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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 04/20/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 is amended and Claims 1-11 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In view of the claim amendments filed 04/20/2026 the 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) rejection of record for claims 1-11 is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ran et al. (CN 207517807 U – Machine Translation referenced for citation), hereinafter “Ran”. Ran et al. is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely wound battery modification.
In regard to Claim 1, Ran et al. discloses a manufacturing method of an intermediate product for a battery cell by means of ultrasonics, comprising the steps of:
providing a wound battery cell body in which a layer of a first electrode, a separator and a second electrode is wound around a central longitudinal axis in a plurality of windings (standard wound battery configuration), wherein at least one of the first and the second electrode comprises a conductive portion extending at a front-end of the wound battery cell body in a longitudinal direction (Ran, [45, 48]).
placing the wound battery cell body in an ultrasonic device in an initial position so that the front-end of the wound battery cell body having the conductive portion faces a front- end working surface of a horn of the ultrasonic device (Ran, Claim 3)
moving the wound battery cell body and the horn with respect to each other along the central longitudinal axis from the initial position to a working position in which the front-end working surface of the horn abuts the front-end of the wound battery cell body (Ran, Claim 5)
subsequently working the wound battery cell body by applying ultrasonics to the conductive portion at the front-end of the wound battery cell body at least partially so that the conductive portion is at least partially deformed at the front-end of the wound battery cell body by the horn and a worked wound battery cell body results (Ran, [33])
thereafter moving the worked wound battery cell body and the horn with respect to each other along the central longitudinal axis from the working position to a removing position (Ran, [27])
Although Ran doesn’t explicitly define removing the removing the worked wound battery cell body from the ultrasonic device it would be an obvious and necessary step in order to complete any process and the skilled artisan would reasonably do so.
In regard to Claim 2, Ran et al. discloses the manufacturing method according to claim 1. Ran et al. also discloses wherein the cross-section of the horn is round or angular (Ran, [30]).
In regard to Claims 3-4, Ran et al. discloses the manufacturing method according to claim 1. Ran et al. also discloses wherein the dimension of the working surface of the horn is adapted to the dimension of the front-end of the wound battery cell body and wherein the working surface of the horn comprises a contour adapted to the wound battery cell body (Ran, [32]).
In regard to Claim 7, Ran et al. discloses the manufacturing method according to claim 1. Ran et al. also discloses wherein the method is controlled by means of path (Ran, [39-41]).
In regard to Claims 8-10, Ran et al. discloses the manufacturing method according to claim 1. Ran et al. also discloses wherein the conductive portion is bent during the step of working by the horn radially inwardly so that an extension of the worked wound battery cell body in a longitudinal direction is reduced compared to the initial wound battery cell body and wherein radially adjacent deformed conductive portions are in contact with each other after the step of working and wherein after the step of working, radially adjacent deformed conductive portions are fixedly connected to each other (Ran, [29, 32-33]), which is consistent with preparing a wound cell body for insertion into a shell and tables or tab like configurations (Ran, [2-3]).
In regard to Claim 11, Ran et al. discloses the manufacturing method according to claim 1. Ran et al. also discloses wherein the step of placing comprises the step of fixing the wound battery cell body at the lateral surface and the step of removing comprises the step of releasing the fixing at the lateral surface of the worked wound battery cell body (Ran, [8, 33]).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ran et al. (CN 207517807 U – Machine Translation referenced for citation), hereinafter “Ran” as applied to claim 1 above in view of Oversteyns et al. (US 20060281252 A1), hereinafter “Oversteyns”. Ran and Oversteyns et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely wound battery modification.
In regard to Claims 5-6, Ran et al. discloses the manufacturing method according to claim 1. While Ran et al. discloses a wound battery cell body and subsequently working the wound battery cell body by applying ultrasonics at the front-end of the wound battery cell body it is silent as to the wound body comprising a jacket.
Oversteyns et al. discloses a wound battery cell body comprising a jacket wherein the jacket has an extension in a longitudinal direction which is lower than an extension of the wound battery cell body prior to the step of working (Oversteyns, [0019], Figure 5g), wherein the jacket has a benefit when applied to a wound body to provide insulation from the housing and that such that coextensive surface contact between the collectors can be achieved and such that better electrical and welded contact can subsequently be made thereto (Oversteyns, [0060]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a wound battery cell body as disclosed in Ran et al. with a jacket in the configuration taught in Oversteyns as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Oversteyns and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a variation of it for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 KENNETH MAX OTERO whose telephone number is (571)272-2559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Generally 7:30-430.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights