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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant noted the DE Office Action listed under NPL Documents was not initialized or crossed out on the List of References Cited by Applicant and Considered by Examiner mailed 04/09/2026. Appropriate action has been taken and the DE Office Action has been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 10, “a plurality of negative tab” should read “a plurality of negative tabs”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okabe et al. (WO 2022163061 A1) in view of Zeng (CN 217444585 U). It is noted that the disclosures of Okabe et al. are based on a machine translation of the reference included with this action while the disclosures of Zeng are based on a machine translation of the reference included in the office action mailed 4/9/2026.
Regarding claim 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
470
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 of Okabe
PNG
media_image2.png
678
547
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Table 1 of Okabe
PNG
media_image3.png
495
938
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 of Zeng
Okabe et al. teaches in Figure 2 above, an electrode body 13 (0028), i.e. cell body, and a length of the cell body L is in a first direction and a width of the tab M is in the same direction as a length of the cell body.
Okabe et al. also teaches in Figure 2 above, a second direction, i.e. thickness H of the electrode body (0024).
Okabe et al. also teaches in Table 1 (translations provided by Google) above, in the electrode body, the ratio of the dimension in the first direction to the second direction is 1.45 or more (0011, 0051), i.e. the length L and the thickness H satisfy the following relational expression: L/H>7. Specifically, Okabe et al. teaches in Table 1 that Examples 6-8 satisfy L/H>7.
Okabe et al. also teaches in Figure 2 above, a positive electrode terminal, i.e. tab 11, 12, is connected to the cell body and is led out from the cell body (0025).
Okabe et al. also teaches the tabs for the positive and negative electrode terminals have a width M in the first direction of 13.1 mm (0052). Given the electrode body lengths in the first direction in Table 1, all lengths are >5M (>65.5 mm), meeting the claimed relational expression.
Further, Okabe et al., teaches an energy storage element 1 is a battery cell such as a lithium-ion secondary battery (0026) and the energy storage element 1 is constructed by housing a flat-shaped wound electrode body 13 in a hollow rectangular parallelepiped container 14 (0027), i.e. a housing accommodating the cell.
However, Okabe et al. does not teach a plurality of tabs, and the plurality of tabs comprise a plurality of positive tabs and a plurality of negative tab; the plurality of positive tabs and the plurality of negative tabs are arranged at intervals along a length direction of the cell body.
Zeng teaches in Figure 2 above, a plurality of positive electrode tabs 112, 1121, 113, are spaced apart from each other along the length direction of the positive electrode sheet 11 and a plurality of negative electrode tabs 122, 1221, 123, are also spaced apart from each other along the length direction of the negative electrode sheet 12 (n0006).
Zeng also teaches that by disposing a plurality of positive tabs and a plurality of negative tabs respectively in the length direction of the positive electrode sheet and the negative electrode sheet, the path through which current flows when being led out from the positive tab and the negative tab can be significantly reduced, and the internal resistance and the heat generation of the battery cell are reduced (n0006).
In light of the motivation for disposing a plurality of positive tabs and a plurality of negative tabs respectively in the length direction of the positive electrode sheet and the negative electrode sheet disclosed by Zeng et al. as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dispose a plurality of positive tabs and a plurality of negative tabs respectively in the length direction of the positive electrode sheet and the negative electrode sheet on the electrode body of Okabe et al. in order to cause the path through which current flows when being led out from the positive tab and the negative tab to be significantly reduced, and the internal resistance and the heat generation of the battery cell are reduced.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okabe et al. (WO 2022163061 A1) in view of Xin et al. (CN 216958425 U). It is noted that the disclosures of Xin et al. are based on a machine translation of the reference included with this action.
Regarding claim 1:
Okabe et al. teaches a cell as set forth above.
However, Okabe et al. does not teach a plurality of tabs, and the plurality of tabs comprise a plurality of positive tabs and a plurality of negative tabs, wherein the plurality of positive tabs and the plurality of negative tabs are arranged at intervals along a length direction of the cell body;
Xin et al. teaches that the positive electrode tabs and the negative electrode tabs arranged on the same side of the battery are arranged at intervals along the length direction of the long side of the battery surface (n0037).
PNG
media_image4.png
1017
1884
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Xin et al.
Xin et al. also teaches that by arranging at least three pole-tabs on the battery side of the battery body, after increasing the number of pole-tabs, the maximum distance between the current collector and the pole-tab can be reduced, thereby shortening the conduction of electrons distance, reduce internal resistance, and can reduce battery heating and improve operating safety (n0018).
In light of the motivation for arranging at least three pole-tabs on the battery side of the battery body disclosed by Xin et al. as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange at least three pole-tabs on the battery side of the electrode body of Okabe et al. in order to cause the maximum distance between the current collector and the pole-tab can be reduced, thereby shortening the conduction of electrons distance, reduce internal resistance, and can reduce battery heating and improve operating safety.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/9/2026 have been fully considered but, with the exception of arguments relating to Jung et al. (US 9590224 B2), Mei et al. (Numerical Study on Tab Dimension Optimization of lithium-ion battery from the Thermal Safety Perspective), and Oh et al. (JP 5704358 B2), they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the battery in Zeng is a cylindrical battery, whereas the battery in the present application is a prismatic battery. As is known to a person skilled in the art, these belong to different battery types and cannot be compared; therefore, Zeng cannot be used for comparison with the present application.
However, nothing in the present claims requires a prismatic battery. Further, Zeng is only used as a teaching reference in order to teach a plurality of positive and negative tabs arranged at intervals along a length of the cell body. It is noted that the "test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art", In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,208 USPQ 871,881 (CCPA 1981) and that "combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures", In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USP 224, 226 (CCPA).
Applicant argues in the technical solution of the present application, since the cell body 10 is formed by stacking or winding, its positive tabs 21 and negative tabs 22 need to be connected to the positive electrode plates 11 and negative electrode plates 12 respectively, and cannot be alternately disposed along the length direction of the battery; instead, they can only be disposed in respective groups. That is to say, the battery type in Xin differs from that of the present application, and the two cannot be compared.
However, the present claims only broadly recite a cell or a secondary battery. Further, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., since the cell body 10 is formed by stacking or winding, its positive tabs 21 and negative tabs 22 need to be connected to the positive electrode plates 11 and negative electrode plates 12 respectively, and cannot be alternately disposed along the length direction of the battery; instead, they can only be disposed in respective groups) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Nothing in the present claims excludes the positive tabs and the negative tabs from being alternately disposed as disclosed by Xin et al.
Applicant argues the present application addresses severely uneven material utilization and localized aging by disposing multiple spaced-apart tabs along the length direction of the cell body and that the applied art does not disclose or suggest all the features and relationships of the present invention.
However, Okabe et al. in view of Zeng and Okabe et al. in view of Xin et al. meet all the limitations of the present claims. Further, the reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed.Cir. 2006); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662,1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Linter, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) (discussed below); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991).
It is noted that Applicant’s amendment overcomes the claim objections and 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection of record.
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 MADISON E. BROWN whose telephone number is (571)775-5984. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 5712721123. 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.
/MADISON ELIZABETH BROWN/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
/CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights