RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
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 .
Amendments to the specification and the claims, filed 01 July 2026, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Claims 1 and 3-49 remain pending in the application
Claim 2 is cancelled in the application
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I, claims 1-25 and 39-49, in the reply filed on 01 July 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that groups I-III are related as “[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,” which the Applicant argues would qualify groups I-III for the exemption to restriction as provided by 37 C.F.R 1.475(b)(5) (Applicant’s remarks, page 18). Applicant further argues that there is no serious undue search burden (Applicant’s remarks, pages 18-19).
Regarding Applicant’s argument towards the groups qualifying for the exemption to restriction as provided by 37 C.F.R 1.475(b)(5), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. 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 (MPEP 1893.03(d)). As stated in the previous office action, mailed 01 April 2026, groups I-III share the common technical feature of the electrode of claim 1, and that 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 the previous office action, pages 4-5.
As groups I-III do not share a special technical feature, the groups are found to lack unity of invention, and therefore the restriction is deemed proper and is maintained.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that there is no serious undue search burden, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As the present application is a national stage application submitted under 35 U.S.C. 371, the requirement for restriction between groups is for a lack of unity of invention, and the argument towards an undue search burden is not germane (MPEP 1893.03(d)). Furthermore, a serious undue search burden can be established if any of the following criteria are met:
the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
-the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and/or
-the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries) (MPEP 808.02).
Group I, claims 1-25 and 39-49, drawn to an electrode assembly and a battery containing the electrode assembly, is classified in H01M 10/0422.
Group II, claims 26-34, drawn to a method of making an electrode assembly, is classified in H01M 10/0587.
Group III, claims 35-38, drawn to an ultrasonic cutting device, is classified in B26D 1/405.
As groups I-III are shown to have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification, there is a serious undue search burden. For the above listed reasons, the restriction is still deemed proper and is maintained.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Withdrawn Objections/Rejections
The objection to the specification and drawings, made of record in the office action mailed on 01 April 2026, pages 7-8, has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response 01 July 2026.
The 35 U.S.C. §112b rejections of claims 17, 42 and 43 made of record in the office action mailed 01 April 2026, pages 11-13, have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response 01 July 2026.
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 35 U.S.C. §112f interpretation of claims 42 and 43 made of record in the office action mailed 01 April 2026, pages 8-10, have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response 01 July 2026.
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.”
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 39 is 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 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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 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 claim 1, 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, Otani 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 are included. Otani 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 circle (dotted circle in fig. 20) in which a portion of the circumference of the circle is defined by 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, Otani 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
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed on 01 July 2026 regarding the prior art rejections made of record in the office action mailed on 01 April 2026 have been considered but have not been found persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed on 01 July 2026 regarding the objection to the specification/drawings of record have been considered but are moot since the objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed on 01 July 2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. §112b rejections of record of claims 17, 42, and 43 have been considered but are moot since the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed on 01 July 2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. §112f interpretation of record of claim 39 has been considered but has not been found persuasive.
Applicant argues that “a sealing body” includes the sealing gasket 143b and the cap 143a, and is therefore a structural limitation (Applicant’s remarks, page 19). To this argument the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In claim 39, the limitation in question states “a sealing body configured to seal the open end of the battery housing” in line 18. As “ a sealing body” can be considered a generic placeholder, the linking phrase “configured to” follows, and the linking phrase is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function, a 112(f) interpretation is invoked. Furthermore, Applicant’s argument that the sealing body includes the sealing gasket and cap is not commensurate to the scope of the claims, as the sealing body is not presented as comprising the cap or sealing gasket in claim 39.
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed on 01 July 2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. §112f interpretation of record of claims 42 and 43 have been considered and been found persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed on 01 July 2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. §112b rejection of record of claims 17, 42, and 43 have been considered but are moot since the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed on 01 July 2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. §112b rejection of record of claim 39 has been considered but has not been found persuasive.
Applicant argues that the written description includes the sealing body including a sealing gasket and a cap, as well as the Examiner’s comments regarding the phrase “may contain” in the written description to not be relevant because they are contained in the written description and there is no legal basis for rejection (Applicant’s remarks, page 20). To this argument the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the Applicant’s specification, it is stated that “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.” This disclosure details what the sealing body may include, but it does not define explicitly what the sealing body is. Since a 112(f)-claim interpretation is taken for the limitation “the sealing body,” it is required that the specification has a definite description for what “the sealing body” is (MPEP 2181.III). As the specification only states a possible configuration for the sealing body, but not an explicit definition of what the sealing body is, as seen by the use of the phrase “may include,” the metes and bounds of the limitation of the sealing body are indefinite. Therefore, the rejection is deemed valid and remains.
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed on 01 July 2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. §102 of claims 1, 3, 6-14, 20-25, 39, 43, and 47-49 of record have been considered but have not been found convincing.
-Regarding the newly amended claim 1, Applicant argues that the added limitation of “wherein the cut portion includes a first cut surface substantially perpendicular to the axial direction” is not disclosed or made obvious by the prior art of record (Applicant’s remarks, pages 23-24). To this argument the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Otani teaches the cut portion includes a first cut surface substantially perpendicular to the axial direction (the bottom portion of grooves ref. #43, see above, [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). Even though the grooves are made via folding, this will still result in a surface perpendicular to the axial direction that can be referred to as the “first cut surface.” Therefore, claim 1 is still anticipated by Otani and the rejection is maintained
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that the first cut surface of Otani has a different function to the first cut surface of claim 1 (Applicants remarks, page 24), this is not commensurate with the claims, and as a surface perpendicular to the axial direction that can be referred to as the “first cut surface” surface is formed, claim 1 is still anticipated by Otani and the rejection is maintained.
Regarding claims 3-25 and 39-49, to Applicant’s argument that the rejections should be withdrawn as Otani does not teach the limitations of the newly amended claim 1, the Examiner respectfully disagrees (see the reasoning given above for claim 1). As Otani does still anticipate the claimed of newly amended claim 1, the rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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 08/04/2026
/CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights