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 Interpretation
The previous claim interpretation regarding Claim 15 and the limitation “wherein on a projection plane perpendicular to the length direction of the battery, an orthogonal projection of the adapting member at least partially falls within an orthogonal projection range of the first tab” and Claim 16 and the limitation “wherein in the length direction of the battery, an orthogonal projection of the adapting member falls within an orthogonal projection of the first tab” (see Non-Final rejection mailed 12/11/2025) is still considered relevant to the claims, and these limitations are interpreted as indicating that when the battery is viewed from an angle perpendicular to the length direction, a portion of the region of the adapting member falls at least partially within (Claim 15) or entirely within (Claim 16) the range of the first tab when projected onto the perpendicular projection plane (see annotation of instant Fig. 3, below), as supported by the instant specification [0044] and Applicant’s arguments (filed 03/11/2026; see Pg. 8).
PNG
media_image1.png
511
1224
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotation of instant Fig. 3.
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 10-11 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.
Claim 10 recites, “a length of the first electrode plate exceeding the second electrode plate is the distance A” (emphasis added). The Examiner notes that this limitation appears to require a second electrode plate, and appears to require the second electrode plate to have a different length than the first electrode plate. The antecedent basis for these limitations was previously found in Claim 9. Since Claim 9 has been cancelled, “the second electrode plate” does not have antecedent basis, and it is unclear what structure is referenced. Furthermore, it is unclear what “length” exceeding that of “the second electrode plate” is referenced. Additionally, there is no previous antecedent basis for the limitation “the distance A”, and it is unclear what distance is referenced. As such, Claim 10 and dependent Claim 11 are rejected as being indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution, it will be interpreted that the first electrode plate has a length (i.e. any length) that exceeds that of a second electrode plate, and that the later part of this limitation should read “exceeding a second electrode plate is a distance A” (emphasis added), as supported by previously presented Claim 9.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 8, 12-13, 15-16, 18 and 20-21 is/are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US-20190207196-A1).
Regarding Claims 1-2 and 18, Park discloses an electric device comprising a battery [0032, 0098-0099, as required by Claim 18, and, a battery (pouch-shaped secondary battery; [0021, 0050]) as required by Claims 1 and 18 comprising (see annotations of Park Fig. 3, below):
a packaging bag (pouch-shaped battery case; [0021]);
an electrode assembly disposed in the packaging bag [0021, 0050], wherein:
the electrode assembly comprises a first electrode plate (negative electrode 120a; [0021, 0050, 0110]) and a first tab (corresponds to the combination of the negative electrode tab 122 and the first negative electrode lead 125a; [0021, 0051-0052, 0064, 0144, 0118]) electrically connected to the first electrode plate [0021, 0051-0053, 0066],
the first tab comprises one of more first tab units (electrode tabs; [0052]), and,
when a plurality of first tab units is provided, the plurality of first tab units is stacked together (as required by Claims 1 and 18) in a thickness direction of the battery (as required by Claim 18); see annotation of Park Fig. 3, below.
PNG
media_image2.png
707
1114
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotation of a portion of Park Fig. 3.
Park discloses a second negative electrode lead (125b) which is connected to the first negative electrode lead (125a) via a connection layer (126) [0021-0022, 0067, 0077, 0119]. The connection layer is an adhesive layer made of a conductive polymer [0019]. Accordingly, under a first interpretation, it is interpreted that the first tab (i.e. the first negative electrode lead 125a) is directly connected to an adapting member (second negative electrode lead 125b), since the instant specification indicates that conductive adhesive bonding is a form of electrical connection between the first tab and an adapting member [instant specification: 0041]. Accordingly, under the first interpretation of the adapting member, the first tab (i.e. the first negative electrode lead 125a of the first tab) and the adapting member (i.e. second negative electrode lead 125b) are interpreted as being directly connected, since the connection layer 126 is broadly and reasonably interpreted, in light of the instant specification, as constituting an adhesive layer which is used to form a direct electrical connection.
Accordingly, under the first interpretation, Park discloses (see annotation of Fig. 3, below):
an adapting member (interpreted as the second negative electrode lead 125b; [0019, 0021-0022, 0067, 0077, 0119]), wherein a first end of the adapting member is directly connected to the first tab [0019, 0021, 0067-0069, 0077], and a second end of the adapting member protrudes from the packaging bag [0021];
wherein a sealing member (sealing layer) is disposed between the adapting member and the packaging bag [0021, 0030, 0051, 0063, 0121];
wherein: the first tab includes a first part (negative electrode tab 122) and a second part (first negative electrode lead 125a) electrically connected to the first part [0021, 0051-0053, 0066].
PNG
media_image3.png
706
1007
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Park Fig. 3 showing a first interpretation of the adapting member.
Assuming, arguendo, that Applicant is able to show by means of evidence or persuasive argument that the use of a conductive adhesive does not constitute direct contact between the first tab and an adapting member, the Examiner notes that a second interpretation of the adapting member can be applied. Specifically, Park discloses that when the pouch-shaped battery swells due to the generation of gas within the secondary battery, the connection layer (126) is designed to separate from the first negative electrode lead (125a), thereby separating the electrode leads (see Figs. 3-4; [0075, 0077]). Accordingly, since the connection layer (126) remains with the second negative electrode lead (125b) (see Figs. 3-4), the combination of the connection layer (126) and the second negative electrode lead (125b), is broadly and reasonably interpreted as reading on “an adapting member”. The Examiner notes that such an interpretation is reasonable in light of the disclosure of the instant application, which indicates that a claimed structure may be comprised of multiple parts (e.g. the first tab comprises a first part and a second part; [instant specification 0006, 0041]; Claim 1: line 13).
Accordingly, under the second interpretation, Park discloses (see annotation of Fig. 3, below):
an adapting member (interpreted as the combination of the second negative electrode lead 125b and the connection layer 126; [0019, 0021-0022, 0067, 0077, 0119]), wherein a first end of the adapting member is directly connected to the first tab [0019, 0021, 0067-0069, 0077], and a second end of the adapting member protrudes from the packaging bag [0021];
wherein a sealing member (sealing layer) is disposed between the adapting member and the packaging bag [0021, 0030, 0051, 0063, 0121];
wherein: the first tab includes a first part (negative electrode tab 122) and a second part (first negative electrode lead 125a) electrically connected to the first part [0021, 0051-0053, 0066].
PNG
media_image4.png
706
1007
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Park Fig. 3 showing a second interpretation of the adapting member.
Park discloses and embodiment (Fig. 5B) wherein a width of the second part (first negative electrode lead 125a) of the first tab is “less than or equal to the width of the sealing member” (i.e. the widths are equal; [0026, 0080]) as required by Claim 2 (see annotation of Park Fig. 5B, below).
PNG
media_image5.png
358
681
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Park Fig. 5b.
In alternative embodiments (Fig. 4; Fig. 5c), Park discloses a sealing member with a different shape [0078-0080]. In this alternative embodiment, the first part (negative electrode tab 122) is taught as having the same width as the second part (first negative electrode lead 125a; MPEP 2125, I; see annotation of Fig. 4, below).
PNG
media_image6.png
672
810
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotation of a portion of Park Fig. 4
Therefore, although Park does not explicitly disclose in a single embodiment that “a width of the first part of the first tab is greater than or equal to a width of the sealing member” as required by Claims 1 and 18, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have formed a width of first part (negative electrode tab 122) to be equal to the width of the second part (first negative electrode lead 125a) in the embodiment depicted in Fig. 5B, with a reasonable expectation that such a selection of widths would result in a successful first part (negative electrode tab 122) for use in a battery. By forming the width of the first part to be equal to the width of the second part in the embodiment depicted in Fig. 5B, the resulting structure inherently has a width of the first part which is equal to the width of the sealing member.
Regarding Claim 3, Park renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Park discloses that the first end of the adapting member is electrically connected [0019, 0021, 0067-0069, 0077] to the second part (first negative electrode lead 125a) of the first tab. The Examiner notes that this limitation is met regardless of which interpretation is applied to the adapting member.
Regarding Claim 5, Park renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Park discloses that in a thickness direction of the battery, the battery comprises a first surface and a second surface disposed opposite to each other (see annotation of Fig. 3, below).
PNG
media_image7.png
342
826
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Annotation of a portion of Park Fig. 3.
Although Park does not explicitly disclose that a width of one of the one or more first tab units (electrode tabs; [0052]) closest to the first surface or the second surface is greater than or equal to a width of the sealing member, Park discloses an alternative embodiment (Fig. 4; Fig. 5c), wherein the sealing member has a different shape [0078-0080]. In this alternative embodiment, the electrode tab (122, Fig. 4) is taught as having the same width as the first negative electrode lead (125a, Fig. 4; see MPEP 2125, I). The electrode tab (122) is interpreted as being a portion of one of the first tab units.
Therefore, although Park does not explicitly disclose in the embodiment relied on for the rejection of Claim 1 (i.e. the sealing member as depicted in Figs. 5b and 8) that “a width of one of the one or more first tab units closest to the first surface or the second surface is greater than or equal to a width of the sealing member”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have formed a width of one of the first tab units closest to the first surface or the second surface to have a width equal to the width of the first negative electrode lead (125a), which has a width equal to the width of the sealing member (see rejection of Claim 1, above). One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that forming a width of the one or more first tab units closest to the first surface or the second surface to be equal to a width of the sealing member would result in a successful battery.
Regarding Claims 8 and 20, Park renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including that the width of the first tab is equal to the width of the sealing member (i.e. the width ratio between the two structures is 1; see rejection of Claims 1 and 18, above). Although Park does not disclose that the width W of the first tab to the width L of the sealing member is within the range 1 < W/L ≤ 1.2, the ratio of “1” disclosed by Park is so close to the claimed ratio that, absent showings of criticality, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected no noticeable difference between a first tab and a sealing member with a width ratio of 1 and a first tab and a sealing member with a ratio slightly greater than 1 (e.g. 1.0001) (MPEP 2144.05, I), thus rendering obvious the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 12, Park renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Park discloses that the sealing member (sealing layer 127) is provided with a rounded edge (i.e. radius of curvature “R”; see Fig. 8; [0091-0092]. The rounded edge reads on a rounded corner as evidenced by the definition of “corner” provided by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary.
Regarding Claim 13, Park renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Park discloses that the first tab (i.e. the combination of the negative electrode tab 122 and the first electrode lead 125a) is disposed in the packing bag in a “bending state” (see annotation of Park Fig. 3, below). Here, a “bending state” is broadly and reasonably interpreted as any state wherein the first tab is “turned or forced from straight or even to curved or angular” as supported by the definition of “bending” provided by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary.
PNG
media_image8.png
438
783
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Annotation of a portion of Park Fig. 3.
Regarding Claims 15-16, Park discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Park further discloses that the thickness of the adapting member falls entirely within the thickness range of the first tab (see annotation of Park Fig. 3, below). This is interpreted (see Claim Interpretation, above) as reading on the recited limitation of Claim 15 of “wherein on a projection plane perpendicular to the length direction of the battery, an orthogonal projection of the adapting member at least partially falls within an orthogonal projection range of the first tab” and the recited limitation of Claim 16 of “wherein in the length direction of the battery, an orthogonal projection of the adapting member falls within an orthogonal projection of the first tab”. The Examiner notes that this applies regardless of which interpretation of the adapting member is applied (see rejection of Claim 1, above).
PNG
media_image9.png
537
1374
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Annotation of a portion of Park Fig. 3.
Regarding Claim 21, Park renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including that the first tab has a plurality of stacked first tab units (electrode tabs [0052]), and that the first tab is connected to the adapting member (see rejection of Claim 1, above). Park is interpreted as further disclosing the limitation “wherein a connection area between the first tab and the adapting member has the plurality of stacked first tab units” (see annotation of Park Fig. 3, below).
PNG
media_image10.png
274
609
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Park Fig. 3.
Here, “a connection area” is broadly and reasonably interpreted as an area which includes both the first part and the second part of the first tab. Such an interpretation is reasonable in light of the instant specification, which indicates that the first part of the first tab includes the first tab units, and that the second part of the first tab is connected to the adapting member (see instant specification: [0041, 0045]; Fig. 3). Accordingly, it appears that “a connection area” should be broadly interpreted to include the first and second parts of the first tab. The Examiner notes that this limitation is met regardless of which interpretation is applied to the adapting member (see rejection of Claim 1, above).
Claim(s) 6-7 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US-20190207196-A1) as applied to Claims 1 and 18, above, and in view of Qui et al. (US-20190198909-A1).
Regarding Claims 6 and 19, Park renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including that a width of the first part of the first tab (reads on W) is equal to a width of the sealing member (reads on L) (see rejections of Claims 1 and 18, above). Park does not teach the distance between a side of the electrode assembly and a side of the packing bag (i.e. D), and therefore Park does not teach the claimed relationship between L, W and D.
Qui teaches a battery including a cell accommodated in a packing bag [0003-0004, 0007, 0038]. The packing bag includes a first packing portion and a second packing portion [0038]. The second packing portion is folded over and bonded to the first packing portion to secure the cell [0038-0040, 0047]. Qui teaches that the side seal (23, Fig. 5) includes a heat-seal zone with a width W1 and a non-sealed zone with a width W [0046]. The greater the width of the heat-sealed zone, the better the sealing effect and safety performance of the cell packaged by the packing bag is [0047]. However, the heat-seal zone cannot be too large due to the limitations of a thickness of the cell [0047]. Qiu also teaches that it is advantageous to achieve effective packaging [0043, 0052].
In seeking to achieve a balance between maximizing sealing effect and safety while taking into account the limitations of the cell thickness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have optimized the width of the heat-sealed zone (thereby inherently optimizing the width of the entire side seal), including selecting a width of the heat-sealed zone which results in a vertical distance (D) between a side of the electrode assembly and a side of the packing bag in a width direction which satisfies the relationship:
W
2
-
D
L
2
≥
1
as required by Claims 6 and 19 (MPEP 2144.05, II). Here, the first distance (D) is interpreted as a distance between a side of the electrode assembly the outer side of the packing bag in the width direction. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that selecting a first distance (D) that satisfies the claimed relationship between L, W, and D would result in a successful battery with sufficient sealing to ensure safety while taking into consideration the limitations of the thickness of the cell and preventing an excessively large side seal, which would decrease packing efficacy.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Park renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Park discloses that, in a length direction of the battery, the first tab is positioned coaxially with the sealing member (see annotation of Fig. 5b, below; [0021, 0023, 0037-0039]). This is interpreted as reading on the recited limitation of a first tab “coaxially disposed with the sealing member” as supported by the instant specification [instant specification: 0042-0043].
PNG
media_image11.png
358
443
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Park Fig. 5b.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US-20190207196-A1) as applied to Claim 1, above, and in view of Maeda et al. (US-20120028100-A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Park renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Park discloses that the electrode assembly comprises a second electrode plate (positive electrode 120b, Fig. 3) [0110-0112]. Park does not teach that the length of the first electrode plate exceeds the second electrode plate, and therefore Park does not disclose “a length of the first electrode plate exceeding the second electrode plate”, or the claimed relationship between “S”, “A”, and “P”.
Maeda teaches a similar stack-type electrode assembly including positive electrode plates and negative electrode plates [0013, 0016, 0037-0040, 0048-0049]. Maeda teaches that the area of the negative electrode plates is preferably larger than the area of the positive electrode plates [0025, 0051-0052] (see Figs. 3A-3B). In a specific example, Maeda teaches that both the width and the length of the negative electrode plate is larger than the width and length of the positive electrode plate [0051-0052]. By setting the area of the negative electrode plates to be larger, smooth charging and discharging and a higher volumetric energy density can be ensured [0025].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have set the area of the negative electrode plate (i.e. first electrode plate) of Park to be larger than the area of the positive electrode plate (i.e. second electrode plate) as taught by Maeda, with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful battery with smooth charging and discharging and high volumetric energy density. By setting the area (i.e. width and length) of the first electrode plate to be greater than the area of the second electrode plate, modified Park thereby renders obvious that the length of the first electrode plate exceeds a length of the second electrode plate.
Although modified Park does not explicitly teach “S + A ≥ P” wherein “a vertical distance between the first electrode plate and the packing bag is a second distance P, a vertical distance between the sealing member and the first electrode plate is a third distance S, a length of the first electrode plate exceeding the second electrode plate is the distance A”, the limitation “a vertical distance between the first electrode and the packing bag” is broadly and reasonably interpreted as any vertical distance (P) between the first electrode plate and the packing bag, and the limitation “a vertical distance between the sealing member and the first electrode plate” is broadly and reasonably interpreted as any vertical distance (S) between the first electrode plate and the sealing member. Park discloses that the packing bag has a curved surface, and therefore Park discloses a configuration wherein S (i.e. the vertical distance between the first electrode and the end of the sealing member) is larger than P (i.e. the vertical distance between the first electrode and a portion of the packing bag) see annotation of Park Fig. 3, below), and therefore Park renders obvious the claimed relationship “S + A ≥ P”.
PNG
media_image12.png
341
809
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Annotation of a portion of Park Fig. 3.
Assuming, arguendo, that Applicant is able to persuasively argue or show by means of evidence that Park does not disclose with sufficient specificity a configuration wherein S is larger than P, thereby satisfying the claimed relationship “S + A ≥ P”, such a configuration would still have been obvious in light of the teachings of Maeda.
Maeda teaches that it is desirable to utilize space effectively in order to secure volumetric energy density [0015-0017]. Maeda teaches that the area of the negative electrode plate is larger than the area of the positive electrode plate such that the intervening separator can be set to an equal size as the negative electrode plate, thereby securing high volumetric energy density [0015, 0025]. Maeda also teaches that a short circuit can occur when contact between the positive electrode plate and negative electrode plate occurs [0004-0005, 0012].
Therefore, in seeking to maximize volumetric energy density while preventing a short circuit, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have optimized the length (“A”) of the first electrode plate (negative electrode plate) exceeding the second electrode plate (positive electrode plate), including selecting a length (“A”) which satisfies the claimed relationship “S + A ≥ P” (MPEP 2144.05, II). If the length (“A”) is too short, a short circuit could occur. If the length (“A”) is too large, the space is not used efficiently, and volumetric energy density decreases.
Regarding Claim 11, modified Park renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth, above. Park does not teach specific values for the distances “P”, “S”, or “A”.
Maeda teaches that it is desirable to utilize space effectively in order to secure volumetric energy density [0015-0017]. Maeda teaches that the area of the negative electrode plate is larger than the area of the positive electrode plate such that the intervening separator can be set to an equal size as the negative electrode plate, thereby securing high volumetric energy density [0015, 0025]. Maeda also teaches that a short circuit can occur when contact between the positive electrode plate and negative electrode plate occurs [0004-0005, 0012].
Therefore, in seeking to maximize volumetric energy density while preventing a short circuit, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have optimized the length (“A”) of the first electrode plate (negative electrode plate) exceeding the second electrode plate (positive electrode plate), including selecting a length (“A”) which is within the claimed range of “0.1 mm to 1.2 mm” as required by Claim 11 (MPEP 2144.05, II). If the length (“A”) is too short, a short circuit could occur. If the length (“A”) is too large, the space is not used efficiently, and volumetric energy density decreases.
Maeda further teaches that it is desirable to effectively use extra space in the vicinity of the collector tabs in the battery cell in order to prevent volumetric energy density from being decreased [0015-0017, 0025]. The battery is also designed in view of preventing a short circuit [0004-0005, 0012]. The extra space between the vicinity of the collector tabs includes the positioning of the packing case and sealing member in relation to the electrode assembly. If too much extra space exists within the battery, the volumetric energy density is reduced. However, if the components are packed together too closely, a short circuit can occur.
Therefore, although Park does not teach “wherein a value range of the second distance P is from 1.0 mm to 3.8 mm, a value range of the third distance S is from 1.0 mm to 4.3 mm”, in view of decreasing the extra space to maximize energy density while allowing sufficient extra space to prevent a short circuit, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have optimized the value of the second distance (“P”) and the value of the third distance (“S”), including selecting “a value range of the second distance P is from 1.0 mm to 3.8 mm, a value range of the third distance S is from 1.0 mm to 4.3 mm” in order to achieve a balance between volumetric energy density and safety (MPEP 2144.05, II).
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US-20190207196-A1) as applied to Claim 1, above, and in view of Han et al. (US-20200075921-A1).
Regarding Claims 13-14, Park renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Park discloses that the first tab (i.e. the combination of the negative electrode tab 122 and the first electrode lead 125a) is disposed in the packing bag such that a portion of the first tab (i.e. a portion of the negative electrode tab 122) is bent (see Fig. 3).
Assuming, arguendo, that Park does not disclose with sufficient specificity that the first tab is disposed in the packing bag in a “bending state”, Han teaches that including a bending portion (51a, Fig. 3) in the first electrode tab allows for bending stress to be dispersed [0030-0034]. The bent portion may be in the shape of an “A” (see 51a in Fig. 3). Accordingly, the resulting battery is prevented from being damaged, thereby improving durability [0005, 0008, 0050].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included an A-shaped bent portion as taught by Han in the first tab of Park with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful first tab capable of dispersing stress and preventing the battery from being damaged. By including an A-shaped bent portion, modified Park thereby renders obvious that the first tab is disposed in the packaging bag in “a bending state” as required by Claim 13, and that the bending state of the first tab comprises a V-type (corresponds to A-shape of modified Park) as required by Claim 14.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US-20190207196-A1) in view of Han et al. (US-20200075921-A1) as applied to Claim 13, above, and in further view of Makino et al. (US-20120121965-A1).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Park renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including that the first tab includes an A-shaped bent portion (see 103 rejection of Claim 13, above). Modified Park does not teach that the battery comprises an insulation member disposed between a body portion of the electrode assembly and the first tab in a bending state.
Makino teaches a similar secondary battery wherein the electrode tab (corresponds to first tab of modified Park) is bent within the packaging bag in a U-shape (see Figs. 14A-14E; [0103-0105, 0155]). Makino further teaches that an insulator (11, Fig. 14E; reads on insulation member) is interposed between the battery device (2, Fig. 14E) and the electrode tab [0119, 0160]. Advantageously, Makino teaches that such a configuration makes is possible to prevent a short circuit between the battery device and the electrode tab [0119, 0122-0123].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided an insulation member as taught by Makino in the battery of modified Park such that the insulation member is disposed between a body portion of the electrode assembly and the first tab in a bending state with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful battery capable of preventing a short circuit.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/11/2026 have been fully considered. In regards to Applicant’s arguments regarding the drawings (Pg. 8), the arguments are found persuasive, and the previous objection to the drawings is withdrawn. Accordingly, as confirmed by the Applicant, the interpretation of the “orthogonal projection” applied in the Claim Interpretation (see above), is relevant and applies to the currently presented claims.
Applicant has argued (Pgs. 9-10) that the amended claims require a two part structure to the first tab, and require a width of the first part of the first tab to be greater than or equal to a width of the sealing member. Applicant has argued (Pg. 10) that Park requires a connection layer 126, and that “when considering this structure in the context of first negative electrode lead 125a, Park teaches away from having a width of the first part of the first tab that is greater than or equal to a width of the sealing member”. Instead, Applicant has argued (Pg. 10), that Park’s three-part structure would result in a width that is less than a width of the sealing member.
The Examiner has carefully considered this argument, but respectfully does not find it persuasive. The Examiner notes that Park discloses an embodiment wherein a width of the second part of the first tab is equal to a width of the sealing member (Fig. 5B; [0026]), and Park discloses an embodiment (Fig. 4), wherein a width of the first part of the first tab is equal to the width of the second part of the first tab (see annotation of Park Fig. 4, below).
PNG
media_image6.png
672
810
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotation of a portion of Park Fig. 4
Therefore, although Park does not teach the width of the first part in the embodiment depicted in Fig. 5B, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have formed the width of the first part and the second part to be equal in the embodiment depicted in Fig. 5B, thereby rendering obvious widths which of both the first part and the second part which are equal to a width of the sealing member. The Examiner notes that this reasoning was previously used to reject previously presented Claim 2. Since this portion of Claim 2 has been incorporated into Claim 1, the rejection is now presented in regards to Claim 1. Applicant has not pointed out a specific error with this rejection, and thus the rejection is maintained.
It is not clear how the presence of connection layer 126 teaches away from having a width of the first part of the first tab that is greater than or equal to a width of the sealing member, as submitted by the Applicant. Further clarification is requested.
Applicant has argued (Pg. 10) that Claim 1 requires a first end of the adapting member to be directly connected to the first tab, and that Park discloses an intervening connection layer 126. Accordingly, Applicant submits that Park teaches away from a direction connection.
The Examiner has carefully considered this argument, but respectfully does not find it persuasive. The Examiner notes that the instant specification indicates that “conductive adhesive bonding” is a form of an “electrical connection manner” [instant specification: 0041]. Park discloses that the connection layer is “an adhesive layer made of a conductive polymer” [Park: 0019]. Therefore, as laid out above (see rejection of Claims 1 and 18), under a first interpretation of the adapting member, the first tab (i.e. the first negative electrode lead 125a of the first tab) and the adapting member (i.e. second negative electrode lead 125b) can be interpreted as being directly connected, since the connection layer can be broadly and reasonably interpreted as constituting an adhesive layer which is used to form the direct electrical connection.
Additionally, under a second interpretation of the adapting member (see rejection of Claims 1 and 18, above), the connection layer can be interpreted as forming a part of the adapting member, and therefore directly connects to the first tab.
Applicant has argued the following (Pg. 10):
Claim 1, as amended, recites: "the first tab includes a first part and a second part electrically connected to the first part, in a width direction of the battery, a width of the first part is greater than or equal to a width of the sealing member; and in a length direction of the battery, at least one first electrode plate exceeds the second electrode plate by a distance A to prevent the sealing member from contacting the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate simultaneously" (emphasis added by Examiner).
The Examiner notes that the limitation “and in a length direction of the battery, at least one first electrode plate exceeds the second electrode plate by a distance A to prevent the sealing member from contacting the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate simultaneously” is not found in either of Claims 1 and 18. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments (Pgs. 10-11) regarding this limitation is not commensurate with the scope of the claims, and is therefore moot.
Applicant has argued (Pg. 11) the combination of Park with Maeda. Since these arguments appear to apply to Claims 10 and 11, the Examiner has addressed them, below.
Regarding the argument (Pg. 11) that the instant application provides a larger first electrode plate for a different reason (safety) than the prior art Maeda (which uses electrochemistry), the Examiner respectfully does not find this argument convincing. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. MPEP 2145, II.
Regarding the argument (Pg. 11) that the combination of Park’s lead width and Maeda’s plate sizing to solve mechanical piercing problems is based on hindsight, the Examiner notes that it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. Here, the Examiner notes that Madea teaches an advantage to setting the area of the negative electrode plate to be larger than the positive electrode plate (i.e. to achieve smooth charging and discharging and a higher volumetric energy density can be ensured [Maeda: 0025]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious, when considering the secondary battery and electronic device of Park [Park: 0098-0099], to have formed the negative electrode plate to be larger than the positive electrode plate in order to achieve smooth charge / discharge and a higher volumetric energy density. Accordingly, the reconstruction of the claim limitations based on knowledge available in the prior art is proper.
Applicant has argued (Pg. 11) that while Maeda teaches making one plate larger in a general sense, the present invention defines a specific, narrow range of 0.1 to 1.2 mm, which is not optimized for capacity (as in Maeda), but is specifically calibrated to act as a clearance gap for the sealing member. The Examiner notes that, although the prior art uses optimization to arrive at the claimed range, the prior art need not provide the same motivation for selecting the amount by which the first plate exceeds the second plate. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious.
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 DREW C NEWMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9873. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1292. 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.
/D.C.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 5/1/2026
Prosecution Insights