of a device does not patentably distinguish a claimed invention from the prior art (see MPEP § 2144.04 IVA).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to design the length between an edge of the flat plate part and an end of the depression of the battery of Kim et al. in view of Jeong et al. and Jeong ‘059 et al. to be 0.5 mm or greater. Said artisan would have been motivated to design the prior art battery in this way in order to design a battery that is large enough to meet the design requirements of a given application.
As to claim 6, Kim et al. in view of Jeong et al. and Jeong ‘059 et al. teaches the battery according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach that the side wall has a tapered shape, but rather appears to have a vertical side wall (see e.g. Jeong ‘059 et al.: Fig. 5).
However, it has been held that a claimed change in the shape of a prior art structure is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention is significant (see MPEP 2144.04). In the instant case, absent any evidence that the instantly-claimed tapered side wall would yield any new and unexpected results over the linear sidewall taught by Kim et al. in view of Jeong et al. and Jeong ‘059 et al., one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious modify the side wall of Kim et al. in view of Jeong et al. and Jeong ‘059 et al.’s battery to have a tapered shape. This is because such a modification would be a simple alteration of the relative shape of the prior art side wall that would not perform in a patentably distinct manner from Kim et al. in view of Jeong et al. and Jeong ‘059 et al.’s side wall.
As to claim 7, Kim et al. in view of Jeong et al. and Jeong ‘059 et al. teaches the battery according to claim 1, wherein the bottom has a length at least 0.5 times as long as a length of the depression or each of the depressions in a width direction orthogonal to the extending direction (see e.g. Jeong ‘059 et al.: Fig. 5, the embossed features 2112-1 appear to have vertical sidewalls,
such that the bottom of the plurality of depressions have a shape that is similar to that of the depressions and therefore have a length that is as long as the length of the depressions, and therefore is at least 0.5 times the length of the depressions in a width direction orthogonal to the extending direction).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERT HILTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571)-272-3066. 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.
/A.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/CHRISTIAN ROLDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights