DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Amendments, filed on July 18, 2023, have been entered in the above-identified application.
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 Analysis
The present application contains three active independent claim(s) (claims 79, 95 and 98) and twenty-one active dependent claims (claims 80 – 94, 96, 97 and 99 - 103).
Examiner’s Comments
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element 1” should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
Drawings
Figures 1 - 3 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- or –CONVENTIONAL-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Regarding numbers (1), (2) and (4), see the rejection(s) provided below. Regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, the general level of skill is taken as a highly skilled technician having at least a BS, MS, or PhD in the relevant field and 3-5 years experience.
Claims 79 – 103 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over IDS reference Thunot (GB 2564670 A), as evidenced by the Admitted Prior Art (APA), IDS reference to Olivier et al. (U.S. Patent App. No. 2016/0226056 A1) and IDS reference to Kim et al. (U.S. Patent App. No. 2020/0295341 A1 and its KR PCT published Sept. 27, 2019).
Regarding claim 79, Thunot discloses an electrode assembly (Abstract; Figures) in which a first electrode, a second electrode, and a separator interposed therebetween are wound based on an axis to define a core and an outer circumference (ibid), wherein the first electrode includes an uncoated portion at a long side end thereof and exposed out of the separator along a winding axis direction of the electrode assembly (page 3, lines 1 – 11)1, the uncoated portion of the first electrode is divided into a plurality of segments that are independently bendable (page 1, line 27 bridging page 3, line 11)1, a part of the uncoated portion is bent in a radial direction of the electrode assembly to form a bending surface region that includes overlapping layers of the uncoated portion (ibid)1, and in a partial region of the bending surface region, the number of stacked layers of the uncoated portion is 10 or more in the winding axis direction of the electrode assembly (
PNG
media_image1.png
784
860
media_image1.png
Greyscale
).
While Thunot appears to disclose more than 10 tabs (a part of the uncoated portion) that would be bent to form a bending surface region that includes overlapping layers of the uncoated portions and a number of stacked layers in this portion being 10 or more, as discussed above, the Examiner acknowledges that the figures in Thunot show the tabs (uncoated portions) before bending. However, the Examiner notes that it is clearly recognized in the art1 that these tabs are bent to overlap each other, than welded together to form a single electrode contact (positive or negative, depending on the electrode), which then is used to connect to the positive or negative terminal on the outside of the battery (via a current collector, bus bar, etc. conventional assembly).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicants’ invention to modify the device of Thunot to meet the limitation “a part of the uncoated portion … in the winding axis direction of the electrode assembly” as taught by Thunot, as this is merely a known and conventional step that is implied, but not explicit, in Thunot’s Figures, as these tabs (uncoated portions) are necessarily bent to be welded together to form a unified electrical contact point for all the cathode sheets or anode sheets, respectively.
Thunot fails to disclose the characterization limitation “when the number of total winding turns of the first electrode is defined as n1 and a value obtained by dividing a winding turn index k (a natural number of 1 to n1) at a kth winding turn location by the number of total winding turns n1 is defined as a relative radial position R1,k of the winding turn index k, a length ratio of a radial region of R1,k satisfying a condition that the number of stacked layers of the uncoated portion is 10 or more is 30% or more based on a relative radial position region from a relative radial position of an innermost winding turn including a segment to a relative radial position of an outermost winding turn including a segment”.
However, the Examiner notes that this appears to simply be a characterization of how the winding is performed and where the ‘stacked’ number transitions from below 10 to above 10; e.g. see Applicants’ Figures 4, 7, 9, etc. (
PNG
media_image2.png
488
716
media_image2.png
Greyscale
).
Thunot teaches the importance of controlling the shape, number and dimensions of the tabs and the bending/overlap, as these impact the voltage drop, thermal characteristics, current density, etc. (at least page 2, liens 10 – 19). As such, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the specific location of when the overlapping tabs exceeds 10 through routine experimentation, especially given the teaching in Thunot regarding the desire to control the various aspects of the tabs as these are known to impact many battery characteristics. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicants’ invention to modify the device of Thunot to meet the limitation “when the number of total winding turns … including a segment” as taught by Thunot, as this is merely an optimization of how the windings progress, which is a characteristics of the shape and size of the windings, etc., all of which are recognized as optimizable parameters by the Thunot teachings above.
Regarding claim 80, the Examiner maintains that the R1,k value would be an optimizable parameter within the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art as this is a characterization means for how the tabs (uncoated portions) are arranged and bent, which is recognized as an optimizable parameter per the teachings above (see citations above).
Regarding claims 81 and 82, these limitations (applied to the second electrode now) are deemed obvious for the same reasons set forth above with regard to the first electrode, noting Thunot teaches that one or both electrodes can be so constructed with the tailored tabs (uncoated portions) (see citations above, but especially noting page 3, line 30 bridging page 4, line 6).
Regarding claims 83 and 84, differences in dimensions are met for the reasons set forth above (see citations above, but especially Figures and page 5, line 7 bridging page 6, line 22).
Regarding claims 85 and 86, the Examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to tailor the bending structure such that the center of the core is not blocked in order to allow electrolyte entry. This is known in the art as evidenced by the APA (PGPUB Paragraphs 0013 – 0016).
Regarding claims 87 - 90, differences in dimensions are met for the reasons set forth above (see citations above, but especially Figures and page 5, line 7 bridging page 6, line 22).
Regarding claims 91 and 92, given the number of bending portions and the fact that, eventually an equal number of tabs (uncovered portions) will be bent before and after a specific, kth, tab (uncovered portion), there is sound basis that a ‘number uniform’ region will necessarily result from the bending process, especially noting the number of tabs (uncovered portions) illustrated in Thunot’s Figures and the given dimensions thereof.
Regarding claims 93 and 94 and the total stack thickness in the partial region of the bending surface regions, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the total stack thickness through routine experimentation, especially given the knowledge in the art regarding thickness values being 600 mm or less, for example2. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 95, the additional battery limitations of a ‘battery housing’, ‘sealing body’, ‘terminal’, ‘current collector’ and ‘welding region’ are conventional aspects of a secondary battery containing a jelly-roll type electrode assembly3. The Examiner takes Official Notice that a skilled artisan would we well versed in forming a battery to comprise a ‘battery housing’, ‘sealing body’, two ‘terminals’ and ‘current collectors’, as well as two distinct ‘welding regions’ (one for the cathode sheets and one for the anode sheets) meeting the claimed limitations, as evidenced by the teachings in the prior art evidentiary references cited above. The additional limitations of these claims are met for the reasons set forth above with regard to claims 79 – 94.
Regarding claim 96 and the overlap of the welding region with the portion having stacks of 10 or more tabs (uncoated portions), the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the amount of overlap of the welding region through routine experimentation, especially given the knowledge in the art that the more overlap, the stronger the welding connection, etc.. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 97 and the spacing apart of the welding region from the core/center of the jelly-roll windings of the electrode assembly, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the exact location of the welding region through routine experimentation, especially given the knowledge in the art that welding near an edge might result in damage to the edges or short circuits, but avoiding too much of the material to be welding will result in a smaller (and less strong) weld. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 98, these limitations are addressed as per claims 79 and 93 – 97 above.
Regarding claim 99, these parameters (stack thickness of the overlapping stack to the height of the kth segment) are taught as cause effective variables known to a skilled artisan and, as such, optimizable to a skilled artisan for the reasons set forth above. As such, the ratio of the stack thickness to the segment height is also optimizable to a skilled artisan.
Regarding claims 100 and 101, these limitations are met for substantially the same reasons as set forth above with regard to claims 98 and 99, but as directed to the second electrode assembly (again, noting that Thunot teaches that both electrode assemblies should be optimized similarly).
Regarding claims 102 and 103, a skilled artisan would be well versed in optimizing the location and length of the welding region to ensure a strong weld without damaging the tabs (uncoated portions) or causing a short. These limitations are deemed within the knowledge of a skilled artisan as merely directed to a location and length of a weld with no criticality demonstrated for either.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: while no claim has been indicated as allowable, the Examiner notes that Applicants’ Figures appear to imply that a structure that starts at a gradually increasing number of overlapped tabs and eventually reaches a constant number at certain R1,k values/ranges (unclear if this is always the same number…) may result in an unexpectedly superior performance versus electrode structures that fail to meet this criteria. However, Applicant(s) are reminded that a detailed description of the reasons and evidence supporting a position of unexpected results must be provided by applicant(s). A mere pointing to data requiring the examiner to ferret out evidence of unexpected results is not sufficient to prove that the results would be truly unexpected to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re D’Ancicco, 439 F.2d 1244, 1248, 169 USPQ 303, 306 (1971) and In re Merck & Co, 800 F.2d 1091, 1099, 231 USPQ 375, 381 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In addition, the claims must be commensurate in scope to the showing (increasing number, leveling off to substantially the same, etc.) of unexpected results.
Finally, it is noted that “the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record”, In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965). It is the Examiner’s position that the arguments provided by applicant(s) regarding the alleged unexpected results should be supported by a declaration or affidavit. As set forth in MPEP 716.02(g), “the reason for requiring evidence in a declaration or affidavit form is to obtain the assurances that any statements or representations made are correct, as provided by 35 U.S.C. 24 and 18 U.S.C. 1001”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN M BERNATZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1505. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (variable: ~0600 - 1500 ET).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
/KEVIN M BERNATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
March 17, 2026
1 In addition to this disclosure of an uncoated portion, the Examiner takes Official Notice that uncoated portions meeting the claimed limitations are conventional in the art, as evidenced by Kim et al. (at least Paragraph 0052) and the APA (PGPUB paragraphs 0006 – 0017 and Figures 1 – 3).
2 For support of this position of Official Notice that thickness values of the overlapping weld regions are 0.6 mm (600 microns) or less, see IDS art to Olivier et al. (US ‘056 A1), at least claim 20 and Paragraph 0131.
3 For support of this position of Official Notice that these aspects of a secondary battery are conventional, see the APA (Paragraphs 0006 – 0017 and Figures 1 – 3), as well as the teachings in evidentiary art to Kim (‘341 A1 and its KR equivalent) (entire disclosure).