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 02/10/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-8 and 10-16 are amended, Claims 9 and 17-20 are canceled and Claims 1-8 and 10-16 are pending.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The spacing of the lines of the specification is such as to make reading difficult. New application papers with lines 1 1/2 or double spaced (see 37 CFR 1.52(b)(2)) on good quality paper are required. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
The objections to the claims have been withdrawn in view of the amendments filed 02/10/2026.
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, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lou et al. (CN 110600795 A - Machine Translation), hereinafter “Lou” in view of Kim et al. (WO 2022216143 A1 - US 20240120555 A1 cited for reference), hereinafter “Kim”. Lou and Kim et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely cylindrical battery tabs.
In regard to Claims 1 and 12 Lou et al. discloses a case and battery for accommodating a coil structure (Lou, Paragraph [9]), a coil structure, including a coil, the coil having a positive electrode tab and a negative electrode tab (Lou, Abstract), wherein the positive electrode tab includes a positive electrode outer ring cut-out area, a positive electrode uncut area, a and positive electrode center cut-out area formed by cutting (Lou, Paragraph [9]). Lou et al. also discloses the positive electrode uncut area (roll core annular lug boss structure) is disposed between the positive electrode outer ring cut-out area and the positive electrode center cut-out area and along an axial direction of the coil, and that the positive electrode uncut area protrudes from the positive electrode outer ring cut-out area and the positive electrode center cut-out area (Lou, Paragraph [10], Figure 3). While Lou discloses a configuration wherein the inner side wall of the can is recessed inward (see annotated figure 2) it is silent as to a retraction necking part being formed.
Kim et al. discloses a beneficial battery cell configuration with electrode tab cut out regions and a wherein an inner side wall of the case including a retraction necking part (clamping portion) is recessed inward along a radial direction of the battery and wherein the retraction necking part is connected along the axial direction of the battery to the side closed to the coil by welding (Kim, [0280]). This configuration is taught to achieve the benefits of limiting the movement of the current collector plate and the vent plate, thereby improving assembly stability of the battery cell and in addition, it is possible to prevent the sealing of the battery can from being broken due to an external impact (Kim, Abstract, [0280]). 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 battery case configuration with a retraction necking part as taught in Kim as the battery case of Lou as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Kim an 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.
In regard to Claim 10 Lou in view of Kim et al. discloses the battery according to Claim 1. Lou et al. also discloses a first current collection plate wherein a first end of the case is an open end and the coil is located inside the case (Lou, Figure 1). Lou et al. also discloses the first current collection plate is arranged on the first end of the coil at the open end and a plurality of tabs of the first end of the case and the coil are both connected with the first current collection plate by welding (Lou, Paragraphs [11, 21, 34]).
In regard to Claim 11, Lou in view of Kim et al. discloses the battery according to claim 10. Lou et al. also discloses wherein the first current collection plate comprises a current collection plate main body and a connecting part (Lou, Figure 4), the connecting part is arranged at intervals along the circumferential direction of the current collection plate main body (Lou, Claim 1, annular step face of the current collecting plate). Lou et al. also discloses the current collection plate main body is connected with the plurality of tabs of the first end of the coil by welding, and the connecting parts are connected with an inner wall of the case by welding (Lou, Paragraphs [11, 21, 34]).
In regard to Claim 13, Lou in view of Kim et al. discloses the battery according to claim 11. While Lou discloses that the cutouts are formed by laser cutting and that the skilled artisan can select any height or width of the cuts based on design choices (Lou, Paragraph [34]), Lou et al. is silent as to the dimensions of the structure formed by laser cutting. However, if the width of the retraction necking part was greater than the width of the outer ring cutout area, there would by definition be a short circuit (Lou, Paragraph [9]) and would render the battery inoperable. 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 retraction necking part that is shorter than the width of the outer cut out area, as doing so would be obvious to try for the skilled artisan and as doing so would amount to nothing more than choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lou et al. (CN 110600795 A - Machine Translation), hereinafter “Lou” in view of Kim et al. (WO 2022216143 A1 - US 20240120555 A1 cited for reference), hereinafter “Kim” as applied to claim 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Otani et al. (US 20220149444 A1), hereinafter “Otani” and Xu et al. (CN 213782063 U - Machine Translation), hereinafter “Xu”. Lou, Kim, Otani, and Xu et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely cylindrical battery tabs.
In regard to Claim 2, Lou in view of Kim et al. discloses the battery according to claim 1. Lou et al. also discloses wherein the tab outer ring cut-out area comprises a negative electrode outer ring cut-out area located on the negative electrode tab and the negative electrode outer ring cut-out area has an annular structure (Lou, Paragraph [21], Claim 1). While Lou discloses that the cutouts are formed by laser cutting and that the skilled artisan can select any height or width of the cuts based on design choices (Lou, Paragraph [34]), Lou et al. is silent as to the dimensions of the structure formed by laser cutting.
Otani et al. discloses a cylindrical battery with coil structure comprising positive and negative electrode tabs and current collector plates at the end of the coil structures (Otani, Abstract). Otani et al. also discloses a non-covered part of the negative electrode protruding from one end (outer ring cut-out area) in the width direction which has a preferred dimension denoted by C =4.5mm (Otani, Paragraphs [0058-0059], Figure 2), which falls within the claimed range. There is a disclosed benefit taught in Otani that when the width is in a preferred range, laser welding is performed easier (Otani, Paragraph [0059]). 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 negative electrode outer ring cut-out area with a width that is similar to Otani, as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Otani and as doing so would be at the discretion of the skilled artisan and thus 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.
While Lou and Otani are silent as to the height of the negative electrode outer ring cut-out area, Xu et al. disclose a cylindrical battery with coil structure comprising positive and negative electrode tabs and current collector plates at the end of the coil structures with annular shaped inner and outer rings formed by cutting (Xu, Abstract) where the preferred dimensions of the cutouts are 1 to 5mm in height (Xu, Claim 1), which overlaps the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
In regard to Claim 3, Lou in view of Kim et al. discloses the battery according to claim 1. Lou et al. also discloses wherein the tab outer ring cut-out area comprises a positive electrode outer ring cut-out area located on the positive electrode tab and the positive electrode outer ring cut-out area has an annular structure (Lou, Paragraph [21], Claim 1). While Lou discloses that the cutouts are formed by laser cutting and that the skilled artisan can select any height or width of the cuts based on design choices (Lou, Paragraph [34]), Lou et al. is silent as to the dimensions of the structure formed by laser cutting.
Otani et al. discloses a cylindrical battery with coil structure comprising positive and negative electrode tabs and current collector plates at the end of the coil structures (Otani, Abstract). Otani et al. also discloses a non-covered part of the positive electrode protruding from one end (outer ring cut-out area) in the width direction which has a preferred dimension denoted by C =4.5mm (Otani, Paragraphs [0058-0059], Figure 2), which falls within the claimed range. There is a disclosed benefit taught in Otani that when the width is in a preferred range, successful laser welding is more easily achieved (Otani, Paragraph [0059]). 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 positive electrode outer ring cut-out area with a width that is similar to Otani, as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Otani and as doing so would be at the discretion of the skilled artisan and thus 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.
While Lou and Otani are silent as to the height of the positive electrode outer ring cut-out area, Xu et al. discloses a cylindrical battery with coil structure comprising positive and negative electrode tabs and current collector plates at the end of the coil structures with annular shaped inner and outer rings formed by cutting (Xu, Abstract) where the preferred dimensions of the cutouts are 1 to 5mm in height (Xu, Claim 1), which overlaps the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 4-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lou et al. (CN 110600795 A - Machine Translation), hereinafter “Lou” in view of Kim et al. (WO 2022216143 A1 - US 20240120555 A1 cited for reference), hereinafter “Kim” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (EP 4044358 A2 - Machine Translation), hereinafter “Choi” and Xu et al. (CN 213782063 U - Machine Translation), hereinafter “Xu”. Lou, Kim, Choi, and Xu et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely cylindrical battery tabs.
In regard to Claim 4, Lou in view of Kim et al. discloses the battery according to claim 1. Lou et al. also discloses wherein the tab center cut-out area comprises a negative electrode center cut-out area located on the negative electrode tab and the negative electrode center cut-out area has a circular structure (Lou, Paragraph [0021], Claim 1]). While Lou discloses that the cutouts are formed by laser cutting and that the skilled artisan can select any height or width of the cuts based on design choices (Lou, Paragraph [34]), Lou et al. is silent as to the dimensions of the structure formed by laser cutting.
Choi et al. discloses a cylindrical battery with coil structure comprising positive and negative electrode tabs and current collector plates at the end of the coil structures with annular shaped inner and outer rings formed by cutting (Choi, Abstract). Further, Choi et al. discloses a diameter of the negative electrode center cut-out area is in a preferential range of 3-14mm (Choi, Paragraph [264], Claim 36) which significantly overlaps the claimed range.
While Lou and Choi are silent as to the height of the negative electrode center ring cut-out area, Xu et al. discloses a cylindrical battery with coil structure comprising positive and negative electrode tabs and current collector plates at the end of the coil structures with annular shaped inner and outer rings formed by cutting (Xu, Abstract) where the preferred dimensions of the cutouts are 1 to 5mm in height (Xu, Claim 1), which overlaps the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
In regard to Claim 5, Lou in view of Kim et al. discloses battery according to claim 1. Lou et al. also discloses wherein the tab center cut-out area comprises a positive electrode center cut-out area located on the positive electrode tab and the positive electrode center cut-out area has a circular structure (Lou, Paragraph [0021], Claim 1]). While Lou discloses that the cutouts are formed by laser cutting and that the skilled artisan can select any height or width of the cuts based on design choices (Lou, Paragraph [34]), Lou et al. is silent as to the dimensions of the structure formed by laser cutting.
Choi et al. discloses a cylindrical battery with coil structure comprising positive and negative electrode tabs and current collector plates at the end of the coil structures with annular shaped inner and outer rings formed by cutting (Choi, Abstract). Further, Choi et al. discloses a diameter of the positive electrode center cut-out area is in a preferential range of 3-14mm (Choi, Paragraph [264], Claim 36) which significantly overlaps the claimed range.
While Lou and Choi are silent as to the height of the positive electrode center ring cut-out area, Xu et al. discloses a cylindrical battery with coil structure comprising positive and negative electrode tabs and current collector plates at the end of the coil structures with annular shaped inner and outer rings formed by cutting (Xu, Abstract) where the preferred dimensions of the cutouts are 1 to 5mm in height (Xu, Claim 1), which overlaps the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
In regard to Claim 8, Lou in view of Kim et al. and further in view of Choi and Xu et al. discloses the battery according to claim 5, however, Lou et al. is silent as to the diameter and height of the coil or the center hole diameter, though it could easily be selected based on the discretion of the skilled artisan. Choi et al. discloses a cylindrical battery with a coil structure wherein the cylindrical battery has a center hole which is accommodated inside the center cutout area and wherein the center cutout area is between 3-14mm (Choi, Paragraph [264], Claim 36), thus by definition the center hole must be less than 3mm and smaller than the center cutout area, and therefore overlaps the claimed range.
Choi et al. also discloses a cylindrical battery with a coil structure which has a height of approximately 80mm and a width of approximately 46mm which falls within the claimed range (Choi, Paragraph [0326]). 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 coil structure for a cylindrical battery with a hole diameter, height, and width that falls within the claimed range, as doing so would amount to nothing more than choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 6 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lou et al. (CN 110600795 A - Machine Translation), hereinafter “Lou” in view of Kim et al. (WO 2022216143 A1 - US 20240120555 A1 cited for reference), hereinafter “Kim” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (EP 4044358 A2 - Machine Translation), hereinafter “Choi”. Lou, Kim and Choi et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely cylindrical battery tabs.
In regard to Claim 6, Lou in view of Kim et al. discloses the battery according to claim 1, however, Lou et al. is silent as to the diameter and height of the coil or the center hole diameter though it could easily be selected based on the discretion of the skilled artisan. Choi et al. discloses a cylindrical battery with a coil structure wherein the cylindrical battery has a center hole which is accommodated inside the center cutout area and wherein the center cutout area is between 3-14mm (Choi, Paragraph [264], Claim 36), thus by definition the center hole must be less than 3mm and smaller than the center cutout area and thus overlaps the claimed range.
Choi et al. also discloses a cylindrical battery with a coil structure which has a height of approximately 80mm and a width of approximately 46mm (Choi, Paragraph [0326]), which falls within the claimed range. 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 coil structure for a cylindrical battery with a hole diameter, and height and width that falls within the claimed range as doing so would amount to nothing more than choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
In regard to Claims 14-16, Lou in view of Kim et al. discloses the battery of claim 10. While Lou et al. discloses an electrode cap (pole) it fails to explicitly disclose a pole and mounting hole. Choi et al. discloses a cap (pole) a second end of the casing having a mounting hole, the pole penetrates into the mounting hole and is electrically connected with the tab of the second end of the coil which also comprises a second current collection plate, wherein the second current collection plate is arranged on the tab of the second end of the coil and the pole and the tab of the second end of the coil are connected to the second current collection plate by welding, where there is also an insulating seal sandwiched between the pole and the inner wall of the mounting hole (Choi, Paragraphs [17-19]), Figure 4) which is a conventional structure of cylindrical batteries.
Choi et al. also teaches this configuration can prevent short circuits and prevent movement of the pole (Choi, Paragraph [17-18]). 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 cylindrical battery in the configuration taught in Choi et al., as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Choi et al. and as doing so would amount to nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lou et al. (CN 110600795 A - Machine Translation), hereinafter “Lou” in view of Kim et al. (WO 2022216143 A1 - US 20240120555 A1 cited for reference), hereinafter “Kim” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (EP 4044358 A2 - Machine Translation), hereinafter “Choi”, Xu et al. (CN 213782063 U - Machine Translation), hereinafter “Xu” and Otani et al. (US 20220149444 A1), hereinafter “Otani”. Lou, Kim, Choi, Otani, and Xu et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely cylindrical battery tabs.
In regard to Claim 7, Lou et al. in view of Kim and further in view of Otani and Xu et al. discloses the battery according to claim 2, however, Lou et al. is silent as to the diameter and height of the coil or the center hole diameter though it could easily be selected based on the discretion of the skilled artisan. Choi et al. discloses a cylindrical battery with a coil structure wherein the cylindrical battery has a center hole which is accommodated inside the center cutout area and wherein the center cutout area is between 3-14mm (Choi, Paragraph [264], Claim 36), thus by definition the center hole must be less than 3mm and smaller than the center cutout area, and thus overlaps the claimed range.
Choi et al. also discloses a cylindrical battery with a coil structure which has a height of approximately 80mm and a width of approximately 46mm (Choi, Paragraph [0326]), which falls within the claimed range. 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 coil structure for a cylindrical battery with a hole diameter, and height and width that falls within the claimed range as doing so would amount to nothing more than choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 and 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection was changed from a 35 U.S.C 102 (a)(1) rejection to a 35 U.S.C 103 rejection and relies on a reference not previously applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Further, the applicant is stated to have filed a substitute specification however, this document has not been received or processed and as such it is treated as though it was not submitted.
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