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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-25 in the reply filed on 3/30/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant additionally elected species A, fig. 2-6 but did not specify the species election was with or without traverse. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the species election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Applicant urges that all of claims 1-25 read on species A. However, claims 4 and 11 clearly states the tabs are “bent”, which means these claims belong to non-elected species B. Hence in addition to group II, claims 26-29 being non-elected, claims 4, and 11-14 (claims 12-14 depend from claim 11). Claims 1-3, 5-10, and 15-25 are hereby examined in this office action.
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, 3, 5, 16, and 17 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 specifies that the solder penetrate “between adjacent electrode tabs” which is indefinite because claim 1 only specify the need for a singular electrode tab. This limitations seems like a passive recitation of multiple electrode tabs, which should be made explicit.
Claim 16 seems to be claiming something contrary to claim 15 from which is depends. In particular, claim 15 specifies that the electrode assembly of claim 1 is electrically connected to the battery can. Claim 16 then states the presence of a terminal electrically connected to the electrode assembly, but the terminal is insulated from the battery can.
Hence the sum of claim 15 and 16 state the electrode assembly is connected to the battery can, but somehow a terminal also electrically connected to the electrode assembly is insulated from the battery can. This only makes sense if the electrode assembly of claim 1 also contains an additional unspecified electrical connection not connected to the connection for claim 15 and it is this connection that the terminal is connected to (e.g. the electrode assembly contains cathode and anode connections and claim 15 is the cathode/anode connection while claim 16 is the anode/cathode connection). All this depends on reading structure into claim 1 that is never made explicit. All claim 1 specifies is an electrode assembly with a singular electrode tab and singular current collector plate. Claim 1 does not provide sufficient support the combination of claims 15 and 16 unless applicant specifies additional structure.
Claims 3, 5, and 17 are indefinite due to their dependence on an indefinite 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kusama et al (US 2013/0022849).
With respect to claim 1, Kusama discloses a sub cell comprising a jelly-roll electrode assembly (fig. 3) including an electrode tab (PX or NX). Kusama further discloses a current collector plate (110 or 120) being electrically connected to the electrode tab where a solder (111 or 121) is interposed between the electrode tab and the current collector plate where the melting point of the solder is lower than that of either the electrode tab or the current collector plate. See fig. 6 and par. 0075-0082.
With respect to claim 9, Kusama discloses that the electrode assembly comprises first and second electrodes (N,P) and a separator (S,T) interposed therebetween which are wound in one direction. Kusama further discloses the first and second electrodes include non-coated regions (N2, P2) which do not overlap the separator. See fig. 4 and par. 0066-0069. With respect to N2 and P2 being first and second non-coated regions, the claims currently don’t specify any distinction between the first and second non-coated regions, so the outermost half of N2, P2 can be construed as the first non-coated regions whereas the half of N2, P2 closest to the separator can be construed as the second non-coated regions.
Alternatively, N2 and P2 can be construed as the second non-coated regions and NX and PX can be construed as the first non-coated regions.
With respect to claim 10, either interpretation of the first coated regions in claim 9 can be construed as being an electrode tab.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 15, 16, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusama in view of JP 2013004430 (hereafter “JP ‘430”).
With respect to claim 2, Kusama set forth all the limitations of the claim, but did not explicitly disclose that the solder penetrates between adjacent electrode tabs. It is noted that fig. 6 of Kusama appears to exaggerate the spacing between lead portions (see fig. 3 where the electrode tab is shown being tightly wound. JP ‘430 (which has overlapping inventorship with Kusama) teaches an analogous manner of connecting electrode tabs to the current collector. In particular both references teach the current collector plate have holes or slits in it where the connections can be made (compare fig. 2 and par. 0063 of Kusama with fig. 6 and par. 0031 of JP ‘430). However, JP ‘430 shows that the electrode tabs 31 are densely packed and when they are brazed/soldered to the current collector plate 10, the brazing/soldering material (BR) in part partially penetrates in between the electrode tabs. See fig. 7. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to utilize this penetration of JP ‘430 for the electrode assembly of Kusama because this penetration would provide additional adherence of the electrode tabs to the current collector plate and thereby greater connection stability.
With respect to claim 3, the penetration distance in fig. 7 of JP ‘430 is clearly shorter than the entire extension length of the tab.
With respect to claim 15, Kusama set forth a cylindrical secondary battery comprising the sub cell of claim 1 as well as a battery can 101 configured to accommodate the sub cell through an open portion. See fig. 1 and par. 0059. Kusama does not appear to explicitly disclose that a lower portion of electrode assembly 60 (equivalent to the lower portion of Kusama) is connected to the battery can. JP ‘430 makes said structure explicit (fig. 2 and par. 0023-0028). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to utilize the teaching of JP ‘430 for the cylindrical secondary battery of Kusama because it is entirely conventional in the art to utilize the battery can as one of the leads of the battery.
With respect to claim 16, JP ‘430 teaches that the top connection is insulated from the battery can (par. 0089).
With respect to claim 18, JP ‘430 has a cap 82 sealing the open portion.
With respect to claim 19, the polarity at the cap plate is entirely a function of what potential the top plate is exposed to. If it were exposed to a ground potential, then that cap plate would have no polarity.
Claim(s) 6-8 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusama in view of Brodd et al (US 2007/0298317).
With respect to claim 6, Kusama set forth all the limitations of the claim but did not specify that the current collector plate include a plurality of spaced apart sub plates. Brodd teaches an alternate interface between the current collector plate and the electrode tabs where the collector plate (34, 42) comprises a plurality of spaced apart subplates extending radially from a center. See fig. 6 and par. 0137. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to utilize the connection scheme of Brodd for the sub cell of Kusama because the substitution of one known connection means for another requires only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claim 7, the radial wings of Brodd gradually decrease in width from an outer peripheral surface to the winding center of the electrode assembly. Compare fig. 6 of Brodd with fig. 7 of the present invention.
With respect to claim 8, Brodd teaches a current collector plate embodiment where the lower surface is coated with a soldering material 58. See fig. 4 and 5 and par. 0135 and 0136. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to combine the embodiments of fig. 4 and 5 with that of fig. 6 as the plurality of bent portions 62 of fig. 6 would then sweep as many tabs as possible into the solder. Such a combination of these two embodiments would result in the solder 58 layer gradually decreasing in width from an outer peripheral surface to the winding center.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusama in view of JP ‘430 as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Mao et al (US 2010/0009253).
With respect to the claim, Kusama and JP ‘430 set forth all the limitations of the claim except the terminal for the rejection of claim 16 was not opposite the open portion of the battery can. The distinction here being the can of Kusama and JP ‘430 has its open portion at the top end of the can unlike the bottom end of the present invention. However Mao discloses that it also obvious to utilize an open end at the bottom of the battery can as well which accommodates additional structure such as different claddings and pressure releasing structures (fig. 1 and 2 and par. 0037). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to utilize an open bottom as set forth by Mao for the battery can of Kusama and JP ‘430 in order to facilitate additional features at the bottom of the battery can. If the bottom of the battery can could be considered an open portion, then the terminal discussed in the rejection of claim 17 is thereby open to the open portion of the battery can.
Claim(s) 20-22 and 25 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusama in view of JP ‘430 as applied to claim 15, and in further view of JP 10112330 (hereafter “JP ‘330”).
With respect to claim 20, Kusama and JP ‘430 sets forth all the limitations of the claim, but did not explicitly recite a battery pack of these cylindrical cells. JP ‘330 teaches an analogous cylindrical cell D and teaches it is conventional to place a plurality of these cells into a pack housing 33 to accommodate them. See fig. 9 and par. 0020 and 0021. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to utilize the teaching of JP ‘330 for the cylindrical cell of Kusama and JP ‘430 in order to construct power devices having current and voltage needs greater than that of any single cylindrical cell.
With respect to claim 21, see the discussion of claim 16 above.
With respect to claim 22, JP ‘330 shows each of the batterie’s closed portions as well as the terminals connected to those batteries are in the same direction (fig. 9(B)). Even though it appears half of the batteries are oriented anti-parallel, the system still has a plurality (half) of batteries and the terminals for those batteries disposed in the same direction.
With respect to claim 25, see Kusama fig. 11.
Claim(s) 23 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusama in view of JP ‘430 and JP ‘330 as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Sim et al (US 2017/0062789).
With respect to claim 23, Kusama in view of JP ‘430 and JP ‘330 set forth all the limitations and JP ‘330 shows in fig. 9 and 10 structure that appears to connect a plurality of batteries together in series. However, the reference did not explicitly disclose the use of bus bars to connect a plurality of batteries in series and in parallel. However, that is well known in the art to use bus bars to connect batteries both in series and in parallel as demonstrated by Sim where bus bars (210, 220, 230) are connecting both in series and in parallel to the plurality of cells (see fig. 2 and par. 0009-0011). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to utilize the teaching of Sim for the battery pack of Kusama, JP ‘430, and JP ‘430 as this configuration allows both voltage and current capacity for the battery pack to be increased.
With respect to claim 24, it is initially noted that finding the precise combination of terminals that provide and parallel and serial configuration of batteries for the battery pack requires only routine skill in the art. However, it is noted that Sim teaches the use of bus bar 210 that have a body portion 211 with first and second sets of terminals (216, 217) that extend off of first and second sides of the body portion. See fig. 5 and 6 and par. 0057.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 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 prior art does not disclose nor render obvious all the cumulative limitations of claims 1-3 with the further limitation that the penetration distance of the solder between adjacent electrode tabs gradually decreases from an outer peripheral to a winding center. Fig. 7 of JP ‘430 appears to show the penetration distance is either constant or would be more or less randomly varying depending on how much each electrode tab happens to penetrate.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Li et al (US 2020/0373546) teaches the use of electrode tabs with gradual changes in height (fig. 1 and 5).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAJ K OLSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1344. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8 AM - 5 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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights