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 .
Claims 1-49 are pending in the application
Claims 1-25 and 39-49 were elected for examination after restriction requirement
Claims 26-38 are withdrawn in the application
Election/Restriction
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claim(s) 1-25 and 39-49, drawn to an electrode assembly and a battery containing the electrode assembly.
Group II, claim(s) 26-34, drawn to a method of making an electrode assembly.
Group III, claim(s) 35-38, drawn to an ultrasonic cutting device.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I-III lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of the electrode assembly of claim 1, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Otani et. al. (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2021/020237). For prior art discussion see English translations for WO-2021020237-A1
Otani teaches an electrode assembly comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a separator interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode ([0024] and fig. 2 ref. #21-23). The positive electrode, the negative electrode, and the separator are wound based on an axis to define a core and an outer circumference of the electrode assembly ([0022] and fig. 4A). At least one of the positive electrode and the negative electrode includes an uncoated portion provided at a long side end and exposed to the outside beyond the separator along an axial direction of the electrode assembly ([0023] and fig. 4 ref. #21C, 22C).
A winding turn region of the uncoated portion is provided at one end of the electrode assembly (fig. 4, see below). The winding turn region includes a cut portion (grooves) and a bent portion (portion without the grooves) alternately disposed along a circumferential direction of the electrode assembly ([0028], and fig.4, see below). An axial height of the cut portion is smaller than an axial height of the bent portion (as the flags overlap one another, the region must have a height larger than the cut portion), and the bent portion includes a plurality of uncoated portion flags arranged along a radial direction of the electrode assembly (fig. 7A and 7B, ref. #21C, 22C). The plurality of uncoated portion flags overlap along the axial direction to form define a bending surface region along the radial direction of the electrode assembly ([0050] and fig. 4C, see below).
PNG
media_image1.png
571
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
During a telephone conversation with James T. Eller Jr. on 02/18/2026 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of an electrode assembly and battery, claims 1-25 and 39-49. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 26-38 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “41” has been used to designate both the current collector and the uncoated portion, reference character “42” has been used to designate both the active material layer and the uncoated portion, and reference character “44” has been used to designate both the insulating coating layer and the negative electrode. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 152. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 32-34. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Reference number 44 is used to refer to both the insulating coating layer (page 23, paragraph 2, lines 1-2) and the negative electrode (page 26, paragraph 4, lines 1-2).
Reference number 41 refers to both the current collector (page 21, paragraph 6, line 1) and the uncoated portion (page 26, paragraph 2, line 2).
Reference number 42 refers to both the active material layer (page 21, paragraph 6, line 2) and the uncoated portion (page 26, paragraph 2, lines 3-4)
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are:
In Claim 39, the limitation “a sealing body configured to seal the open end of the battery housing.”
In Claim 42, the limitation “a bridge portion configured to connect the support portion and the connection portion.”
In Claim 43, the limitation “a cap configured to cover the open end of the battery housing”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 17, 39, 42 and 43 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 17 recites the limitation “a center of a virtual circle containing the arc” which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear if what is being referred to is the center of a circle in which a portion of the circumference of the circle is defined by the arc, or if the center of a virtual circle contains the arc, which would result in a circle with an unclear center and radius.
Claim limitation “a sealing body configured to seal the open end of the battery housing” in claim 39 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification states “the sealing body may include a cap configured to cover the open end of the battery housing and a sealing gasket interposed between the cap and the open end.” The phrase “may contain” is open ended and therefore does not clearly define what structure may be encompassed by the sealing body. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “a bridge portion configured to connect the support portion and the connection portion” in claim 42 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification states “The bridge portion 145d connects the inner surface of the hole (H2) and the outer surface of the connection portion 145c.” This states what the bridge portion does while not providing any structural clarity. No further structure is given for the bridge portion. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “a cap configured to cover the open end of the battery housing” in claim 43 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification states “the cap is made of a conductive metal material” and “The cap may include a venting portion” However, no structure is explicitly defined for the cap. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(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, 6-14, 20-25, 39, 43, and 47-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Otani et. al. (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2021/020237). For prior art discussion see English translations for WO-2021020237-A1
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Otani teaches an electrode assembly comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a separator interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode ([0024] and fig. 2 ref. #21-23). The positive electrode, the negative electrode, and the separator are wound based on an axis to define a core and an outer circumference of the electrode assembly ([0022] and fig. 4A). At least one of the positive electrode and the negative electrode includes an uncoated portion provided at a long side end and exposed to the outside beyond the separator along an axial direction of the electrode assembly ([0023] and fig. 4 ref. #21C, 22C).
A winding turn region of the uncoated portion is provided at one end of the electrode assembly (fig. 4, see below). The winding turn region includes a cut portion (grooves) and a bent portion (portion without the grooves) alternately disposed along a circumferential direction of the electrode assembly ([0028], and fig.4, see below). An axial height of the cut portion is smaller than an axial height of the bent portion (as the flags overlap one another, the region must have a height larger than the cut portion), and the bent portion includes a plurality of uncoated portion flags arranged along a radial direction of the electrode assembly (fig. 7A and 7B, ref. #21C, 22C). The plurality of uncoated portion flags overlap along the axial direction to form define a bending surface region along the radial direction of the electrode assembly ([0050] and fig. 4C, see below). The cut portion includes a first cut surface substantially perpendicular to the axial direction (the bottom portion of grooves ref. #43, [0050], and [0053], the grooves are made with a “jig” that has portions arranged perpendicular to the axial direction, resulting in a first cut surface that is perpendicular to the axial direction).
PNG
media_image1.png
571
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “the first cut surface is an ultrasonic cut surface” is a method limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the process produces unexpected results. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. MPEP 2113. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because Otani discloses grooves forming a first cut surface identical to the structure claimed.
Regarding claims 6-9, Otani also teaches the plurality of uncoated portion flags protrude from the first cut surface along the axial direction (fig. 4B). The plurality of uncoated portion flags are bent toward the core of the electrode assembly along a bending line spaced apart from the first cut surface to define the bending surface region ([0027], fig. 7A, represented best by the line AA’, and fig 4C, see above). The bending length of an uncoated portion flag of the plurality of uncoated portion flags closest to the core of the electrode assembly is less than or equal to a distance from a position of the uncoated portion flag closest to the core ([0055] and fig. 7B, the upper bending portion of the furthest left flag). The bending surface region has a height that is larger than the groove portion, as the overlapping flags may result in a larger height of the bending surface region ([0027]), therefore the first cut surface is spaced apart from the bending surface region.
Regarding claim 10, Otani also teaches the bent portion includes a second cut surface extending along a side of the plurality of uncoated portion flags (the side of the plurality of uncoated portion flags, fig. 4B).
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “the second cut surface is an ultrasonic cut surface” is a method limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the process produces unexpected results. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. MPEP 2113. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because Otani discloses grooves forming a second cut surface identical to the structure claimed.
Regarding claims 12-14, Otani also teaches the second cut surface is a flat surface that is parallel to the axial direction (fig. 4B, the side walls of the grooves, and [0053], the grooves are made with a “jig” that has portions arranged perpendicular to the axial direction, resulting in a second cut surface that is parallel to the axial direction). As the first cut surface is perpendicular to the axial direction, the first cut surface and the second cut surface intersect perpendicularly to each other (fig. 4B, the bottom and sides of the grooves).
Regarding claims 20-25, Otani also teaches widths of the plurality of uncoated portion flags in the circumferential direction gradually increasing from the core of the electrode assembly toward the outer circumference (fig. 7A, the widths of the portions tangential to the core ref. #26). The cut portion (grooves) includes first to nth cut portions, and wherein the first to nth cut portions extend radially based on a core center of the electrode assembly and are arranged rotationally symmetrically based on the core center of the electrode assembly ([0028], [0061], and figure 7A, ref. #43).
Otani also teaches bent portion includes first to nth bent portions, and wherein the first to nth bent portions extend radially based on a core center of the electrode assembly and are arranged rotationally symmetrically based on the core center of the electrode assembly (fig. 7A, portions between the grooves ref. #43A). The bending surface region includes a region in which three or more uncoated portion flags of the plurality of uncoated portions overlap along the axial direction (fig. 7B, ref. # 21C, #22C overlapping in groups of 3 or more).
Regarding claim 39, Ohtani also teaches a cylindrical battery (cylindrical lithium-ion battery, [0013]). The cylindrical battery comprises an electrode assembly, in which all of the limitations associated with the electrode assembly as described above. Ohtani also teaches the cylindrical battery comprising a battery housing (cylindrical outer can, fig. 1 ref. #11) having an open end and a closed portion opposite to the open end so that the electrode assembly is accommodated through the open end ([0015]), the battery housing being electrically connected to the negative electrode ([0032]), a sealing body configured to seal the open end of the battery housing ([0016], lid member and sealing member), a terminal electrically connected to the positive electrode and having a surface exposed outside the battery housing ([0031], and fig. 3A ref. #24, # 32B), and a current collecting plate welded to the bending surface region and electrically connected to any one of the battery housing and the terminal ([0050], and fig. 1 ref. #24).
Regarding claim 43, Otani also teaches a crimping portion at the open end of the battery housing, wherein the sealing body includes a cap (lid) configured to cover the open end of the battery housing with a sealing gasket interposed between the cap and the open end ([0017], and fig. 1 ref. #11N, #14, and #15). The crimping portion compresses the sealing gasket toward an edge of the cap ([0017]).
Regarding claim 47, Otani also teaches the cap (battery lid) corresponds to the terminal (fig. 1, ref. #24, #30, and #14 result in the current collector corresponding to the lid). The current collecting plate includes a support portion (fig. 3A, the area directly surrounding the hole ref. #35), at least one leg portion (the fan shaped portion) extending along a radial direction from the support portion and welded to the bending surface region ([0029] and fig. 3A ref. #31 and #35, the portion directly outside of the support portion), and a lead portion extending from the support portion or the leg portion and coupled to the cap ([0031] and fig. 3A ref. #32A and #32B).
Regarding claims 48-49, Otani also teaches a battery pack comprising the previously described cylindrical battery ([0062] and fig. 9), and a vehicle comprising the battery pack ([0077]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otani et. al. (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2021/020237) in view of Liu (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2021/027492). For prior art discussion see English translations for WO-2021020237-A1 and WO-2021027492-A1-translation
Otani is relied upon as described above.
Otani also teaches an insulating coating layer being provided at a proximal end of the uncoated portion flags ([0026], and fig. 2 ref. #101), and an axial end of the insulating coating layer extends and is exposed to the outside of beyond an axial end of the separator (fig. 2 ref. #101 and #23). When viewed in the axial direction, the axial end of an active material layer included in the positive electrode or the negative electrode are exposed through the first cut surface. When looking at the winding turn region including the uncoated portion of the positive electrode, the negative electrode active material would be visible through the first cut surface (bottom of the groove) as the insulating layer is only on the side of the electrodes that are in the corresponding winding turn regions ([0026], and fig. 2 ref. #101), therefore leaving the negative electrode active material exposed.
Otani is silent regarding the first cut surface being spaced apart from the axial end of the insulating coating layer, nor that when viewed in the axial direction, the axial end of the insulating coating layer included in the positive electrode or the negative electrode being exposed through the first cut surface.
Liu teaches a wound electrode assembly comprising a positive electrode, a separator, and a negative electrode, both electrodes having an insulating layer (abstract and [0071]). The electrode assembly has a winding turn region (portion at the axial end formed when winding the positive electrode, negative electrode, and separator). The first cut surface is the top of 113a in figure 8. In this arrangement, the first cut surface is spaced apart from the axial end of the insulating coating layer (fig. 8 ref. #113a and #113b). As the insulating layer is only provided on the side of the electrode with the plurality of uncoated flags (fig. 8 ref. #1112, [0081]-[0082]), when viewed in the axial direction, the axial end of the insulating coating layer (fig. 8 ref. #113b) and an axial end of the negative electrode active material layer (opposite to the plurality of uncoated flag portions on the negative electrode) included in the negative electrode are exposed through the first cut surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the positioning of the insulating layer and exposure of both the insulating layer and the active material layer of an electrode as taught by Liu in the winding turn region of Otani. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this change as it reduces the risk of short circuit and improves safety performance (Liu, [0081]).
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otani et. al. (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2021/020237) in view of Takeuchi (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 11283606). For prior art discussion see English translations for WO-2021020237-A1 and JP-H11283606-A.
Otani is relied upon as described above.
Otani does not teach the second cut surf being a rounded surface, an eccentricity of an arc where the rounded surface meets a virtual plane perpendicular to the axial direction being substantially 1, a center of a virtual circle containing the arc and a core center of the electrode assembly are opposite to each other based on the arc, nor the arc being substantially symmetrical based on a straight line connecting a center of a virtual circle containing the arc and a core center of the electrode assembly.
Takeuchi teaches a winding electrode assembly with a positive electrode, separator, and negative electrode wound together along an axis, and a cylindrical battery using said electrode assembly (abstract). Otani also teaches a first cut surface (notched groove, fig. 9 ref. #214’, see below) and a second cut surface (side walls of the assembly portion, fig. 9 ref. #215, see below) that is a rounded cut surface.
PNG
media_image2.png
597
405
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The eccentricity of an arc where the rounded surface meets a virtual plane perpendicular to the axial direction is substantially 1 (fig. 20, see below). The center of a virtual circle (dotted circle in fig. 20) containing the arc and a core center of the electrode assembly (fig. 20, ref. #1) are opposite to each other based on the arc. The arc is substantially symmetrical based on a straight line connecting a center of a virtual circle containing the arc and a core center of the electrode assembly (fig. 20, see below).
PNG
media_image3.png
440
528
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the round second cut surface as taught by Takeuchi in place of the second cut surface of Otani. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this change to the shape as it allows for decreased internal resistance and increased current collector efficiency in the battery (Takeuchi, [0007]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otani et. al. (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2021/020237) in view of Lee (US Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0024572). For prior art discussion see English translations for WO-2021020237-A1.
Otani is relied upon as described above.
Otani does not teach he plurality of uncoated portion flags have substantially a same width in the circumferential direction from the core of the electrode assembly toward the outer circumference.
Lee teaches a secondary battery with a wound electrode (abstract). The positive electrode, the negative electrode, or both has an uncoated region uncoated with active material. The uncoated region has a bent portion and the collector plate can be electrically connected to the bent portion of the uncoated region (abstract).
Lee also teaches that the plurality of uncoated portion flags have substantially a same width in the circumferential direction from the core of the electrode assembly toward the outer circumference (fig. 2 ref. #110a). The plurality of uncoated portion flags are cut from the bending region with a width according to the width of the mold used to bend them ([0062]-[0064]), resulting in the plurality of uncoated portion flags having substantially a same width in the circumferential direction from the core of the electrode assembly toward the outer circumference.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the shape of the bending region of Otani to one with the plurality of uncoated portion flags having substantially the same width as taught by Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this change in size as it will help to reduce the welding defects between the uncoated region and the collector plate, and increase the reliability of the battery (Lee, [0073]-[0074]).
Claims 40 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otani et. al. (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2021/020237) in view of Jang (Korean Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0096651). For prior art discussion see English translations for WO-2021020237-A1 and KR-20190096651-A.
Otani is relied upon as described above.
Otani does not teach the terminal being a rivet terminal located in a perforated hole in the closed portion of the battery housing, and wherein an insulating gasket is interposed between the rivet terminal and the perforated hole, nor the rivet terminal being welded to the current collecting plate.
Jang teaches a secondary battery comprising a wound electrode assembly (abstract, and [0029]). Jang also teaches the terminal being a rivet terminal located in a perforated hole in the closed portion of the battery housing with an insulating gasket is interposed between the rivet terminal and the perforated hole ([0036], and fig. 2 ref. #512, H, and #514). The rivet terminal is welded to the current collecting plate ([0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a rivet terminal welded to the current collector as taught by Jang in place of the terminal of Otani. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this change as it allows for a simple method to extend the electrode assembly to the outside of the case (Jang, [0051]) as well as ensuring a strong connection between the terminal and the current collector.
Claims 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otani et. al. (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2021/020237) in view of Fuhr (US Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0256433). For prior art discussion see English translations for WO-2021020237-A1.
Otani is relied upon as described above.
Otani also teaches a current collector ([0030], and fig. 3A). The current collector includes a support and a leg portion (fan shaped portion) extending along a radial direction from the support portion and welded to the bending surface region ([0029] and fig. 3A ref. #31 and #35, see below).
PNG
media_image4.png
334
426
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Otani does not teach the current collector containing a connection portion provided inside the hole and a bridge portion configured to connect the support portion and the connection portion.
Fuhr teaches a current collector for a cylindrical lithium-ion cell (abstract and [0056]). Fuhr also teaches the current collector with a support portion having a hole (fig. 22, see below), at least one leg portion extending along a radial direction from the support portion and welded to the bending surface region ([0112] and fig. 22, ref. #742, see below), a connection portion provided inside the hole (fig. #22, ref. #744, see below), and a bridge portion configured to connect the support portion and the connection portion (fig. 22, see below).
PNG
media_image5.png
590
654
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the current collector of Otani to use the connection portion and bridge portion of the current collector as taught by Fuhr. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion as this configuration allows for the current collector to flex if moved (Fuhr, [0013]), resulting in increased durability in the electrode and battery overall.
Claims 44-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otani et. al. (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2021/020237) in view of Kim (US Patent Application Publication No. US-20020122974-A1). For prior art discussion see English translations for WO-2021020237-A1.
Otani is relied upon as described above.
Regarding claim 44, Otani also teaches the cylindrical battery further comprising a beading portion located in a region adjacent to the open end of the battery housing (fig. 1 ref. #11N and the portion of the case ref. #11 that is concave, underneath ref. #11P). The electrode assembly includes a current collector, which has a support portion and a leg portion (fan shaped portion) extending along a radial direction from the support portion and welded to the bending surface region ([0032] and fig. 3B ref. #33 and #36, see below). A housing connection portion extending from the support portion or leg portion (belt-like portion, fig. 3B ref. #34) is welded to an inner surface of the battery housing (outer can) ([0032]).
PNG
media_image6.png
426
606
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Otani does not explicitly teach at least a part of an edge of the current collecting plate is interposed between an inner surface of the beading portion and the sealing gasket and coupled to the inner surface of the beading portion.
Kim teaches a secondary battery including a battery unit having a positive electrode plate, a negative electrode plate and a separator interposed there between, a can for accommodating the battery unit, and a cap assembly having a cap cover (abstract). Kim also teaches a part of an edge of the current collecting plate (safety vent, which is electronically connected to the positive electrode tap, fig. 3. Ref. #33 and #39) is interposed between an inner surface of the beading portion and the sealing gasket (fig. 3 ref. #310) and coupled to the inner surface of the beading portion (fig. 3, see below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the current collector placement of Otani to the placement as taught by Kim to be interposed between an inner surface of the beading portion and the sealing gasket. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use this orientation as this allows for the inclusion of a safety vent and a gasket with a perfect seal (Kim, [0052]), in turn increasing battery performance and safety.
Regarding claim 45, Ohtani also does not explicitly teach where at least a part of the edge of the current collecting plate is welded to the inner surface of the beading portion. However, the limitation “at least a part of the edge of the current collecting plate is welded to the inner surface of the beading portion” is a method limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the process produces unexpected results. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. MPEP 2113. Furthermore, there does not appear to be (a or an unobvious) difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because Otani in view of Kim the current collector coupled to the inner surface of the beading portion identical to the structure claimed.
Regarding claim 46, modified Otani in view of Kim also teaches a current collector ([0030], and fig. 3A). The current collector includes a support and a leg portion (fan shaped portion) extending along a radial direction from the support portion and welded to the bending surface region ([0029] and fig. 3A ref. #31 and #35, see below). The modified structure above also results in a housing connection portion extending from the support portion or the leg portion toward the beading portion and coupled to the inner surface of the beading portion.
PNG
media_image4.png
334
426
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Myles Alan Lovasz whose telephone number is (571)272-0214. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at (571) 272-1490. 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.
/MAL/
Myles Alan LovaszExaminer, Art Unit 1788
03/30/2026
/Alicia Chevalier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights