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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 10/27/2025 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The basis of the rejection of claims 1, 3-13 is maintained.
Additional analysis follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 and dependent claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the blank region of Tan formed naturally and has a different configuration and technical effect than the instant application, however the method of formation and the intended use of Tan does not change the structure including a blank region which surrounds the “plating layer” which is equivalent to Choi’s lead connection plate there both primary and secondary references attach a lead for a battery.
Applicant also argues the blank region (2) of Tan in plan view of Figure 1A does not fully surround the plating layer, however further review of the side view in Fig. 1B reveals the area not visible under the length of the lead does not step down onto the black area 2 but rather stays above and one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude the blank area does indeed fully surround the plating layer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1 and 3-13 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.
In particular claim 1 and its dependents recite “the blank region electrically isolates the cell seating region from the conductive pattern” however the conductive pattern is exemplified in the instant specification as including a pad, the blank region and a cell seating region(Fig. 4, ¶[0038]) as part of the conductive pattern rather than those portions being something separate which can be isolated from the whole. Consistent with the disclosure in paragraph 42 of the instant application, the phrase will be interpreted as “the blank region 132 a may electrically and physically separate or isolate the cell seating region 132 b from other regions of the first conductive pattern 132.”
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US20200144677) in further view of Tan (US20090084589).
Regarding claim 1, Choi discloses a secondary battery (battery cell 110), comprising:
a case (pouch exterior 115) that accommodates a wound or stacked electrode assembly (¶[0058], Fig. 2) including a first electrode plate (i.e. positive electrode plate) and a second electrode plate(i.e. negative electrode plate) which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize is coated with a first active material (¶[0006]), and a separator positioned between each of the first electrode plates and each of the second electrode plates (¶[0059]);
lead tabs(i.e. electrode leads 111 and 112, Fig. 2) connected to the first and second electrode plates ([0064]), respectively, and protruding outside of the case (Fig. 2); and
a protection circuit board(120) electrically connected to the lead tabs(¶[0020]), wherein:
the protection circuit board includes a conductive pattern (see annotated Fig. 11 below where the conductive pattern includes a pad (121) and a blank region surrounding a cell seating region(130) according to what is taught by the instant specification Fig. 4, ¶[0047]). As seen in Figure 2 the tabs are connected to the tab plate which is larger than the tabs creating both a seating region and a blank region where the lead tabs are seated on the cell seating region, and the blank region is along an edge of the cell seating region, but does not explicitly disclose the blank region is a removed portion of the pad along an entire periphery of the cell seating area or the blank region electrically isolates the cell seating region from other regions of the conductive pattern.
Tan, related to lead bonding on circuit boards, teaches including the metal plate 8 which acts as a lead tab and a plating layer 6 (i.e. cell seating region, ¶[0025]) which is bonded to the lead tab and a blank region along the entire periphery of the plating layer (¶[0023], Fig. 1A and 1B), that the blank region is an insulating material(¶[0022]) and that this configuration leads to improved strength of the connection(¶[0029]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized using the lead bonding method including the blank region along the entire periphery of the cell seating region would lead to improved lead tabs connection within the protection circuit board of Choi and would lead to electrical isolation between the cell seating region and the other regions of the conductive pattern.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have added the blank region along the entire periphery of the cell seating region of Tan to the protection circuit board to Choi to improve the connection strength.
Claim 1 includes the limitation “the black region is a removed portion of the pad along the edge of the cell seating region” is considered product-by-process limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure (the blank region along the edge of the cell seating region) of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
PNG
media_image1.png
749
1250
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 11
Regarding claim 3, modified Choi discloses a secondary battery as claimed in claim 1 and Choi additionally discloses wherein the lead tabs are welded to the cell seating region, which may be laser welded (¶[0103]).
Regarding claims 4, 5, and 6, modified Choi discloses a secondary battery as claimed in claim 1 and Choi additionally discloses portable electronics as a potential application for pouch-type batteries which one of ordinary skill in the art would expect to feature dimensions in the range of millimeters to appropriately size the electrode tab connection within the device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to set the size of the cell seating region and blank region on the scale of millimeters to fit within portable electronics. A change in proportion or relative dimension is obvious in the absence of unexpected results. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 8, modified Choi teaches the secondary battery as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a peripheral pattern region adjacent to the blank region where the circuit board 150 is attached(Fig. 2, ¶[0066]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Choi teaches the secondary battery as claimed in claim 1, wherein Choi further discloses a first lead tab of the lead tabs is connected to a first conductive pattern on the protection circuit board (See Fig. 2 lead tab 111 on conductive pattern including lead connection plate 130, blank region around conductive, plate and a surrounding portion of circuit board), wherein a second lead tab of the lead tabs is connected to a second conductive pattern on the protection circuit board(See Fig. 2 lead tab 111 on conductive pattern including a second lead connection plate 130, a second blank region around conductive plate and surrounding portion of circuit board), and wherein the first conductive pattern and the second conductive pattern are on a first portion of the protection circuit board which is the one side of the protection circuit module 120.
Regarding claim 10, modified Choi teaches the secondary battery as claimed in claim 9, and Choi further discloses wherein at least one other conductive pattern (connection area for other elements 127 or parts 128) is on a second side/portion of the protection circuit board opposite to the first portion(Fig. 3, ¶[0081]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Choi teaches the secondary battery as claimed in claim 1, and Choi further discloses wherein the first electrode plate comprises a plurality of first electrode plates, and the second electrode plate comprises a plurality of second electrode plates(¶[0059]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Choi teaches the secondary battery as claimed in claim 8, and Choi further discloses wherein the cell seating region and the peripheral pattern region (a separate printed circuit) are separated by the blank region surrounding the cell seating region (¶[0066]) which one of ordinary skill would recognize as being electrically independent from the cell seating region by the blank region .
Regarding claim 13, modified Choi teaches the secondary battery as claimed in claim 1, and Choi further discloses wherein the lead tabs protrudes from the outside of the case(Fig. 3, ¶[0058] see leads 111 and 112 protrude from pouch exterior 115).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US20200144677) in further view of Tan (US20090084589) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Kim (US20090029246).
Regarding claim 7, modified Choi discloses a secondary battery as claimed in claim 1, but does not disclose an insulating layer in the blank region.
Kim, related to secondary batteries, teaches a pouch battery with a positive (130) and negative electrode(140) tabs/taps protruding from the pouch case (110) with insulators (450) on each tab and connected to a protective circuit module through holes(451)(¶[0048]-[0049], Fig. 4) and this connection may be a welded connection (¶[0074]). Furthermore Kim teaches the insulation layer may extend outside the seating region of the electrode tab as shown in Fig. 4 and may even extend fully between the electrode tabs as shown in Fig. 2 thereby providing an insulating layer in the blank region and that by covering the end of the electrode tab with the insulator, short circuits within the battery are prevented (¶[0047]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized adding the insulation layer of Kim to the electrode tab and protective circuit connection of modified Choi would have placed an insulation layer in the black region and prevented short circuits.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the connection of modified Choi with the insulation of Kim to prevent short circuits.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN J. ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (703)756-1243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am-6 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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/K.J.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 3 June 2026
Prosecution Insights