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 .
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 “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 “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 § 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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2017/0309886), in view of Batson et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2021/0184265).
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).
Maeda does not teach a single first strip terminal spanning across the plurality of first negative electrode substrate tabs to the plurality of second negative electrode substrate tabs, and electrically connected by welding, wherein the plurality of first negative electrode substrate tabs is spaced apart from the plurality of second negative electrode substrate tabs in a horizontal direction, and the single first strip terminal and the plurality of first and second negative electrode substrate tabs are bent together; and a single second strip terminal spanning across the plurality of first positive electrode substrate tabs to the plurality of second positive electrode substrate tabs, and electrically connected by welding, wherein the plurality of first positive electrode substrate tabs is spaced apart from the plurality of second positive electrode substrate tabs in a horizontal direction, and the single second strip terminal and the plurality of first and second positive electrode substrate tabs are bent together.
However, Batson teaches a single first strip terminal (702, Fig. 7) spanning across the plurality of first negative electrode substrate tabs (602, Fig. 6) to the plurality of second negative electrode substrate tabs (604, Fig. 6), and electrically connected by welding (pair of tab groups welded to 702, [0053]), wherein the plurality of first negative electrode (602) substrate tabs is spaced apart from the plurality of second negative electrode substrate tabs (604) in a horizontal direction (left-right direction, see Fig. 6), and the single first strip terminal and the plurality of first and second negative electrode substrate tabs are bent together (tabs bent to form final shape, [0048]); and a single second strip terminal (704, Fig. 7) spanning across the plurality of first positive electrode substrate tabs (606, Fig. 6) to the plurality of second positive electrode substrate tabs (608, Fig. 6), and electrically connected by welding (pair of tab groups welded to 704, [0053]), wherein the plurality of first positive electrode substrate tabs (606) is spaced apart from the plurality of second positive electrode substrate tabs (608) in a horizontal direction (left-right direction, see Fig. 6), and the single second strip terminal and the plurality of first and second positive electrode substrate tabs are bent together (tabs bent to form final shape, [0048]).
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 first and second positive and negative tab groups of Maeda, such that they are spaced apart horizontally, as taught by Batson, to allow for a reduced thickness of the tabs, reducing the likelihood of degradation during welding ([0079]).
Therefore, it would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the first and second strip terminals of Maeda, such that they are welded to span across the bent first and second positive and negative pluralities of tabs, respectively, as taught by Batson, to allow different groups of offset tabs to be electronically coupled and provide a robust electrode assembly ([0053-0054]).
Regarding claim 2, Maeda, in view of Batson, teaches wherein the electrode is a wound electrode assembly or a stacked electrode assembly (see [0054]).
Regarding claim 4, Maeda, in view of Batson, teaches wherein the plurality of first negative electrode substrate tabs (602, Fig. 6 of Batson, see rejection of claim 1 for modification) and the plurality of second negative electrode substrate tabs (604, Fig. 6 of Batson, see rejection of claim 1 for modification) are simultaneously (see 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejection above for interpretation) electrically connected to the single first strip terminal (702, Fig. 7 of Batson, see rejection of claim 1 for modification).
Regarding claim 6, Maeda, in view of Batson, teaches wherein the plurality of first positive electrode substrate tabs (606, Fig. 6 of Batson, see rejection of claim 1 for modification) and the plurality of second negative electrode substrate tabs (608, Fig. 6 of Batson, see rejection of claim 1 for modification) are simultaneously (see 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejection above for interpretation) electrically connected to the single first strip terminal (704, Fig. 7 of Batson, see rejection of claim 1 for modification).
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).
Maeda does not teach a single first strip terminal spanning across the plurality of first negative electrode substrate tabs to the plurality of N-th negative electrode substrate tabs, and electrically connected by welding, wherein the plurality of first negative electrode substrate tabs is spaced apart from the plurality of N-th negative electrode substrate tabs in a horizontal direction, and the single first strip terminal and the plurality of first and N-th negative electrode substrate tabs are bent together; and a single second strip terminal spanning across the plurality of first positive electrode substrate tabs to the plurality of M-th positive electrode substrate tabs, and electrically connected by welding, wherein the plurality of first positive electrode substrate tabs is spaced apart from the plurality of M-th positive electrode substrate tabs in a horizontal direction, and the single second strip terminal and the plurality of first and M-th positive electrode substrate tabs are bent together.
However, Batson teaches a single first strip terminal (702, Fig. 7) spanning across the plurality of first negative electrode substrate tabs (602, Fig. 6) to the plurality of N-th negative electrode substrate tabs (604, Fig. 6), and electrically connected by welding (pair of tab groups welded to 702, [0053]), wherein the plurality of first negative electrode (602) substrate tabs is spaced apart from the plurality of N-th negative electrode substrate tabs (604) in a horizontal direction (left-right direction, see Fig. 6), and the single first strip terminal and the plurality of first and N-th negative electrode substrate tabs are bent together (tabs bent to form final shape, [0048]); and a single second strip terminal (704, Fig. 7) spanning across the plurality of first positive electrode substrate tabs (606, Fig. 6) to the plurality of M-th positive electrode substrate tabs (608, Fig. 6), and electrically connected by welding (pair of tab groups welded to 704, [0053]), wherein the plurality of first positive electrode substrate tabs (606) is spaced apart from the plurality of M-th positive electrode substrate tabs (608) in a horizontal direction (left-right direction, see Fig. 6), and the second first strip terminal and the plurality of first and M-th positive electrode substrate tabs are bent together (tabs bent to form final shape, [0048]).
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 first and N/M-th positive and negative tab groups of Maeda, such that they are spaced apart horizontally, as taught by Batson, to allow for a reduced thickness of the tabs, reducing the likelihood of degradation during welding ([0079]).
Therefore, it would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the first and second strip terminals of Maeda, such that they are welded to span across the bent first and N/M-th positive and negative pluralities of tabs, respectively, as taught by Batson, to allow different groups of offset tabs to be electronically coupled and provide a robust electrode assembly ([0053-0054]).
Regarding claim 9, Maeda teaches N (2, see [0048]) and M (2, see [0046]) are each independently an integer of 2 to 4.
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, in view of Batson, teaches that N (2, see [0048]) and M (2, see [0046]) are the same.
Regarding claim 11, Maeda, in view of Batson, does not teach that N and M are different.
However, in an alternate embodiment, Maeda teaches that N and M are different (see [0130] and explanation, below).
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, in view of Batson, 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]).
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.
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 Batson et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2021/0184265) and further in view of Blomgren et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2009/0305120).
Regarding claim 7, Maeda, in view of Batson, 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, in view of Batson, 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 Batson and 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, in view of Batson, 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, in view of Batson, 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 Batson and 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]).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments with respect to claims filed on 11 May 2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-12 remain pending in this application and are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. Claims 3 and 5 are canceled.
The 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 rejections set forth in the Non-Final office action mailed on 09 February 2026 are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments, and replaced with the new ground of rejection, above. The amendments and remarks filed are sufficient to partially cure the previous 35 U.S.C.112 (b) rejections set forth in the aforementioned Non-Final office action. However, the 35 U.S.C.112 (b) rejections are maintained, because applicant did not address the indefinite recitations of “simultaneously electrically connected to” via amendment or argument.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-12 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 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
Prosecution Insights