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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made that the instant application was effectively filed on 29 March 2023, but claims priority to Application No. KR 10-2022-0063251, filed on 24 May 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 29 March 2023, 03 November 2023, 13 September 2024, 27 May 2025 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 6 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.
Regarding claim 4, the recitation “a single first strip terminal” is indefinite because it is unclear whether this structure is meant to be the same structure as the “first strip terminal” of claim 1.
For examination purposes, the aforementioned recitation has been interpreted to mean, “the first strip terminal”.
Further, the recitation “are simultaneously electrically connected to…” is indefinite because it is unclear whether the simultaneous connection describes a step in a method of making the secondary battery.
For examination purposes, the aforementioned recitation has been interpreted to mean, “are configured to be simultaneously connected to…”.
Regarding claim 6, the recitation “a single second strip terminal” is indefinite because it is unclear whether this structure is to be interpreted as the same structure as the “second strip terminal” of claim 1.
For examination purposes, the aforementioned recitation has been interpreted to mean, “the second strip terminal”.
Further, the recitation “are simultaneously electrically connected to…” is indefinite because it is unclear whether the simultaneous connection describes a step in a method of making the secondary battery.
For examination purposes, the aforementioned recitation has been interpreted to mean, “are configured to be simultaneously connected to…”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maeda et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2017/0309886).
Regarding claim 1, Maeda teaches a secondary battery (100, Figs. 1-2), comprising:
an electrode assembly (20, Figs. 1-3) including:
a negative electrode plate (22, Fig. 3) including a plurality of first negative electrode substrate tabs (22d, Fig. 3) and a plurality of second negative electrode substrate tabs (22e, Fig. 3),
a positive electrode plate (21, Fig. 3) including a plurality of first positive electrode substrate tabs (21d, Fig. 3) and a plurality of second positive electrode substrate tabs (21e, Fig. 3), and
a separator (23, Fig. 4) between the negative electrode plate (21, Fig. 4) and the positive electrode plate (22, Fig. 4);
a pouch (10, Fig. 1) accommodating the electrode assembly (20);
a first strip terminal (40, Fig. 3) electrically connected (via 60, Fig. 3) to the plurality of first negative electrode substrate tabs (22d) and the plurality of second negative electrode substrate tabs (22e); and
a second strip terminal (30, Fig. 3) electrically connected (via 50, Fig. 3) to the plurality of first positive electrode substrate tabs (21d) and the plurality of second positive electrode substrate tabs (21e).
Regarding claim 2, Maeda teaches wherein the electrode is a wound electrode assembly or a stacked electrode assembly (see [0054]).
Regarding claim 3, Maeda teaches wherein the plurality of first negative electrode substrate tabs (22d, Fig. 5) are spaced apart from the plurality of second negative electrode substrate tabs (22e, Fig. 5) in a horizontal direction (left/right, Fig. 5, see [0013]).
Regarding claim 4, Maeda teaches wherein the plurality of first negative electrode substrate tabs (22d, Fig. 3) and the plurality of second negative electrode substrate tabs (22e, Fig. 3) are simultaneously electrically connected (via 60, Fig. 3) to a single first strip terminal (40, Fig. 3, see 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejection above for interpretation).
Regarding claim 5, Maeda teaches wherein the plurality of first positive electrode substrate tabs (21d, Fig. 5) are spaced apart from the plurality of second positive electrode substrate tabs (21e, Fig. 5) in a horizontal direction (left/right, Fig. 5, see [0013]).
Regarding claim 6, Maeda teaches wherein the plurality of first positive electrode substrate tabs (21d, Fig. 3) and the plurality of second positive electrode substrate tabs (21e, Fig. 3) are simultaneously electrically connected (via 50, Fig. 3) to a single first strip terminal (30, Fig. 3, see 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejection above for interpretation).
Regarding claim 8, Maeda teaches a secondary battery (100, Figs. 1-2), comprising:
an electrode assembly (20, Figs. 1-3) including:
a negative electrode plate (22, Fig. 3) including a plurality of first negative electrode substrate tabs (22d, Fig. 3) and a plurality of N-th negative electrode substrate tabs (22e, Fig. 3),
a positive electrode plate (21, Fig. 3) including a plurality of first positive electrode substrate tabs (21d, Fig. 3) and a plurality of M-th positive electrode substrate tabs (21e, Fig. 3), and
a separator (23, Fig. 4) between the negative electrode plate (21, Fig. 4) and the positive electrode plate (22, Fig. 4);
a pouch (10, Fig. 1) accommodating the electrode assembly (20);
a first strip terminal (40, Fig. 3) electrically connected (via 60, Fig. 3) to the plurality of first negative electrode substrate tabs (22d) and the plurality of N-th negative electrode substrate tabs (22e); and
a second strip terminal (30, Fig. 3) electrically connected (via 50, Fig. 3) to the plurality of first positive electrode substrate tabs (21d) and the plurality of M-th positive electrode substrate tabs (21e).
Regarding claim 9, Maeda teaches N (2, see [0048]) and M (2, see [0046]) are each independently an integer of 2 to 4.
Examiner’s Note: It is the position of the Examiner that, while Maeda does not explicitly use the N and M convention, Maeda teaches a plurality of second negative electrode substrate tabs (22e, Fig. 3) and a plurality of second positive electrode substrate tabs (21e, Fig. 3). This would make N and M each equivalent to 2, falling within and anticipating the claimed range of integers.
Regarding claim 10, Maeda teaches that N (2, see [0048]) and M (2, see [0046]) are the same.
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.
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2017/0309886).
Regarding claim 11, Maeda does not teach that N and M are different.
However, in an alternate embodiment, Maeda teaches that N and M are different ([0130]).
Examiner’s Note: It is the position of the Examiner that, while Maeda does not explicitly use the N and M convention, Maeda teaches more than two pluralities of negative electrode substrate tabs and more than two pluralities of positive electrode substrate tabs (see [0130]). This would make N ≥ 2 and M ≥ 2, independently, thereby teaching N ≠ M, as an alternate example.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the number of pluralities of negative electrode substrate tabs, N, of Maeda to be different from the number of pluralities of positive electrodes, M, as taught by Maeda, to facilitate a reduction in stacking thickness per plurality ([0094]).
Claims 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2017/0309886), in view of Blomgren et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2009/0305120).
Regarding claim 7, Maeda, teaches a negative electrode plate (22, Fig. 3) and a positive electrode plate (21, Fig. 3),
but does not teach one of the negative electrode plate and the positive electrode plate is thicker than the other of the negative electrode plate and the positive electrode plate, and a number of substrate tabs on the thicker one of the negative electrode plate and the positive electrode plate is greater than a number of substrate tabs on the other of the negative electrode plate and the positive electrode plate.
However, Maeda teaches the negative electrode plate (22) is made of copper positive electrode plate (21) is made of aluminum (see [0045]).
Further, Blomgren teaches one of the negative electrode plate and the positive electrode plate (aluminum foil collector, Fig. 8) is thicker than the other of the negative electrode plate (copper foil collector, Fig. 8) and the positive electrode plate (see [0113]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the aluminum positive electrode plate of Maeda, to be formed thicker than the copper negative electrode plate of Maeda, as taught by Blomgren, to yield equal resistances for the positive and negative electrodes (see [0112]).
Further, in an alternate embodiment, Blomgren teaches a number of substrate tabs on the positive electrode plate (3 tabs) is greater than a number of substrate tabs on the other of the negative electrode plate (2 tabs, see [0090]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the thicker positive electrode plate of Maeda, in view of Blomgren, to have more tabs than the thinner negative electrode plate, as taught by Blomgren, to reduce current collector impedance while maintaining a substantially uniform current density for the electrodes (see [0092]).
Regarding claim 12, Maeda, teaches a negative electrode plate (22, Fig. 3) and a positive electrode plate (21, Fig. 3),
but does not teach one of the negative electrode plate and the positive electrode plate is thicker than the other of the negative electrode plate and the positive electrode plate, and a number of substrate tabs on the thicker one of the negative electrode plate and the positive electrode plate is greater than a number of substrate tabs on the other of the negative electrode plate and the positive electrode plate.
However, Maeda teaches the negative electrode plate (22) is made of copper positive electrode plate (21) is made of aluminum (see [0045]).
Further, Blomgren teaches one of the negative electrode plate and the positive electrode plate (aluminum foil collector, Fig. 8) is thicker than the other of the negative electrode plate (copper foil collector, Fig. 8) and the positive electrode plate (see [0113]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the aluminum positive electrode plate of Maeda, to be formed thicker than the copper negative electrode plate of Maeda, as taught by Blomgren, to yield equal resistances for the positive and negative electrodes (see [0112]).
Further, in an alternate embodiment, Blomgren teaches a number of substrate tabs on the positive electrode plate (3 tabs) is greater than a number of substrate tabs on the other of the negative electrode plate (2 tabs, see [0090]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the thicker positive electrode plate of Maeda, in view of Blomgren, to have more tabs than the thinner negative electrode plate, as taught by Blomgren, to reduce current collector impedance while maintaining a substantially uniform current density for the electrodes (see [0092]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aidan L Papandria whose telephone number is (571)272-1831. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 ET.
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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at (571) 270-7078. 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.
/AIDAN LACHLAN PAPANDRIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723