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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action regarding Appl. No. 18/086,651 to Ding et al. assigned to EVE POWER CO., LTD., filed 12/22/2022 (U.S. PG Publication 2024/0063514; published 02/22/2024) is in response to applicants arguments/remarks and claims amendment filed 10/27/2025. This application is a continuation-application of International (PCT) Patent Application No. PCT/CN2022/124937 filed on 10/12/2022, and claims foreign priority to Chinese Patent Application No.CN 202222175052.5 filed 08/18/2022.
Status of the Claims
In the response filed 10/27/2025 applicant has amended the claims of the application, where in claim 1, 18 and 19 to recite positive electrode tab and negative electrode tab and the tabs including notch portions. Claims 10 also is amended for clarity and recites each of the front portion, the middle portion and the back portion of the electrode assembly is”…is a monolithic sheet…” instead of the previously recited limitation “…is in the form of a monolithic sheet…” . The status of the claims stand as follows:
Currently amended 1, 10, 18-19
Original 2-9, 11-17, 20
Claims Claim 1-20 are currently pending in this application, and all the pending claims are under 3. full consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code not included in this section can be found in the prior Office Action.
Claims 1, 2, 18, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Deng et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2024/0222807)
This rejection was presented in the previous non-final Office action and is maintained in this Office action.
Regarding Claim 1, 18, and 19 Deng discloses a wound battery, equivalent to the energy storage device of claim 18, that includes a housing (Deng Fig. 6), a separator sandwiched between a positive electrode tab plate and a negative electrode tab plate, and the positive electrode tab plate, the separator and the negative electrode tab plate are stacked and wound to form a battery cell (Deng paragraph 0019), considered equivalent to the electrode assembly comprising an electrode assembly, wound in shape.
Deng discloses tab plate 1, which, before being cut, includes a coating area 11 and an empty foil area 12 located on one side of the coating area 11 (Deng Fig. 1, paragraph 0039), the empty foil area is considered equivalent to the current collector.
The foil area 12 is arranged at an end of the electrode assembly body 1 (Deng Fig. 1). The foil area 12 is cut to form plurality of tabs 14 (Deng Fig. 2, paragraph 0040), equivalent to the plurality of current collector units. The positive electrode tabs are arranged at an end of the electrode assembly body and comprise a plurality of positive electrode tabs each bent towards the axis of the electrode assembly (Deng Fig. 5), and the negative electrode tabs are arranged at another end of the electrode assembly, and comprise a plurality of bent electrode tabs each bent towards the axis of the electrode assembly (Deng Fig. 5) as recited in claim 19. Each of the plurality of current collector units 14 are bent towards the central hole, i.e., towards the axis of the electrode assembly body (Deng paragraph 0008, 0021) and the tabs units are bend and flattened towards the central hole or axis (Deng paragraph 0021, 0041, 0065), the angle between the flattened tab unit and the axis is close to 90 degrees (Deng Fig. 5, 7) as recited in claim 1 and 19.
Deng discloses the current collector tab 14 has a slanted side structure with respect to the side of the current collector (Deng Fig.3), which has the same structures as the notched part 22 of the instant application. Thus, Deng also discloses a positive electrode tab and a negative electrode tab, and the positive electrode tab including a positive electrode notch portion, and the negative electrode tab including a negative electrode notch portion (Deng Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
800
691
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2 Deng discloses the empty foil area 12, equivalent to the current collector 13. is wound in shape (Deng Fig. 5), and comprises a front portion of the current collector, a middle portion of the current collector, and a back portion of the current collector (Deng Fig 5, 6), which are arranged in sequence from a center of the electrode assembly along a winding path or direction S of the current collector (Deng Fig. 5, paragraph 0066).
Regarding claim 20 Deng discloses the spacing between every two adjacent tabs, considered equivalent to distance between free ends of adjacent two of the plurality of positive electrode tab units, and a distance between free ends of adjacent two of the plurality of negative electrode tab units, is 0.1 mm to 1 mm (Deng paragraph 0016).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code not included in this section can be found in the prior Office Action.
Claim 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2024/0222807) as evidenced by Kim et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2005/0214642)
This rejection was presented in the previous Office action and is maintained in this Office action.
The discussion of Deng as applied to claim 1 and 2 is fully incorporated here and is relied upon for the limitation of the claims in this section.
Regarding Claim 3-6 Deng is silent about the size of the different parts of the electrode assembly such as difference in size between the front portion and the back portion from the center of the electrode assembly along the winding path of the current collector is in a range from approximately 0 mm to approximately 1000mm, recited in claim 3; absolute value of a difference in size between the front portion and the middle portion from the center of the electrode assembly along the winding path of the current collector is in a range from approximately 0 mm to approximately 8000 mm, as recited in claim 4; an absolute value of a difference in size between the back portion and the middle portion from the center of the electrode assembly along the winding path of the current collector is in a range from approximately 0 mm to approximately 8000 mm, recited in claim 5; and from the center of the electrode assembly along the winding path, the electrode assembly satisfies at least one of: la size of the front portion is in a range from approximately 0 mm to approximately 1000 mm; a size of the middle portion is in a range from approximately 1000 mm to approximately 8000 mm; and a size of the back portion is in a range from approximately 0 mm to approximately 1000 mm, recited in claim 6. However, the sizes of the three different portions of the electrodes, or the difference between the different sizes of the three portions of the electrode can be optimized by routine experimentation depending on the size of the battery and the desired capacity of the battery of choice since the size of the electrode determines the size and capacity of the battery as evidenced by Kim. Kim teaches positive and negative electrodes can maximize the coating area of the active material on collectors, which corresponds to increasing the size of the electrode, and in order to increase the capacity of electrode assembly, which enables the secondary batteries to be constructed with a larger size able to furnish higher power (Kim paragraph 0053); thus, the size of the electrode is recognized as a result-effective variable as taught by Kim (Kim paragraph 0053). According to the MPEP if a particular parameter is recognized as a result-effective variable, then the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said parameter might be characterized as routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have optimized the result- effective variable of the size of the electrode as evidenced by reference of Kim in the process of Deng in order to achieve a desired property of increase battery capacity as disclosed by reference Kim (Kim paragraph 0053). See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Claim 7-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2024/0222807) in view of Lee et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2024/0243393)
This rejection was presented in the previous Office action and is maintained in this Office action.
The discussion of Deng as applied to claim 1 and 2 is fully incorporated here and is relied upon for the limitation of the claims in this section.
Regarding claim 7 Deng discloses the wound battery is formed by winding the positive electrode tab plate 21, the negative electrode tab plate 22 and the separator 23/24 into a cylindrical shape (Deng Fig. 5, 6, 7, paragraph 0065). Deng, however, is silent about the diameter of the winding body formed after winding the positive electrode plate, the negative electrode plate and the separator.
Lee discloses a cylindrical battery (Lee Fig. 10b, paragraph 0008) wherein an electrode assembly A is formed by stacking positive electrode and negative electrode with separators and winding them (Lee Fig. 1-3, paragraph 0010, 0011). Lee discloses different examples wherein the diameter of the electrode winding structure is 22 mm (Lee paragraph 0205), the radius is 22 mm (Lee paragraph 0286, 0298, 0299, 0300, 0301, 0311) (so the diameter is 44 mm), the diameter is 46 mm (Lee paragraph 0395, 0399), the diameter is 48 mm (Lee paragraph 0396, 0397, 0398). These diameter values are included in the disclosed range of approximately 1 mm to approximately 100 mm. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the battery of Deng by the disclosure of Lee and made the diameter of the electrode winding body as disclosed by Lee since such a modification would be obvious matter of design choice to form the battery in any size that would best fit a specific use, since such a modification would only involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV).
Regarding claim 8 Deng discloses a central hole 20 is formed by winding of the electrode. assembly body (Deng Fig. 5, 6, 7) considered equivalent to the claimed hollow cylindrical cavity. Deng is silent about the diameter of the hollow cylindrical cavity. Lee discloses the formation of winding electrode body having a cavity 33 in the core of the electrode assembly (Lee paragraph 0015, 0034, 0038), having a radius of 4 mm (Lee paragraph 0167), thus, the diameter is 8 mm. This value of the core diameter is included in the claimed range of approximately 1 mm to approximately 10 mm. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the battery of Deng by the disclosure of Lee and made the diameter of the core as disclosed by Lee since such a modification would be an obvious matter of design choice, since such a modification would only involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV).
Regarding claim 9 Lee discloses the difference between an outer diameter of the winding. body of 44, 46 mm or 48 mm disclosed by Lee (Lee paragraph 0286, 0298, 0299, 0300, 0301, 0311, 0395, 0399, 0396, 0397, 0398), and the core having a radius of 4 mm (Lee paragraph 0167), thus, the diameter is 8 mm, 36 mm (i.e., 44 mm - 8 mm), 38 mm (i.e., 46 mm - 8 mm) and 40 mm (i.e., 48 mm - 8 mm). Thus, the values calculated are included in the claimed range of approximately 0 mm to approximately 100 mm.
Regarding claim 10 Deng discloses tab plate 1, which, before being cut, includes a coating area 11 and an empty foil area 12 located on one side of the coating area 11 (Deng Fig. 1, paragraph 0039), the empty foil area is considered equivalent to the current collector having the front portion, the middle portion and the back portion. The foil area 12 is cut to form plurality of tabs 14 (Deng Fig. 2, paragraph 0040), equivalent to the plurality of current collector units.
Regarding claim 11 Deng is silent about the length of the diaphragm along the axis of the electrode assembly, the diaphragm is equivalent to the separator as described in the instant specification being disposed between the positive electrode and negative electrode (Instant Specification paragraph 0064), and the length along the axis of the electrode assembly is interpreted to be the width of the diaphragm and as shown in Fig. 10 of the instant application, which is in the direction of the axis of the electrode assembly body. Lee discloses a cylindrical battery with a height 65 mm (Lee paragraph 0007), the height of the battery corresponds to the width of the wound electrode assembly, which in turn corresponds to the length of the diaphragm or separator along the winding axis, but the width of the wound electrode assembly and the length of the diaphragm is less than the height of the battery, since it is contained inside the battery case, in this case is less than 65 mm. In another example the height of the battery is approximately 110 mm (Lee paragraph 0395), thus the length of the diaphragm is less than 110 mm. In yet other examples the height of the battery is 75 mm (Lee paragraph 0396), 80 mm (Lee paragraph 0398, 0399), 65 mm (Lee paragraph 0400); thus, the length of the diaphragm in the above examples are less than 75, 80 mm, and 65 mm. In these examples the length of the diaphragm is contained in the claimed range of 20 mm - 300mm.
Regarding claim 12 Lee discloses size of the tab formed in the uncoated portion along the. winding direction increase for 1 mm to 11 mm (Lee paragraph 0170). Thus, the size of the uncoated portion beyond the separator is equal to 1 1mm; and this value overlaps significantly with the claimed range. According to the MPEP "In the case where the claimed ranges " overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)" (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 13 Deng is silent about an axial size of the electrode assembly. Lee discloses a cylindrical battery with a height 65 mm (Lee paragraph 0007), the height of the battery corresponds to the axial size of the electrode assembly. But the size of the electrode assembly is considered to be slightly smaller than the height of the battery since it is contained in the battery. Thus, the size of the electrode assembly in the axial direction is less than 65 mm in this example. In other examples the height of the battery is approximately 110 mm (Lee paragraph 0395), thus the axial size of electrode assembly is less than 110 mm. In yet other examples the height of the battery is 75 mm (Lee paragraph 0396), 80 mm (Lee paragraph 0398, 0399), 65 mm (Lee paragraph 0400); Thus, the axial size of the electrode assembly in these examples is less than 75 mm, 80 mm, and 65 mm. The disclosed axial sizes in the examples provided are included in the claimed range of approximately 30 mm to approximately 300 mm.
Deng is also silent about the diameter of the electrode assembly. Lee discloses a cylindrical battery with a diameter 18 mm (Lee paragraph 0007), the diameter of the battery corresponds to the diameter of the wound electrode assembly, but the diameter of the wound electrode assembly is slightly less than the diameter of the battery, since it is contained inside the battery case, in this case is less than 18 mm. In another example the diameter of the battery is approximately 46 mm (Lee paragraph 0395, 399), thus the diameter of the electrode assembly is less than 46 mm (Lee paragraph 0399). In yet other examples the diameter of the battery is 48 mm (Lee paragraph 0396, 0398); thus, the diameter of the electrode assembly in the above examples are less than 18 mm, 46 mm, 48 mm. In these examples the diameter of the electrode assembly is contained in the claimed range of 15 mm - 100mm.
Regarding claim 14 Deng the shape of the current collector tab 14, corresponding to the current collector unit, has a parallelogram shape (Deng Fig. 2). Deng is, however, silent about the height of each current collector tab, equivalent to the current collector unit. Lee discloses size of the tab formed in the uncoated portion along the winding direction increase for 1 mm to 11 mm (Lee paragraph 0170). This value overlaps significantly with the claimed range of approximately 2 mm to approximately 10 mm.
Lee discloses the width of the current tab is 1 mm or more (Lee paragraph 0157). This range overlaps with the claimed range of approximately 2 mm to approximately 10 mm.
Deng discloses the inner angle of each current collector tab is an acute angle (Deng 33. paragraph 0006, 0021), and where an acute angle is less than 90 degrees. Thus, the disclosed angle being acute angle overlaps with the claimed range of 45° to 135°.
Regarding claim 15 Deng discloses a slit is formed between adjacent current collector tabs (Deng Fig. 2, 3, 5) and the spacing of the slits is between 0.1 mm - 10 mm (Deng paragraph 0052). This range is included in the claimed range of approximately 0 mm to approximately 200 mm.
Regarding claim 16 Deng disclose the current collector is wound in shape (Deng Fig. 6) and the plurality of the current collector tabs are wound and arranged to form a plurality of current collector circles (Deng Fig. 6), and each current collector circle comprise some of the current collector tabs arranged in sequences (Deng Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 17 Deng disclose among adjacent two of the plurality of current collector circles, one current collector circle farther away from the axis of the electrode assembly body is an outer current collector circle, and the other current collector circle is an inner current collector circle; and along a radial direction of the electrode assembly body, the plurality of current collector units of the outer current collector circle partially cover the plurality of current collector units of the inner current collector circle (Deng Fig. 6).
Response to Argument
In the response filed 10/27/2025 applicant has amended claim 1, 18 and 19 to recite positive electrode tab and negative electrode tab and the tabs including notch portions. Applicant then argues that Deng fails to disclose the new added limitation of the electrode tab include a notch portion, and that claim 1 and all associated claims are patentably define over Deng. Examiner notes that applicant has not presented any substantive persuasive argument how the tabs in amended claims 1, 18 and 19 are different from the tabs of Deng, other than making the statement. Examiner notes that the structure of the positive electrode tab and the negative electrode tab of Deng is the same as the structure of now amended claim 1, 18 and 19 (see above Fig. 3 of the instant application and Fig. 2 of Deng reproduced above). Thus, the electrode tabs of Deng have the same claimed notch portion 22 recited in the instant claims. Furthermore, the instant specification does not provide any specific definition of the claimed notch different from the structure labeled 22 as the area between the slanted electrode tab and the side of the current collector, the same as disclosed by Deng (Deng Fig. 2).
Examiner notes the above discussion is also extended to the rejection of the dependent claims.
Therefore, the amendments of the claims do not overcome the previously presented rejection of the claims under 102 and 103 over Deng, and other supporting references for the 103 rejection. The previously presented rejection is still considered valid and proper and is maintained in this Office action. The rejection is made final.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 OMAR M KEKIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5918. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00 pm,
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, NIKI BAKHTIARI can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/OMAR M KEKIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722