DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. Information disclosure statements (IDS), submitted July 25, 2023 and August 6, 2025, have been received and considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
4. All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
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 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.
5. Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim US PG Publication 2013/0115494.
Regarding Claim 1, Kim discloses an energy storage device (rechargeable battery) 102 comprising an electrode assembly 10 formed by winding a plurality of plates (positive and negative electrodes 11/12 and separator 13, para 0039, Fig. 8), a case 120/130 of a rectangular parallelpiped shape housing the electrode assembly, wherein the case is constructed by welding a lid (cap member) 130 and a case body (case) 120, the lid 130 being formed of a pair of short side surfaces of the case, the pair of short side surfaces facing each other in a winding-axis direction of the electrode assembly 10, and formed of another one surface of the case (131), and the case body is formed of three surfaces , except for the pair of short side surfaces and the other one surface (see entire disclosure and especially Figs 8-9 and paras 0064-0076).
PNG
media_image1.png
647
375
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Kim discloses wherein the lid 130 is formed of a top surface (if the device 102 is positioned with e.g. 131 at the top) of the case as the other one surface, and the case body is formed of a pair of long side surfaces of the case and a bottom surface of the case as the three surfaces except for the other one surface. The designations of “top” and “bottom” are only based in this situation on relative orientation of Kim’s device since the claim has no other requirements that would prevent such interpretation.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
6. Claims 4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kim US PG Publication 2013/0115494.
Regarding Claim 4, Kim discloses in the above cited embodiment wherein the electrode assembly 10 includes a body long in the winding-axis direction and electrode uncoated regions 11a/12a at each of both end faces of the body in a winding-axis direction, but does not specifically disclose a tab protruding from each of both end faces of the body in the winding-axis direction. However, in another embodiment (Figs. 2-3, paras 0045-0049), Kim teaches that tabs 41 extend from the end surfaces of the current collectors of the electrode assemblies in order to attach to the terminals. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include tabs protruding from each of both end faces of the body in the winding-axis direction in the previously described embodiment of Kim because Kim teaches that this allows terminals to be connected to the electrode assemblies and the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 7, Kim discloses in Fig. 6 and paras 0060-0061 wherein the lid includes a reinforcing portion (electrode support part) 53 extending between the pair of short side surfaces to support the electrode assembly. Kim does not specifically recite that this part is bridged between the pair of side surfaces. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the reinforcing part of Kim such that it bridges the short side surfaces in order to maximize support to the electrode since a change in proportion or relative dimension is obvious in the absence of unexpected results. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding Claim 8, the skilled artisan would understand that if the reinforcing portion 53 of Kim were provided continuously with the top portion of the lid as described above, this portion would be provided continuously with each of a pair of ends of a top surface of the case that are along the winding-axis direction (again, the use of “top” is relative to the orientation of the case). Such claimed provision of the portion as “continuously with each of a pair of ends of a top surface” does not require the portion to be ON a top surface such as an outside surface, for example. It just requires the surface to be facing upward. The phrasing also does not require the portion to be disposed directly ON such a surface since it is claimed as being “with” such a surface.
7. Claims 2 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim US PG Publication 2013/0115494 and further in view of Jeon US PG Publication 2021/0135182.
Regarding Claim 2 and 5, Kim discloses the claimed energy storage device as described in the rejections above, which are incorporated herein in their entireties. Kim discloses wherein each electrode tab corresponds to a current collector and electrode terminal (see above) but Kim fails to specifically disclose wherein an electrode terminal is provided on each of the pair of short side surfaces, a positive electrode tab and a negative electrode tab are each provided as the tab on each of both of the end faces of the body and on each of the pair of short side surfaces of the lid, a positive electrode terminal and a positive current collector are provided corresponding to the positive electrode tab, and a negative electrode terminal and a negative current collector are provided corresponding to the negative electrode tab. However, in the same field of endeavor of energy storage device design, Jeon discloses battery cells that are designed to be used in conjunction with other cells to form a battery module to form a high power battery pack wherein cells have a positive and a negative tab on both opposing ends of the rectangular parallelpiped which allows the cells to be connected to one another to provide a high voltage device while e.g. minimizing resistance because distance between connected tabs is minimized (see at least paras 0056-0057 and Fig. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the energy storage device of Kim such that an electrode terminal is provided on each of the pair of short side surfaces and a positive electrode tab and a negative electrode tab are each provided as the tab on each of both of the end faces of the body because Jeon teaches that this allows for the cells to be connected to one another to provide a high voltage device while e.g. minimizing resistance because distance between connected tabs is minimized. Further, this combination would result in modification of Kim such that on each of the pair of short side surfaces of the lid, a positive electrode terminal is provided corresponding to the positive electrode tab, and a negative electrode terminal is provided corresponding to the negative electrode tab. Although Kim modified by Jeon doesn’t specifically disclose wherein the respective current collectors are provided on the short side surfaces of the lid, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to provide the respective current collectors of Kim and Jeon on the short side surfaces of the lid in order to ensure the connections between the parts are secure and stable since the mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 6, because Jeon shows that the desired and effective arrangement of leads on the battery cell (which leads to the already-stated benefits) is such that the positive electrode tab and the negative electrode tab provide on one end face of both the end faces of the body and the positive electrode tab and the negative electrode tab provided on an other end face of both the end faces of the body are arranged in an inverted manner (see Fig. 3), it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the energy storage device of Kim such that the positive electrode tab and the negative electrode tab provide on one end face of both the end faces of the body and the positive electrode tab and the negative electrode tab provided on an other end face of both the end faces of the body are arranged in an inverted manner. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
8. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim US PG Publication 2013/0115494, as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Okano JPH07176298.
Regarding Claim 9, Kim discloses the claimed energy storage device as described in the rejection of Claim 1, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Kim fails to specifically disclose wherein stepped joint surfaces, superimposed to be assembled with each other, are formed on each of the case body and the lid. However, in the same field of endeavor of battery case design, Okano discloses wherein upper and lower case portions have joining surfaces that are formed with stepped shapes that allow them to fit tightly together without any gaps (see e.g. paras 0006-0007, 0009, Fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the energy storage device of Kim such that stepped joint surfaces, superimposed to be assembled with each other, are formed on each of the case body and the lid because Okano teaches that upper and lower case portions have joining surfaces that are formed with stepped shapes that allow them to fit tightly together without any gaps.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Choi US PG Publication 2011/0117426 discloses an energy storage device (secondary battery) 100 comprising an electrode assembly 110 formed by winding a plurality of plates (electrode plates 111/112 and separator plate 113/114, para 0046, Fig. 2), a case 120/140 of a rectangular parallelpiped shape housing the electrode assembly, wherein the case is constructed by welding a lid (support body) 120 and a case body (external member) 140, the lid 120 being formed of a pair of short side surfaces of the case, the pair of short side surfaces facing each other and formed of another one surface of the case, and the case body is formed of three surfaces, except for the pair of short side surfaces and the other one surface (see entire disclosure and especially paras related to Fig. 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA S PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-3597. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30a to 3p Eastern Time.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached on 5712721481. 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.
/LISA S PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729