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.
Drawings
The drawings were received on June 15, 2023 are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: using “a” with “electrode” (line 2), where ‘an’ should be used instead.. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: missing the indefinite article ‘a’ before “respective” (line 3). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: missing the indefinite article ‘a’ before “respective” (line 2). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: it recites “wherein end of each of the plurality tabs” (line 1). The wording is awkward. (Is ‘one’ missing between “wherein” and “end”?) 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 1-20 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 1 recites the limitation "the extending direction" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Since claims 2-20 are dependent upon claim 1, they are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the arrangement direction" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Since claims 2-20 are dependent upon claim 1, they are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 2 recites “the arrangement directions” (line 2). It is unsure what this term refers to (as a singular is set forth in an indefinite manner; claim 1). Thus it is unsure what the plural directions refer to, rendering the claim unclear and indefinite. Since claims 11 and 13 are dependent upon claim 2, they are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 3 recites “there are multiple gap areas” (lines 1-2). However, ‘a gap area’ is set forth in independent claim 1. It is unsure the relationship between the gap areas and multiple gap areas (same, included, different, etc.). Thus, the claim language is unclear and indefinite. Since claims 6-7 and 12 are dependent upon claim 3, they are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the width of each of the multiple gap areas" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Since claims 6-7 and 12 are dependent upon claim 3, they are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the widths of adjacent tabs" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Since claims 6-7 and 12 are dependent upon claim 3, they are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 4 recites “the plurality of sub-tabs” (lines 2-4, multiple times). However, it is uncertain which sub-tabs are referred to, as independent claim 1 sets forth that each of the plurality of tabs has sub-tabs. Thus, the claim is unclear and indefinite. Since claim 5 is dependent on claim 4, it is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 5 recites “the plurality of sub-tabs” (line 1). However, it is uncertain which sub-tabs are referred to, as independent claim 1 sets forth that each of the plurality of tabs has sub-tabs. Thus, the claim is unclear and indefinite.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the widths of a part of the plurality of tabs" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Since claim 7 is dependent upon claim 6, it is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the equal width" (regarding sub-tabs) in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites “the plurality of sub-tabs” (lines 2-4, multiple times). However, it is uncertain which sub-tabs are referred to, as independent claim 1 sets forth that each of the plurality of tabs has sub-tabs. Thus, the claim is unclear and indefinite.
Claim 12 recites “the plurality of sub-tabs” (lines 2-4, multiple times). However, it is uncertain which sub-tabs are referred to, as independent claim 1 sets forth that each of the plurality of tabs has sub-tabs. Thus, the claim is unclear and indefinite.
Claim 14 recites “the arrangement directions” (line 2). It is unsure what this term refers to (as a singular is set forth in an indefinite manner; claim 1). Thus it is unsure what the plural directions refer to, rendering the claim unclear and indefinite.
Claim 15 recites “there are multiple gap areas” (line 1). However, ‘a gap area’ is set forth in independent claim 1. It is unsure the relationship between the gap areas and multiple gap areas (same, included, different, etc.). Thus, the claim language is unclear and indefinite. Since claims18-19 are dependent upon claim 15, they are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the width of each of the multiple gap areas" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Since claims18-19 are dependent upon claim 15, they are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the widths of adjacent tabs" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Since claims18-19 are dependent upon claim 15, they are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 16 recites “the plurality of sub-tabs” (lines 2-4, multiple times). However, it is uncertain which sub-tabs are referred to, as independent claim 1 sets forth that each of the plurality of tabs has sub-tabs. Thus, the claim is unclear and indefinite. Since claim 17 is dependent on claim 16, it is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 17 recites “the plurality of sub-tabs” (line 1). However, it is uncertain which sub-tabs are referred to, as independent claim 1 sets forth that each of the plurality of tabs has sub-tabs. Thus, the claim is unclear and indefinite.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the widths of a part of the plurality of tabs" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Since claim 19 is dependent upon claim 18, it is rejected for the same reason.
Claim19 recites the limitation "the equal width" (regarding sub-tabs) in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 3, 6, 9-10, 15, 18 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 cylindrical battery electrode plate (figs. 3-5), comprising:
an electrode plate body (positive electrode plate [10A}) and a plurality of tabs (positive electrode tabs [20]) provided on one side of the electrode plate body, wherein a gap area is provided between adjacent tabs of the plurality of tabs (fig. 4);
each of the plurality of tabs has one or more slits respective extending along a surface thereof, and a starting end of each of the slits is provided at an end, away from the electrode plate body (seen in fig. 4 indicated by the segments; seen also in fig. 6);
the extending direction of each of the slits is arranged to form an included angle with the arrangement direction of the plurality of tabs (generally perpendicular, as seen in figs. 4, 6), and each of the plurality of tabs is divided into a plurality of sub-tabs by the slits (as seen in figs. 4, 6).
As to claim 3, Chai et al. teach wherein there are multiple gap areas, the width of each of the multiple gap areas is unequal, and the widths of adjacent tabs of the plurality of tabs are equal or unequal (see fig. 4, which shows measurements with respect to “b1”; see also winding effect in fig. 6).
As to claim 6, Chai et al. teach the widths of a part of the plurality of tabs provided along one side of the electrode plate body are equal (fig. 4 shows that some of the different tabs are equal).
As to claim 9, Chai et al. teach a cylindrical battery (fig. 6; title), comprising the cylindrical battery electrode plate according to claim 1 (see the rejection to claim 1 for details therein, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake).
As to claim 10, Chai et al. teach a plurality of positive tabs [20] and a plurality of negative tabs [30] of the cylindrical battery are located on a same side of the cylindrical battery (fig. 6; para 0133).
As to claim 15, Chai et al. teach wherein there are multiple gap areas, the width of each of the multiple gap areas is unequal, and the widths of adjacent tabs of the plurality of tabs are equal or unequal (see fig. 4, which shows measurements with respect to “b1”; see also winding effect in fig. 6).
As to claim 18, Chai et al. teach the widths of a part of the plurality of tabs provided along one side of the electrode plate body are equal (fig. 4 shows that some of the different tabs are equal).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 7 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chai et al. (The teachings of Chai et al., as set forth above and as applicable herein are incorporated herein but are not reiterated herein or brevity’s sake.)
As to claim 7, Chai et al. either (a) teaches in a same one of the plurality of tabs, each of the plurality of sub-tabs has the equal width, or (b) at the very least renders such a feature obvious.
Regarding (a): Equal sub-tabs can be seen in fig. 4, as compared to the given length of b1 (para 0134). Additionally figs. 6 and 10 show alignment of the tabs indicates that indicates each sub-tab segment is the same.
Regarding (b): If it is shown that in a same one of the plurality of tabs, each of the plurality of sub-tabs does not have an equal width, at the very least the limitation would be obvious over the teaching in fig. 4, as compared to a given length of b1 (para 0134). The proportion of the tabs shows that each sub-tab per tabs is approximately equal (and that adding a sub-tab lengthens a tab (para 0135), such any differences within the sub-tab length within a tab would be obvious. It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). Claims that differ from the prior art only by slightly different (non-overlapping) ranges are prima facie obvious without a showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art. (In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935,1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990)) Also see MPEP §2144.05(I).
As to claim 19, Chai et al. either (a) teaches in a same one of the plurality of tabs, each of the plurality of sub-tabs has the equal width, or (b) at the very least renders such a feature obvious.
Regarding (a): Equal sub-tabs can be seen in fig. 4, as compared to the given length of b1 (para 0134). Additionally figs. 6 and 10 show alignment of the tabs indicates that indicates each sub-tab segment is the same.
Regarding (b): If it is shown that in a same one of the plurality of tabs, each of the plurality of sub-tabs does not have an equal width, at the very least the limitation would be obvious over the teaching in fig. 4, as compared to a given length of b1 (para 0134). The proportion of the tabs shows that each sub-tab per tabs is approximately equal (and that adding a sub-tab lengthens a tab (para 0135), such any differences within the sub-tab length within a tab would be obvious. It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). Claims that differ from the prior art only by slightly different (non-overlapping) ranges are prima facie obvious without a showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art. (In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935,1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990)) Also see MPEP §2144.05(I).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 2, 4-5, 8, 11-14, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chai et al., as applied to claims 1, 3, and 9 above, further in view of US 2024/0222812 (Xu et al.).
As to claim 2, Chai et al. teach the extending directions of the slits are parallel to each other (wherein the slits generally provide the same sized sub-tab) (figs. 4, 6).
Chai et al. do not teach that the slits are obliquely arranged on the arrangement directions of respective one of the plurality of tabs.
However, Xu et al. teach of a tab [262] with a first part [2621] and a second part [2622], wherein the edges [26211, 26222] are obliquely arranged with respect to the direction of the tabs (an acute angle Ɵ2 smaller than Ɵ1 (70-90°) (para 0127-0128; figs. 8-9)). The motivation for having the tab structure of Xu et al. (obliquely arranged on the arrangement directions of respective one of the plurality of tabs – specifically an acute angle Ɵ2 smaller than Ɵ1 (70-90°)) is that such a shaping a generally regular deformation is formed, so that the shaping region becomes flat (para 0128). 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 tabs obliquely arranged on the arrangement directions of respective one of the plurality of tabs – specifically an acute angle Ɵ2 smaller than Ɵ1 (70-90°) – in order to provide a generally regular deformation, so that the shaping region becomes flat.
Accordingly, the teaching of the tab shape of Xu et al., as applied to Chai et al. would yield the claim limitation (the slits are obliquely arranged on the arrangement directions of respective one of the plurality of tabs), as Chai et al.’s teaching has the slits arranged to split the tabs into generally equal sub tabs (which would be applied to the oblique arrangement rendered obvious).
As to claim 4, Chai et al. the slits generally provide the same sized sub-tab (figs. 4, 6).
Chai et al. do not teach wherein one end of each of the plurality of tabs close to the electrode plate body has a stepped portion connected to the plurality of sub-tabs, the stepped portion is perpendicular to the electrode plate body, and a terminating end of each of the slits is located at an intersection of the plurality of sub-tabs and the stepped portion
However, Xu et al. teach of a tab [262] with a first part [2621] (stepped portion) and a second part [2622] (sub-tab), wherein Ɵ1 is 70-90° (one end of each of the plurality of tabs close to the electrode plate body has a stepped portion connected to a sub-tab, the stepped portion is perpendicular to the electrode plate body) and the second part [2622] has an acute angle Ɵ2 smaller that Ɵ1 (70-90°) (para 0127-0128; figs. 8-9)). The motivation for having the tab structure of Xu et al. (one end of each of the plurality of tabs close to the electrode plate body has a stepped portion connected to a sub-tab, the stepped portion is perpendicular to the electrode plate body, specifically having the second part [2622] having an acute angle Ɵ2 smaller that Ɵ1 (70-90°)) is to provide strong deformation resistance as well as for shaping a generally regular deformation is formed, so that the shaping region becomes flat (para 0127-0128). 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) one end of each of the plurality of tabs close to the electrode plate body has a stepped portion connected to a sub-tab, the stepped portion is perpendicular to the electrode plate body, specifically having the second part [2622] having an acute angle Ɵ2 smaller that Ɵ1 (70-90°) to provide strong deformation resistance as well as for shaping a generally regular deformation is formed, so that the shaping region becomes flat.
Accordingly, the teaching of the tab shape of Xu et al., as applied to Chai et al. would yield the claim limitation and a terminating end of each of the slits is located at an intersection of the plurality of sub-tabs and the stepped portion), as Chai et al.’s teaching has the slits arranged to split the tabs into generally equal sub tabs (and thus would stop at the stepped portion).
As to claim 5, the combination renders the limitation (wherein the plurality of sub-tabs are obliquely arranged on the stepped portion) obvious, as Chai et al. teach the slits generally provide the same sized sub-tab (figs. 4, 6), wherein this limitation is applied to the tab of Xu et al. wherein the “sub-tab” portion (second part [2622]) is obliquely arranged on the stepped portion (first part [2621]) (an acute angle Ɵ2 smaller that Ɵ1 (70-90°) (figs. 8-9; para 0127-0128). See the rejection to claim 4 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake.
As to claim 8, Chai et al. teach the extending directions of the slits are parallel to each other (wherein the slits generally provide the same sized sub-tab) (figs. 4, 6).
Chai et al. do not teach the included angle between the arrangement direction of the plurality of tabs and the extending direction of the slits 10-85°.
However, Xu et al. teach of a tab [262] with a first part [2621] and a second part [2622] (sub-tab), wherein Ɵ1 is 70-90° and the second part [2622] has an acute angle Ɵ2 smaller that Ɵ1 (70-90°) (para 0127-0128; figs. 8-9)). The motivation for having the tab structure of Xu et al. (specifically having the second part [2622] having an acute angle Ɵ2 smaller that Ɵ1 (70-90°) (overlaps an angel of 10-85°) is provide for a shape such that a generally regular deformation is formed, so that the shaping region becomes flat (para 0128). 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 tabs arranged at an acute angle Ɵ2 smaller than Ɵ1 (70-90°) (overlaps an angel of 10-85°) in order to provide a generally regular deformation, so that the shaping region becomes flat.
Accordingly, the teaching of the tab shape of Xu et al., as applied to Chai et al. would yield the claim limitation (the slits are at the same angle as Ɵ2), as Chai et al.’s teaching has the slits arranged to split the tabs into generally equal sub tabs (which would be applied to the angled tab, rendering the limitation obvious). Note: “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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(I).
As to claim 11, Chai et al. the slits generally provide the same sized sub-tab) (figs. 4, 6).
Chai et al. do not teach wherein one end of each of the plurality of tabs close to the electrode plate body has a stepped portion connected to the plurality of sub-tabs, the stepped portion is perpendicular to the electrode plate body, and a terminating end of each of the slits is located at an intersection of the plurality of sub-tabs and the stepped portion
However, Xu et al. teach of a tab [262] with a first part [2621] (stepped portion) and a second part [2622] (sub-tab), wherein Ɵ1 is 70-90° (one end of each of the plurality of tabs close to the electrode plate body has a stepped portion connected to a sub-tab, the stepped portion is perpendicular to the electrode plate body) and the second part [2622] has an acute angle Ɵ2 smaller that Ɵ1 (70-90°) (para 0127-0128; figs. 8-9)). The motivation for having the tab structure of Xu et al. (one end of each of the plurality of tabs close to the electrode plate body has a stepped portion connected to a sub-tab, the stepped portion is perpendicular to the electrode plate body, specifically having the second part [2622] having an acute angle Ɵ2 smaller that Ɵ1 (70-90°)) is to provide strong deformation resistance as well as for shaping a generally regular deformation is formed, so that the shaping region becomes flat (para 0127-0128). 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) one end of each of the plurality of tabs close to the electrode plate body has a stepped portion connected to a sub-tab, the stepped portion is perpendicular to the electrode plate body, specifically having the second part [2622] having an acute angle Ɵ2 smaller that Ɵ1 (70-90°) to provide strong deformation resistance as well as for shaping a generally regular deformation is formed, so that the shaping region becomes flat.
Accordingly, the teaching of the tab shape of Xu et al., as applied to Chai et al. would yield the claim limitation and a terminating end of each of the slits is located at an intersection of the plurality of sub-tabs and the stepped portion), as Chai et al.’s teaching has the slits arranged to split the tabs into generally equal sub tabs (and thus would stop at the stepped portion).
As to claim 12, Chai et al. the slits generally provide the same sized sub-tab) (figs. 4, 6).
Chai et al. do not teach wherein one end of each of the plurality of tabs close to the electrode plate body has a stepped portion connected to the plurality of sub-tabs, the stepped portion is perpendicular to the electrode plate body, and a terminating end of each of the slits is located at an intersection of the plurality of sub-tabs and the stepped portion
However, Xu et al. teach of a tab [262] with a first part [2621] (stepped portion) and a second part [2622] (sub-tab), wherein Ɵ1 is 70-90° (one end of each of the plurality of tabs close to the electrode plate body has a stepped portion connected to a sub-tab, the stepped portion is perpendicular to the electrode plate body) and the second part [2622] has an acute angle Ɵ2 smaller that Ɵ1 (70-90°) (para 0127-0128; figs. 8-9)). The motivation for having the tab structure of Xu et al. (one end of each of the plurality of tabs close to the electrode plate body has a stepped portion connected to a sub-tab, the stepped portion is perpendicular to the electrode plate body, specifically having the second part [2622] having an acute angle Ɵ2 smaller that Ɵ1 (70-90°)) is to provide strong deformation resistance as well as for shaping a generally regular deformation is formed, so that the shaping region becomes flat (para 0127-0128). 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) one end of each of the plurality of tabs close to the electrode plate body has a stepped portion connected to a sub-tab, the stepped portion is perpendicular to the electrode plate body, specifically having the second part [2622] having an acute angle Ɵ2 smaller that Ɵ1 (70-90°) to provide strong deformation resistance as well as for shaping a generally regular deformation is formed, so that the shaping region becomes flat.
Accordingly, the teaching of the tab shape of Xu et al., as applied to Chai et al. would yield the claim limitation and a terminating end of each of the slits is located at an intersection of the plurality of sub-tabs and the stepped portion), as Chai et al.’s teaching has the slits arranged to split the tabs into generally equal sub tabs (and thus would stop at the stepped portion).
As to claim 13, Chai et al. teach the extending directions of the slits are parallel to each other (wherein the slits generally provide the same sized sub-tab) (figs. 4, 6).
Chai et al. do not teach the included angle between the arrangement direction of the plurality of tabs and the extending direction of the slits 10-85°.
However, Xu et al. teach of a tab [262] with a first part [2621] and a second part [2622] (sub-tab), wherein Ɵ1 is 70-90° and the second part [2622] has an acute angle Ɵ2 smaller that Ɵ1 (70-90°) (para 0127-0128; figs. 8-9)). The motivation for having the tab structure of Xu et al. (specifically having the second part [2622] having an acute angle Ɵ2 smaller that Ɵ1 (70-90°) (overlaps an angel of 10-85°) is provide for a shape such that a generally regular deformation is formed, so that the shaping region becomes flat (para 0128). 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 tabs arranged at an acute angle Ɵ2 smaller than Ɵ1 (70-90°) (overlaps an angel of 10-85°) in order to provide a generally regular deformation, so that the shaping region becomes flat.
Accordingly, the teaching of the tab shape of Xu et al., as applied to Chai et al. would yield the claim limitation (the slits are at the same angle as Ɵ2), as Chai et al.’s teaching has the slits arranged to split the tabs into generally equal sub tabs (which would be applied to the angled tab, rendering the limitation obvious). Note: “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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(I).
As to claim 14, Chai et al. teach the extending directions of the slits are parallel to each other (wherein the slits generally provide the same sized sub-tab (figs. 4, 6).
Chai et al. do not teach that the slits are obliquely arranged on the arrangement directions of respective one of the plurality of tabs.
However, Xu et al. teach of a tab [262] with a first part [2621] and a second part [2622], wherein the edges [26211, 26222] are obliquely arranged with respect to the direction of the tabs (an acute angle Ɵ2 smaller than Ɵ1 (70-90°) (para 0127-0128; figs. 8-9)). The motivation for having the tab structure of Xu et al. (obliquely arranged on the arrangement directions of respective one of the plurality of tabs – specifically an acute angle Ɵ2 smaller than Ɵ1 (70-90°)) is that such a shaping a generally regular deformation is formed, so that the shaping region becomes flat (para 0128). 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 tabs obliquely arranged on the arrangement directions of respective one of the plurality of tabs – specifically an acute angle Ɵ2 smaller than Ɵ1 (70-90°) – in order to provide a generally regular deformation, so that the shaping region becomes flat.
Accordingly, the teaching of the tab shape of Xu et al., as applied to Chai et al. would yield the claim limitation (the slits are obliquely arranged on the arrangement directions of respective one of the plurality of tabs), as Chai et al.’s teaching has the slits arranged to split the tabs into generally equal sub tabs (which would be applied to the oblique arrangement rendered obvious).
As to claim 16, Chai et al. the slits generally provide the same sized sub-tab (figs. 4, 6).
Chai et al. do not teach wherein one end of each of the plurality of tabs close to the electrode plate body has a stepped portion connected to the plurality of sub-tabs, the stepped portion is perpendicular to the electrode plate body, and a terminating end of each of the slits is located at an intersection of the plurality of sub-tabs and the stepped portion
However, Xu et al. teach of a tab [262] with a first part [2621] (stepped portion) and a second part [2622] (sub-tab), wherein Ɵ1 is 70-90° (one end of each of the plurality of tabs close to the electrode plate body has a stepped portion connected to a sub-tab, the stepped portion is perpendicular to the electrode plate body) and the second part [2622] has an acute angle Ɵ2 smaller that Ɵ1 (70-90°) (para 0127-0128; figs. 8-9)). The motivation for having the tab structure of Xu et al. (one end of each of the plurality of tabs close to the electrode plate body has a stepped portion connected to a sub-tab, the stepped portion is perpendicular to the electrode plate body, specifically having the second part [2622] having an acute angle Ɵ2 smaller that Ɵ1 (70-90°)) is to provide strong deformation resistance as well as for shaping a generally regular deformation is formed, so that the shaping region becomes flat (para 0127-0128). 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) one end of each of the plurality of tabs close to the electrode plate body has a stepped portion connected to a sub-tab, the stepped portion is perpendicular to the electrode plate body, specifically having the second part [2622] having an acute angle Ɵ2 smaller that Ɵ1 (70-90°) to provide strong deformation resistance as well as for shaping a generally regular deformation is formed, so that the shaping region becomes flat.
Accordingly, the teaching of the tab shape of Xu et al., as applied to Chai et al. would yield the claim limitation and a terminating end of each of the slits is located at an intersection of the plurality of sub-tabs and the stepped portion), as Chai et al.’s teaching has the slits arranged to split the tabs into generally equal sub tabs (and thus would stop at the stepped portion).
As to claim 17, the combination renders the limitation (wherein the plurality of sub-tabs are obliquely arranged on the stepped portion) obvious, as Chai et al. teach the slits generally provide the same sized sub-tab (figs. 4, 6), wherein this limitation is applied to the tab of Xu et al. wherein the “sub-tab” portion (second part [2622]) is obliquely arranged on the stepped portion (first part [2621]) (an acute angle Ɵ2 smaller that Ɵ1 (70-90°) (figs. 8-9; para 0127-0128). See the rejection to claim 4 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake.
As to claim 20, Chai et al. teach the extending directions of the slits are parallel to each other (wherein the slits generally provide the same sized sub-tab) (figs. 4, 6).
Chai et al. do not teach the included angle between the arrangement direction of the plurality of tabs and the extending direction of the slits 10-85°.
However, Xu et al. teach of a tab [262] with a first part [2621] and a second part [2622] (sub-tab), wherein Ɵ1 is 70-90° and the second part [2622] has an acute angle Ɵ2 smaller that Ɵ1 (70-90°) (para 0127-0128; figs. 8-9)). The motivation for having the tab structure of Xu et al. (specifically having the second part [2622] having an acute angle Ɵ2 smaller that Ɵ1 (70-90°) (overlaps an angel of 10-85°) is provide for a shape such that a generally regular deformation is formed, so that the shaping region becomes flat (para 0128). 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 tabs arranged at an acute angle Ɵ2 smaller than Ɵ1 (70-90°) (overlaps an angel of 10-85°) in order to provide a generally regular deformation, so that the shaping region becomes flat.
Accordingly, the teaching of the tab shape of Xu et al., as applied to Chai et al. would yield the claim limitation (the slits are at the same angle as Ɵ2), as Chai et al.’s teaching has the slits arranged to split the tabs into generally equal sub tabs (which would be applied to the angled tab, rendering the limitation obvious). Note: “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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(I).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2022/0278431 (Park et al.) shows groups of slitted tabs (fig. 7a).
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