DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed May 13, 2024 has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Drawings
The drawings received June 7, 2023 are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: missing a word/phrase between “being formed” and “a cylinder” (line 1), as “being formed a cylinder” does not make grammatical sense. (Perhaps ‘being formed into a cylinder’ is meant.) Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: having the word “at” duplicated in line 5 (“at at least one”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: citing “a first electrode plate” (line 8) where claim 1, which claim 6 is dependent from already provides antecedent basis for this limitation. The definite article ‘the’ should be used. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: citing “a second electrode plate” (lines 8-9) where claim 1, which claim 6 is dependent from already provides antecedent basis for this limitation. The definite article ‘the’ should be used. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: citing “a plurality of tabs” (lines 2-3) where claim 1, which claim 7 is dependent from already provides antecedent basis for this limitation. The definite article ‘the’ should be used. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the cover plate assembly” (line 3) should be ‘the one cover plate assembly’ (as given antecedent basis in lines 1-2). Appropriate correction is required. (Note: This objection is made as best to Examiner’s understanding on the cover plate assembly. See the 112 rejection to claim 6 below regarding this issue, which is applicable to claim 7.)
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: citing “a plurality of tabs” (lines 3-4) where claim 1, which claim 7 is dependent from already provides antecedent basis for this limitation. The definite article ‘the’ should be used. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: citing “at two ends of the bare cell” (line 5) where line 2 already provides antecedent basis for this limitation. The definite article ‘the’ should added before the phrase. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the current collector assembly” (lines 2-3) should be ‘the one current collector assembly’ (as given antecedent basis in lines 1-2). Appropriate correction is required. (Note: This objection is made as best to Examiner’s understanding on the current collector assembly. See the 112 rejection to claim 6 below regarding this issue, which is applicable to claim 9.)
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: using the wrong form of verb attached to “a surface” (singular) (line 1) “extend” (line 2) and “protrude” (line 3), wherein ‘extends’ and ‘protrudes’ would be the correct form. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: citing “a cylinder” (line 5) where claim 1, which claim 19 is dependent from already provides antecedent basis for this limitation. The definite article ‘the’ should be used. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: citing “a cylinder” (line 5) where claim 1, which claim 19 is dependent from already provides antecedent basis for this limitation. The definite article ‘the’ should be used. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: citing “at least one die-cutting line” (line 7) where claim 1, which claim 19 is dependent from already provides antecedent basis for this limitation. The definite article ‘the’ should added before the phrase. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: citing “a plurality of sub-tabs” (line 5) where claim 1, which claim 19 is dependent from already provides antecedent basis for this limitation. The definite article ‘the’ should be used. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2, 5, and 6-19 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 2 recites “a first tab” (lines 1-2) and “a second tab” (line 2). However, claim 1, which claim 2 is dependent upon sets forth “a plurality of tabs” (claim 1, line 5). It is unsure what the relationship between the first tab and the second tab to the plurality of tabs (different structure, or part of the plurality of tabs, etc.). Thus the claim is unclear and indefinite. Since claims 3 and 5 are dependent upon claim 2, they are rejected for the same reason. (Note: Any subsequent citation of “the first tab” and “the second tab” would require correction in the same respective manner.)
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the thickness" in lines 2, 3 (two times). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites “a cover plate assembly” (singular) and further states “at least one cover plate assembly” (singular or plural) and “the cover plate assembly” (refers back to the singular) (lines 3-4). It is unsure how many cover plate assemblies are present, an if more than one, to what “the cover plate assembly” refers. Thus the claim language is unclear and indefinite. Since claims 7-18 are dependent upon claim 6, they are rejected for the same reason. (Note: Any subsequent citation of “the cover plate assembly” would require correction in the same respective manner.)
Claim 6 recites “a current collector assembly” (singular) and further states “at least one current collector assembly” (singular or plural) and “the current collector assembly” (refers back to the singular) (lines 6-7). It is unsure how many current collector assemblies are present, an if more than one, to what “the current collector assembly” refers. Thus the claim language is unclear and indefinite. Since claims 7-18 are dependent upon claim 6, they are rejected for the same reason. (Note: Any subsequent citation of “the current collector assembly” would require correction in the same respective manner.)
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the thickness" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the thickness" in lines 2, 3, and 4 (three times). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites “a tab” (line 2) (and further recitations of “the tab” throughout the claim). However, claim 1, which claim 19 is dependent from already sets forth aa plurality of tabs. It is unclear if/how this tab (singular) to the previously cited tabs, rendering the claim unclear and indefinite.
Claim 19 recites “an electrode plate” (line 3). However, claim 1, which claim 19 is dependent from recites a first electrode plate and a second electrode plate. Thus, it is unclear to what “an electrode plate” refers – is it related to the first electrode plate or the second electrode plate. If so, how? Alternately, is it its own structure?
Claim 19 recites “a plurality of tabs” (line 6). However, claim 19 sets forth “a tab” (line 2), and claim 1, which claim 19 is dependent from already sets forth aa plurality of tabs. Thus, it uncertain if these plurality of tabs are new tabs, related to the tables of claim 1, or the tab of claim 19. Thus, the claim language is unclear and indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 15-16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2024/0372153 (Chai et al.).
As to claim 1, Chai et al. teach a bare cell, being formed into a cylinder by stacking and winding a first electrode plate, a separator and a second electrode plate (positive electrode plate [10A], negative electrode plate [10B], and separator [10C] between), and the polarity of the first electrode plate is opposite to the polarity of the second electrode plate (positive and negative) (para 00005-0006; fig. 3), the cylinder has a radial direction and an axial direction (figs. 3, 6), at least one of the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate forms a plurality of tabs at least one end of the cylinder in the axial direction (fig. 6; tabs [20, 30]), the plurality of tabs are arranged in the axial direction (fig. 6), and each of the plurality of tabs is provided with at least one die-cutting line so that each of the plurality of tabs is formed with a plurality of sub-tabs (figs. 4-6; para 0048-0049), the plurality of tabs are bent and flattened in the radial direction (para 0025, 0027, and the plurality of sub-tabs of two adjacent tabs of the plurality of tabs are arranged in a staggered manner (para 0188-0190; fig. 16).
As to claim 2, Chai et al. teach the first electrode plate (positive plate [10A]) is provided with a first tab (collectively [20]), the second electrode plate (negative electrode plate [10B]) is provided with a second tab (collectively [30]), the first tab and the second tab are located at the same end of the cylinder, the first tab of the first electrode plate is located in a first area, the second tab of the second electrode plate is located in a second area, and a gap portion (indicated by insulating member [40]) is formed between the first area and the second area (figs.4-6).
As to claim 3, Chai et al. teach the first tab (collectively [20]) and the second tab (collectively [30]) are respectively inwards flattened in the radial direction of the bare cell, and are arranged in a stepped shape in the radial direction of the bare cell (fig. 6; para 0191 indicating flattening.
As to claim 4, Chai et al. teach wherein between any two adjacent tabs of the plurality of tabs, the layer of tab close to a circle center of the cylinder is below the layer of tab away from the circle center of the cylinder (flattened to overlap inwardly) (para 0080).
As to claim 6, Chai et al. teach a cylindrical battery, comprising:
a housing, at least one end of the housing is provided with an opening (para 0128);
a cover plate assembly, there is at least one cover plate assembly, and the cover plate assembly covers the opening and is connected to the housing in a sealed manner (end cover) (para 0128);
the bare cell according to claim 1 (set forth in the rejection to claim 1, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake), the bare cell is arranged inside the housing (para 0128); and
a current collector assembly (positive current collector plate [51, negative current collector plate [52]), there is at least one current collector assembly, and the current collector assembly is correspondingly arranged at one or two ends of the bare cell in an axial direction; a first electrode plate (positive plate [10A]) of the bare cell is provided with a first tab (collectively positive tabs [20]); and a second electrode plate (negative plate [10B]) of the bare cell is provided with a second tab (collectively second tabs [30]) (figs. 4-6, 14; para 0179).
As to claim 15, Chai et al. teach the first tab (collectively positive tabs [20]) is located in a first area, the second tab (collectively negative tabs [30]) is located in a second area, and an insulating part (insulating member [40]) is arranged between the first area and the second area (fig. 6).
As to claim 16, Chai et al. teach a gap portion is formed between the first area and the second area, the gap portion extends in the radial direction of the bare cell, and the insulating part (insulating member [40]) is arranged in the gap portion (fig. 6).
As to claim 19, Chai et al. teach an assembly method of the bare cell according to claim 1 (the rejection to the bare cell of claim 1 set forth in the rejection to claim 1, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake), comprising:
when die-cutting a tab, flattening the tab so that the tab is inclined to one side and forms an angle with an electrode plate (para 0014; para 0075, 0077); and
stacking and winding a first electrode plate, a separator and a second electrode plate to form a cylinder (positive plate [10A], separator [10C], negative plate [10B]) (para 0130; fig. 3),
bending and flattening the tab in a radial direction of the cylinder to form a plurality of tabs (fig. 6, tabs [20, 30]), and the plurality of tabs are arranged in an axial direction (fig. 6), each of the plurality of tabs is provided with at least one die-cutting line so that each of the plurality of tabs is formed with a plurality of sub-tabs (figs. 4-6; para 0048-0049), the plurality of tabs are bent and flattened in the radial direction (para 0025, 0027, and the plurality of sub-tabs of two adjacent tabs of the plurality of tabs are arranged in a staggered manner (para 0188-0190; fig. 16).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chai et al. The teachings of Chai et al. as set forth above and applicable herein are incorporated herein but are not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake.
As to claim 7, Chai et al. there is one cover assembly (cavity with an opening for a cover assembly) (para 0128), and the first tab (collectively [20]) and the second tab (collectively [30]) are located at the same end of the bare cell and are connected via a current collector assembly (positive current collecting plate [51] and negative current collecting plate [52]) (figs. 6, 14).
Thus, Chai et al. do not teach, that both the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate form a plurality of tabs close to one end of the cover plate assembly.
However, at the time the invention was made, there was a design need regarding providing a battery cell within a housing (para 0128). There are only two (a finite number) identified predictable potential solutions – that the tabs [20, 30] and associated collector assembly (of fig. 14) would be disposed at the bottom of the cavity or next to the end cover (para 0128), wherein one of ordinary skill in the art at the time would have pursued placing the tabs of (both the first electrode plate and second electrode plate) and collector assembly close to the cover assembly with a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have both the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate form a plurality of tabs close to one end of the cover plate assembly, as there is a design need regarding providing a battery cell within a housing, where only two (a finite number) identified predictable potential solutions – that the tabs and associated collector assembly would be disposed at the bottom of the cavity or next to the end cover; thus, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time would have pursued placing the tabs of (both the first electrode plate and second electrode plate) and collector assembly close to the cover assembly with a reasonable expectation of success. “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I).
As to claim 9, Chai et al. teach there is one current collector assembly, which is arranged at one end of the bare cell in the axial direction, the current collector assembly comprises a first conductive portion (positive current colleting plate [51]), a second conductive portion (negative current collecting plate [52]) and an insulating connection portion (insulating member [40]) arranged between the first conductive portion (positive current colleting plate [51]) and the second conductive portion (negative current collecting plate [52]), the first conductive portion (positive current collecting plate [51]) is connected to the first tab (collectively positive tabs [20]) , and the second conductive portion (negative current collecting plate [52]) is connected to the second tab (collectively negative tabs [30]).
Claim(s) 5, 8, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chai et al., as applied to claims 1 and 6 above), further in view of US 2021/0043915 (Mantoku et al.).
As to claim 5, Chai et al. do not teach the thickness of the first tab ranges from 0.2mm to 0.6mm; and/or the thickness of the second tab ranges from 0.2mm to 0.6mm.
However, Mantoku et al. teach of a tab ranging from 0.05-0.2 mm in one direction (para 0032) (overlaps claimed range, thus renders it obvious; see MPEP §2144.05(I)). Combining the thickness of a tab, as taught by Mantoku et al., as applied to the tabs of Chai et al. would yield the predictable result of providing an operable tab connection for a battery (tab element performing their functions). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to teach a tab ranging from 0.05-0.2 mm in one direction, as the combination would yield the predictable result of providing an operable tab connection for a battery (tab element performing their functions). “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I). Additionally, changes in size are not seen to be unobvious; see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
As to claim 8, Chai et al.’s structure has both the positive and negative tabs [20, 30]) on one side, and thus only one current collector assembly.
Thus, Chai et al. do not teach two current collector assemblies, which are respectively arranged at two ends of the bare cell in the axial direction, the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate respectively form a plurality of tabs at two ends of the bare cell in the axial direction, and the first tab and the second tab are located at two ends of the bare cell.
However, Mantoku et al. teach of an electrode assembly with electrode tabs on two ends of the bare cell in the axial direction, and the first tab and the second tab are located at two ends of the bare cell. opposing sides of the cell (connected to positive electrode tab [22] and negative electrode tab [21]). The substitution of having two current collector assemblies, which are respectively arranged at two ends of the bare cell in the axial direction, the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate respectively form a plurality of tabs at two ends of the bare cell in the axial direction, and the first tab and the second tab are located at two ends of the bare cell for one would yield the predictable result of providing an operable battery (as the substituted components and their functions were known in the art). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to substitute having two current collector assemblies, which are respectively arranged at two ends of the bare cell in the axial direction, the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate respectively form a plurality of tabs at two ends of the bare cell in the axial direction, and the first tab and the second tab are located at two ends of the bare cell for one would yield the predictable result of providing an operable battery (as the substituted components and their functions were known in the art, providing current conduction). “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I).
As to claim 18, Chai et al. do not teach the thickness of the first tab ranges from 0.2mm to 0.6mm; and/or the thickness of the second tab ranges from 0.2mm to 0.6mm; and/or the thickness of the current collector assembly ranges from 0.3mm to 0.5mm.
However, Mantoku et al. teach of a tab ranging from 0.05-0.2 mm in one direction (para 0032) (overlaps claimed range, thus renders it obvious; see MPEP §2144.05(I)). Combining the thickness of a tab, as taught by Mantoku et al., as applied to the tabs of Chai et al. would yield the predictable result of providing an operable tab connection for a battery (tab element performing their functions). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to teach a tab ranging from 0.05-0.2 mm in one direction, as the combination would yield the predictable result of providing an operable tab connection for a battery (tab element performing their functions). “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I). Additionally, changes in size are not seen to be unobvious; see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chai et al., as applied to claims 1, 6, and 15 above, further in view of US 2021/024549 (Zheng et al.).
As to claim 16, Chai et al. teach the insulating part (insulating member [40]) is a plastic block (para 0141) between the first area and the second area (fig. 6).
Chai et al. do not teach the insulating part is an insulating glue bonded between the first area and the second area.
However, Zheng et al. teach of insulating members including rubber strips (plastic block) and solid glue. The substitution of glue for a polymer block as the insulating member would yield the predictable result of providing an insulating member (as the substituted components and their functions were known in the art). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to substitute glue (bonded between the first area and the second area, as it would be placed therebetween) for the plastic block (between the two areas), as the substitution would yield the predictable result of proving insulating material (as the substituted components and their functions were known in the art). “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: none of the prior art of record, alone or in combination, appears to teach, suggest, or render obvious the invention of at least claim 10.
Claim 10 teaches the cylindrical battery comprising the elements therein. Notably, the claim requires “the first conductive portion and the second conductive portion both comprise a first annular plane, a second annular plane and an arc-shaped surface connected between the first annular plane and the second annular plane, the arc-shaped surface is inclined, and the orthographic projection of the first annular plane does not coincide with the orthographic projection of the second annular plane.”
Chai et al., relied upon above, teaches the first conductive portion [51] and the second conductive portion [52] as seen in fig. 14. Chai et al. does not teach and the second conductive portion both comprise a first annular plane, a second annular plane and an arc-shaped surface connected between the first annular plane and the second annular plane, the arc-shaped surface is inclined, and the orthographic projection of the first annular plane does not coincide with the orthographic projection of the second annular plane. No motivation exists to modify Chai et al. to arrive at the claimed invention. Thus, none of the prior art alone or in combination teaches, suggests, or renders obvious the claimed invention. Since claims 11-14 are dependent upon claim 1, they are allowable for the same reason.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2024/0396181 (Deng et al.) is the English equivalent of CN 113193165(A) cited on the IDS. The teaching includes a bare cell and angled tabs (figs. 5-6).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUGENIA WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4942. The examiner can normally be reached a flex schedule, generally Monday-Thursday 5:30 -7:30(AM) and 9:00-4:30 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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
/EUGENIA WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759