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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments, filed 12/19/25, have been fully considered. Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are amended; and claim(s) 2 and 4 stand(s) as originally or previously presented; no new matter has been added. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous claim objections and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4, set forth in the Office Action mailed 09/12/25, has/have been withdrawn. However, the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 3, as well as the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of all claims, has/have been maintained and altered as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment, as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text forming the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) may be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim(s) 3 is/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 3 recites “… the first end portion and the second end portion are located at a flat portion on a side opposite to the flat portion” (lines 4–7). It is unclear if this “flat portion” is meant to be the same as or different than the “flat portion” previously recited in claim 3 (see “the positive electrode tab and the negative electrode tab are located at a flat portion” in lines 1 and 2).
Figs. 2 and 3 as well as ¶ 0054 depict that each end portion (41A/B) is at the lateral “lower” half (lower flat portion 20A) in the electrode assembly’s cross-section, opposite to the tabs (31/32) at the lateral “upper” half (upper 20A). Thus, for this Office Action claim 3 will be interpreted to require that each end portion is at one flat portion of the electrode assembly opposite to another flat portion where the negative and positive electrode tabs are located, which appears consistent with figs. 2 and 3 and ¶ 0054.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text forming the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 may be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. (US 20050123824 A1) (Ishikawa).
Regarding claim 1, Ishikawa discloses a secondary battery (lithium battery, e.g., ¶ 0035 and figs.) comprising (per annot. FIG. 4 below) a power storage element having an elongated cylindrical shape (wound electrode group 1; see also FIG. 6), a positive electrode (2) having a positive electrode active material layer formed on a positive electrode current collector (¶ 0045) and a negative electrode (3) having a negative electrode active material layer formed on a negative electrode current collector (¶ 0045) being wound around the power storage element (FIG. 4); and an exterior body (casing of FIG. 5), wherein
at least two folding positions are provided on the positive electrode located at an innermost periphery of the power storage element (FP1 and FP2 of pos. electrode 2), a distance between a first end portion of the positive electrode active material layer on a winding start end portion side of the positive electrode and a first folding position close to the first end portion is designated as a distance C1 (see noted C1 distance between FP1 and PEWSE), a distance between a second end portion of the positive electrode active material layer on a winding finish end portion side of the positive electrode and a second folding position close to the second end portion is designated as a distance C2 (see noted distance C2 between FP2 and PEWFE), and a length of the power storage element in a longitudinal direction is designated as W (as depicted).
PNG
media_image1.png
531
1024
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ishikawa further discloses clearances 11 between at least one adjacent set of inner and outer turns Ca and Cb (per above and ¶ 0037 and 0057). As seen above, the width of the clearances would necessarily dictate how close the folding positions are to the respective positive electrode active layer winding start or finish ends, i.e., C1 and C2. Ishikawa discloses that the clearance’s dimension is proportional to the diameter W of the electrode group, i.e., the instant W, because the amount of stretch in the stack increases as W increases (¶ 0039). Such allows the clearances to absorb the electrodes’ stretching when used in the battery to promote even (dis)charge (¶ 0057).
One skilled in the art, then, would understand that the clearances must be wide enough to absorb the electrodes’ stretching, but making the clearances too wide would necessarily leave excess unoccupied space and, thus, reduce energy density by reducing relative active-material content. Similarly, as discussed above, because the clearances are proportional to W, increasing W would increase the clearance (as seen in formula of ¶ 0043) and would necessarily provide higher capacity by increasing active-material content, but reducing W would necessarily enable application in smaller electronics.
Although Ishikawa fails to explicitly articulate the recited C1/W and C2/W, considering that Ishikawa is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery wound electrode assemblies, to balance electrode stretching absorption with suitable energy density, all while accounting for proper capacity from the length of the power storage element without making the storage element too large so as to not be usable in smaller electronics, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited C1/W and C2/W by routinely optimizing the clearances’ widths and power storage element’s length, which would necessarily make the skilled artisan account for and, thus, optimize the recited C1/W and C2/W (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 2, Ishikawa discloses the secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein a positive electrode tab and a negative electrode tab are connected to an outermost periphery of the power storage element (leads 8 and 9, respectively, connected to outermost edge of electrode group 1 in FIGS. 4–6; note that, absent additional recitation or special definition, “an outermost periphery” appears to allow the periphery in the electrode group’s longitudinal direction (FIG. 6) versus in the cross-section/thickness direction depicted in FIG. 4).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. (US 20050123824 A1) (Ishikawa), as applied to claim 1, in view of Mizutani (JP 2006310222 A).
Regarding claim 3, Ishikawa discloses the secondary battery according to claim 2, wherein the positive electrode tab and the negative electrode tab are located at a flat portion of the outermost periphery (top flat portion in FIGS. 4–6).
Per the above figure, Ishikawa discloses and the positive electrode tab (lead 9) is within the lower half of the flat portion, i.e., one “side”, and the positive electrode first and second end portions are within the upper half of the flat portion, i.e., an opposite “side” relative to the tab. Ishikawa further discloses that the negative electrode tab (lead 8) is approximately in the power storage element’s lateral center yet, while not appearing necessarily limited to this location to achieve the desired electrical connection, fails to explicitly disclose that both the negative and positive electrode tabs are located on one side of the flat portion (opposite the side in the flat portion in which the positive electrode active layer winding start and finish ends are positioned).
Mizutani, in teaching a battery wound electrode assembly (Abstract, figs.), teaches providing both electrode tabs (2 and 7) in parallel on one lateral side of the flat portion on the assembly’s outermost periphery (e.g., FIG. 1, ¶ 0014). Mizutani teaches that such makes it possible to eliminate the need for a space for bending the tabs, making it possible to increase volumetric energy density (¶ 0014).
Mizutani is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery wound electrode assemblies.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to position Ishikawa’s tabs parallel on one lateral side of the flat portion—such that both tabs would be on a side of the flat portion opposite to a side of the flat portion within which the positive electrode active layer first and second end portions are located—as taught by Mizutani, with the reasonable expectation of increasing volumetric energy density, as taught by Mizutani. Moreover, such appears to constitute a simple repositioning of the negative electrode tab, from which the skilled artisan could reasonably expect successful electrical connection, as Mizutani demonstrates. Per MPEP 2144.04 (IV.)(C.), rearranging components is generally prima facie obvious, absent secondary considerations or modification to the device’s operation, which, here, would not seem to occur because the negative tab is merely shifted laterally within the flat portion.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. (US 20050123824 A1) (Ishikawa), as applied to claim 1, in view of Hirose et al. (US 20180323424 A1) (Hirose) and Miyamoto et al. (JP 2005135856 A) (Miyamoto).
Regarding claim 4, Ishikawa discloses the secondary battery according to claim 1.
Ishikawa further discloses a Cu foil negative collector (¶ 0045) but, in being unconcerned with the characteristics of such, fails to explicitly disclose that 1) a sulfur content contained in the negative electrode current collector is 20 ppm or less, and 2) an elongation rate of the negative electrode current collector is 7% or more.
Regarding 1), Hirose, in teaching a negative electrode (Abstract) with a collector made of, e.g., Cu (¶ 0069), teaches that the collector preferably includes ≤ 70 ppm sulfur to improve the collector’s strength to suppress electrode deformation due to the active material layer’s expansion during charge (¶ 0070).
Hirose is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely negative electrode current collectors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include ≤ 70 ppm sulfur in Ishikawa’s negative collector, as taught by Hirose, with the reasonable expectation of improving the collector’s strength to suppress electrode deformation due to the active material layer’s expansion during charge, as taught by Hirose. This range overlaps the recited ≤ 20 ppm such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful current collector with suitable S content (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding 2), Miyamoto, in teaching a battery electrode (Title), teaches a current collector with an elongation rate of ≥ 13% (Abstract). Miyamoto teaches that this rate allows the collector to expand and contract sufficiently to follow the active material’s expansion and contraction, making the active material less likely to be pulverized and fall off (¶ 0012).
Miyamoto is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery electrode current collectors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure Ishikawa’s collector to exhibit an elongation rate ≥ 13%, as taught by Miyamoto, with the reasonable expectation of enabling the collector to expand and contract with the active material to prevent the active material from being pulverized and falling off, as taught by Miyamoto.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 3 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
112(b) of Claim 3:
Applicant appears to argue that claim 3 is now definite by amending the winding start and finish end portions to be first and second end portions, as in claim 1, though Examiner respectfully submits that Applicant is yet to address that the first and second end portions are “located at a flat portion on a side opposite to the flat portion on a side where the positive electrode tab and the negative electrode tab are located.” This limitation seems to remain indefinite because it is unclear if “a flat portion” is meant to be the same as or distinct from “a flat portion of the outermost periphery” previously recited in claim 3. See the 112(b) rejection section above for this limitation’s interpretation for the prior-art rejection.
103 of Claim 1:
Applicant argues that Ishikawa’s fig. 4’s pos. electrode’s winding end portion, i.e., “second end portion,” is along the electrode assembly’s outer periphery such that C2 would be negative and, thus, violate 0.02 ≤ C2/W ≤ 0.12 given that W must be positive. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that claim 1 merely requires C2 to be a distance between the pos. electrode winding finish end portion and the nearby folding position regardless of whether the winding finish end portion is closer to or farther from the inner periphery than is the folding position. Thus, Ishikawa’s “C2” would still seemingly yield a positive value and, thus, conform to the inequality.
Applicant further argues that one skilled in the art would not have found the claimed elements obvious in view of Examiner’s relied upon configuration, but Applicant provides no rationale for this argument, making it conclusory and, by definition, unpersuasive.
Additionally, to promote compact prosecution, although Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s data in Table 1 pertaining to the rupture occurrence as a function of C1/W and C2/W, Examiner respectfully submits that it is unclear that such results are truly unexpected and superior. Per MPEP 716.02(c), to establish criticality, Applicant should compare a sufficient number of tests inside and outside the range—and, thus, above and below the range(s). Although Applicant tests each of C1/W and C2/W below 0.02 and above 0.12 (Comp. Exs. 1–4), Comp. Ex. 4 simultaneously varies C1/W and C2/W relatively far above 0.12, making it unclear if the poorer performance is due to C2/W's exceeding 0.12, C1/W's exceeding 0.12, or both (Examiner further notes that (C2/W)/(C1/W) may vary from 0.167 to 6, which is a relatively broad range). Accordingly, as it is unclear that both C1/W and C2/W are critical, the showing of evidence is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
The cited art made of record but not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
US 20220285737 A1: accounting for width differences in electrode active material layers in wound electrode assemblies for smooth (dis)charge.
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 JOHN S MEDLEY whose telephone number is (703)756-4600. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00–5:00 EST M–Th and 8:00–12:00 EST F.
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, Jonathan Leong, can be reached on 571-270-192. 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.
/J.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 2/24/2026