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 .
This is a final office action in response to Applicant's remarks and amendments filed on 11/17/2025. Claim 1 is currently amended. Claims 7-9 are newly added. Claims 1-10 are pending review in this action. The previous objection regarding the abstract is withdrawn in light of Applicant's amendment to the abstract. The previous 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are withdrawn in light of Applicant's amendment to Claim 1. New grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant's amendments are presented below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 02/02/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai et al. (US 2005/0142436 A1) further in view of Kim et al. (US 2020/0295341 A1).
In Regards to Claim 1:
Arai discloses a secondary battery (lithium ion secondary battery) comprising: an electrode wound body (rolled set of electrode plates, 4) including a positive electrode (positive electrode plate, 1) having a band shape and a negative electrode (negative electrode plate, 2) having a band shape, the positive electrode (positive electrode plate, 1) and the negative electrode (negative electrode plate, 2) being in a stacked arrangement with a separator (3) interposed therebetween and being wound (Figure 1, [0028-0029, 0044]). Arai further discloses a positive electrode current collector plate (positive collecting plate, 10) [0032]; and an outer package can (cell casing, 5) containing the electrode wound body (rolled set of electrode plates, 4) and the positive electrode current collector plate (positive collecting plate, 10), wherein the positive electrode (positive electrode plate, 1) includes a positive electrode active material covered part in which a positive electrode foil (collector, 1a) is covered with a positive electrode active material layer (positive active-substance, 1b), and a positive electrode active material uncovered part (portion of collector, 1a, which is not covered by positive active-substance, 1b) (Figure 2a, [0029-0030, 0032, 0041]). Arai further discloses that the electrode wound body (rolled set of electrode plates, 4) includes a flat surface (positive collecting section, 9) formed by the positive electrode active material uncovered part (portion of collector, 1a, which is not covered by positive active-substance, 1b) that protrudes from one end (“top” of page in Figure 2a) of the electrode wound body (rolled set of electrode plates, 4) being bent toward a central axis of the electrode wound body (rolled set of electrode plates, 4) (see in Figure 1) and portions of the positive electrode active material uncovered part (portion of collector, 1a, which is not covered by positive active-substance, 1b) overlapping each other (i.e., portions of uncovered collector, 1a, when bent back to form the positive collecting section, 9, see Figure 2d) (Figures 1, 2a, and 2d, [0041-0043]). Arai further discloses that the flat surface (positive collecting section, 9) is joined to the positive electrode current collector plate (positive collecting plate, 10), and the positive electrode active material uncovered part (portion of collector, 1a, which is not covered by positive active-substance, 1b) has a cutout (see annotated Figure 2d below) (Figure 2d, [0037, 0041-0043]). Arai further discloses that the cutout (see annotated Figure 2d below) may be formed at both ends of the positive electrode active material uncovered part (portion of collector, 1a, which is not covered by positive active-substance, 1b), thus necessarily being present at one end on an outer periphery side of the electrode wound body (rolled set of electrode plates, 4) (Figures 2d and 7c, [0072]).
Arai is deficient in disclosing that the electrode wound body includes portions of the positive electrode active material uncovered part adjacent to each other in a radial direction that are bent toward a central axis and overlap each other.
Kim discloses an electrode assembly (1), comprising: a first electrode (positive electrode); a second electrode (negative electrode); a separator between the first electrode (positive electrode) and the second electrode (negative electrode), the first electrode (positive electrode), the second electrode (negative electrode), and the separator wound about an axis defining a core and an outer circumference of the electrode assembly (1) (Figures 2 and 9, [0055, 0063, 0077]). Kim further discloses that the first electrode (positive electrode) includes a first portion (coating portion, 110) coated with an active material and a second portion (notching tab part, 111) at a first side and adjacent the first portion (coating portion, 110), the second portion (notching tab part, 111) being exposed beyond the separator along a first axial direction of the electrode assembly (1) (Figure 1, [0088, 0092]). Kim further discloses that a part of the second portion (notching tab part, 111) is bent in a radial direction of the electrode assembly (1) forming a first surface region including stacked layers of the second portion (notching tab part, 111) (Figure 9, [0105]). Kim further discloses that when the electrode assembly (1) is formed, winding is performed such that the second portion (notching tab part, 111) overlaps one another to form two to more layers, which increases the mechanical strength of the electrical connection (Figure 3, [0053, 0096]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the secondary battery of Arai to have the adjacent portions of the positive electrode active material uncovered part overlap one another when they are bent in the radial direction towards the central axis, as such a configuration is known in the art as suitable for an electrode active material uncovered portion which serves to form an electrical connection, as taught by Kim. Furthermore, the selection of a known configuration based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07). By doing so, the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in increasing the mechanical strength of the electrical connection within the secondary battery, as taught by Kim. Upon the above modification, all of the limitations of Claim 1 are met.
PNG
media_image1.png
584
712
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2d (Arai US 2005/0142436 A1)
In Regards to Claim 2 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Arai as modified by Kim discloses a secondary battery of Claim 1 as set forth above. Arai further discloses that the positive electrode active material uncovered part (portion of collector, 1a, which is not covered by positive active-substance, 1b) is located in a region including a long side of the positive electrode (positive electrode plate, 1) (Figure 2a, [0041-0042]). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 2 are met.
In Regards to Claim 3 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Arai as modified by Kim discloses a secondary battery of Claim 1 as set forth above. Arai does not explicitly disclose that a width of the positive electrode active material uncovered part (portion of collector, 1a, which is not covered by positive active-substance, 1b) located at one end in a transverse direction of the positive electrode (positive electrode plate, 1) is greater than a width of the cutout (see annotated Figure 2d above).
However, Figure 2d of Arai clearly shows that a total width (i.e., the width extending from boundary, 12, to the “upper” edge of collector, 1a, see Figure 2a) of the positive electrode active material uncovered part (portion of collector, 1a, which is not covered by positive active-substance, 1b) and the total width of the cutout (see annotated Figure 2d above) are equal, as the cutout extends from the boundary (12) to the “upper” edge of the positive electrode foil (collector, 1a).
The examiner notes that the term “a width” as written is a broad limitation and is subject to the broadest reasonable interpretation during the review of the prior art. As such, since the instant claims do not require that “a width” is necessarily the total width, the skilled artisan would appreciate that there is necessarily “a width” of the positive electrode active material uncovered part (portion of collector, 1a, which is not covered by positive active-substance, 1b) which is greater than “a width” of the cutout (see annotated Figure 2d above). For example, as “a width” of the positive electrode active material uncovered part (portion of collector, 1a, which is not covered by positive active-substance, 1b), a total width may be selected, while “a width” of the cutout (see annotated Figure 2d above) may be selected to be half of the total width of the cutout (see annotated Figure 2d above). As such, all of the limitations of Claim 3 are met.
Regarding Claim 5 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Arai as modified by Kim discloses the secondary battery of Claim 1 as set forth above.
Arai is silent to the application of the secondary battery.
Kim further discloses that the electrode assembly (1) is utilized in a secondary battery [0077]. Kim further discloses that the secondary battery is suitable for use in an electronic device [0003].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to utilize the secondary battery of Arai in a piece of electronic device, as such an application is known in the art to be suitable for a secondary battery having a wound electrode body, as taught by Kim. Furthermore, the selection of a known apparatus based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07). Upon making the above selection, all of the limitations of Claim 5 are met.
In Regards to Claim 7 (Dependent Upon Claim 3):
Arai as modified by Kim discloses a secondary battery of Claim 3 as set forth above. As detailed above in the rejection of Claim 3, the skilled artisan would appreciate that there is necessarily “a width”, Hc1, of the positive electrode active material uncovered part (portion of collector, 1a, which is not covered by positive active-substance, 1b) which is greater than “a width”, Hc2, of the cutout (see annotated Figure 2d above). For example, as “a width” of the positive electrode active material uncovered part (portion of collector, 1a, which is not covered by positive active-substance, 1b), a total width may be selected, while “a width” of the cutout (see annotated Figure 2d above) may be selected to be half of the total width of the cutout (see annotated Figure 2d above). As such, all of the limitations of Claim 7 are met.
In Regards to Claim 8 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Arai as modified by Kim discloses a secondary battery of Claim 1 as set forth above.
Arai does not explicitly disclose that a length of an outer edge of the positive electrode active material uncovered part (portion of collector, 1a, which is not covered by positive active-substance, 1b) is less than (L + Hc2), where L is a dimension of the positive electrode (positive electrode plate, 1) in a longitudinal direction, at the cutout, and Hc2 is a dimension of the positive electrode (positive electrode plate, 1) in a transverse direction, at the cutout (see annotated Figure 2d above).
However, the examiner notes that the term “a length” as written is a broad limitation and is subject to the broadest reasonable interpretation during the review of the prior art. As such, the skilled artisan would appreciate that there is necessarily “a length” of an outer edge of the positive electrode active material uncovered part (portion of collector, 1a, which is not covered by positive active-substance, 1b) which is less than (L + Hc2), where L is a dimension of the positive electrode (positive electrode plate, 1) in a longitudinal direction, at the cutout, and Hc2 is a dimension of the positive electrode (positive electrode plate, 1) in a transverse direction, at the cutout (see annotated Figure 2d above). For example, as “a length” of an outer edge of the positive electrode active material uncovered part (portion of collector, 1a, which is not covered by positive active-substance, 1b), a length equal to 0.5*Hc2 may be selected. As such, all of the limitations of Claim 8 are met.
In Regards to Claim 9 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Arai as modified by Kim discloses a secondary battery of Claim 1 as set forth above. Arai further discloses that an outer edge of the positive electrode active material uncovered part (portion of collector, 1a, which is not covered by positive active-substance, 1b) at the cutout (see annotated Figure 2d below) has a linear shape (see annotated Figure 2d below). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 9 are met.
PNG
media_image2.png
570
743
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2d (Arai US 2005/0142436 A1)
In Regards to Claim 10 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Arai as modified by Kim discloses a secondary battery of Claim 1 as set forth above. Arai further discloses that an outer edge of the positive electrode active material uncovered part (portion of collector, 1a, which is not covered by positive active-substance, 1b) at the cutout (see annotated Figure 2d below) has a curved shape (see annotated Figure 2d below). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 10 are met.
PNG
media_image3.png
570
743
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2d (Arai US 2005/0142436 A1)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai et al. (US 2005/0142436 A1) as modified by Kim et al. (US 2020/0295341 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Culver (US 2020/0099037 A1).
Regarding Claim 4 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Arai as modified by Kim discloses the secondary battery of Claim 1 as set forth above. Arai further discloses that a total length of the cutout (see annotated Figure 2d above) along a longitudinal direction of the positive electrode (positive electrode plate, 1) may be 70 mm (Figure 2d, [0072]).
Arai is silent to a length (i.e., diameter) of one wind on a peripheral surface of the electrode wound body.
Culver discloses a battery (200) comprising an electrode wound body (precursor electrode, 120) including a positive electrode (cathode sheet, 122), a negative electrode (anode sheet, 124), and a separator (126) disposed therebetween, wherein the positive electrode (cathode sheet, 122), the negative electrode (anode sheet, 124), and the separator (126) are wound and positioned within an outer package can (conductive battery casing, 130) (Figures 2 and 10, [0021-0022, 0041]). Culver further discloses that the electrode wound body (precursor electrode, 120) may have an outer diameter of 33 mm [0024].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to select for the outer diameter of the electrode wound body of Arai, a diameter of 33 mm, as such a dimension is known in the art as suitable for an outer diameter of a wound electrode body within a battery, as taught by Culver. It has been held that changes in size of an object is a matter of design choice absent persuasive evidence the particular size of the claimed object is significant (MPEP 2144.04 IV).
The examiner notes that the terms “a proportion” and “a length” as written are broad limitations and are subject to the broadest reasonable interpretation during the review of the prior art.
Upon making the above modification, the skilled artisan would appreciate that there is necessarily a proportion of “a length” of the cutout (see annotated Figure 2d above) along a longitudinal direction of the positive electrode to “a length” (diameter) of one wind on a peripheral surface of the electrode wound body which is between 1/16 (~0.06) and 1/4 (0.25). For example, when the total outer diameter of the electrode wound body is selected as “a length” of the one wind on a peripheral surface of the electrode wound body, and a tenth of the total length of the cutout is selected as “a length” of the cutout, the proportion is 7/33 (~0.21). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 4 are met.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai et al. (US 2005/0142436 A1) as modified by Kim et al. (US 2020/0295341 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2020/0127335 A1) (hereafter “Heo” to be distinguished from Kim et al. (US 2020/0295341 A1)).
Regarding Claim 6 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Arai discloses the secondary battery of Claim 1 as set forth above.
Arai is silent to the application of the secondary battery.
Heo discloses a secondary battery (100) comprising an electrode wound body (electrode assembly, 110) wherein a positive electrode (111), a negative electrode (112), and a separator (113) disposed therebetween is wound and placed within an outer package can (can main body, 120) (Figure 1, [0075-0076]). Heo further discloses that the secondary battery (100) is suitable for use in an electronic device such as an electric tool [0011].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to utilize the secondary battery of Arai in a piece of electronic equipment such as an electric tool, as such an application is known in the art to be suitable for a secondary battery having a wound electrode body, as taught by Heo. Furthermore, the selection of a known apparatus based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07). Upon making the above selection, all of the limitations of Claim 6 are met.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 5, and 6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 5, and 6 of copending Application No. 17/847,733 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims 1, 5, and 6 of the reference application teach all of the limitations of Claim 1, 5, and 6 of the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11/17/2025, with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Arai et al. (US 2005/0142436 A1), Kim et al. (US 2020/0295341 A1), Culver (US 2020/0099037 A1), and Kim et al. (US 2020/0127335 A1).
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 EMILY E FREEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1498. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30AM-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, 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.
/E.E.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724