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 .
Amendments to the claims, filed 06 October 2023, have been entered in the above identified application
Claims 1-5, 7, 10, 13-15, 17, 20, 24-26, and 28-32 are pending in the application.
Claims 1-5, 7, 10, and 13-15 are withdrawn in the application.
Claims 6, 8-9, 11-12, 16, 18-19, 21-23, 27, and 33-36 are cancelled in the application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of 17, 20, 24-26, and 28-32 in the reply filed on 15 June 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 17 June 2026.
Double Patenting
Claims 17, 20, and 24-28 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 17, 19-20, and 22-23 of copending Application No. 18/286,052 (reference application, hereinafter ‘052) in view of Otani (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2021/020237). For prior art discussion see English translations for WO-2021020237-A1.
Regarding claim 17, ‘052 claims an electrode assembly comprising: an electrode cell body portion including a first electrode sheet, a second electrode sheet, and a separator being stacked and wound in a jelly-roll type configuration, and an uncoated portion formed in an end portion of each of the first electrode sheet and the second electrode sheet in a width direction, wherein an active material layer is not coated on the uncoated portion;
a pair (a plurality) of cut surface portions formed at a portion of the uncoated portion along a circumferential direction around a core portion of the electrode cell body portion; and a plurality of forming portions disposed between the plurality of cut surface portions being uncut portions of the uncoated portion that are laid down,
wherein the plurality of cut surface portions are formed by first cut lines in an uncoated portion of each of the first electrode sheet and the second electrode sheet in an axial direction of the electrode cell body portion and second cut lines, peripheral ends of which are connected to the first cut lines, in an uncoated portion of each of the first electrode sheet and the second electrode sheet in a peripheral direction of the electrode cell body portion (claim 17).
‘052 does not explicitly claim a pair of cut surface portions formed by cutting out opposite sides of the uncoated portion in a diameter direction around a core portion of the electrode cell body portion.
Otani teaches an electrode assembly comprising an electrode cell body portion, which includes a separator stacked between a first electrode sheet (strip-shaped positive electrode) and a second electrode sheet (strip-shaped negative electrode) ([0007], [0022], and fig. 2 ref. #21-#23) . The first electrode sheet, the second electrode sheet, and the separator are wound in a jelly-roll type configuration (spiral shape) ([0022] and fig. 4, the jelly-roll type body). An uncoated portion is formed in an end portion of each of the first electrode sheet and the second electrode sheet in a width direction, wherein an active material layer is not coated on the uncoated portion ([0023] and fig. 2 ref. #21C and #22C).
A pair of cut surface portions (grooves) are formed at a opposite sides of the uncoated portion along a diameter direction around a core portion of the electrode cell body portion ([0028] and fig. 4B, ref. #43, see below, and fig. 7A, ref. #43). A forming portion is disposed between the pair of cut surface portions, the forming portion being uncut portions of the uncoated portion that are laid down at a bending planned portion ([0051], fig. 4C, see below).
PNG
media_image1.png
479
481
media_image1.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 configuration of Otani with a pair of cut surface portions formed by cutting out opposite sides of the uncoated portion in a diameter direction around a core portion of the electrode cell body portion. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success that such a configuration (i.e. with the sections being on opposite sides of each other) would be appropriate for forming an electrode. The configuration of cutout uncoated portions would therefore have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art in the electrode assembly of ‘052. Combining known elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 20, ‘052 claims the forming portion is formed along the diameter direction (radially formed) of the core portion (claim 20).
Regarding claim 24, ‘052 claims the forming portion is formed in a shape to be laid down toward a side of the core portion opposite outer sides of the forming portion (claim 21, as the forming portions are opposite one another around the core, due to the cut surface portions being opposite one another around the core, and when they are laid down toward the core, they are innately laid down toward a side of the core portion opposite outer sides of the forming portion).
Regarding claim 25, ‘052 claims the cut surface portion is formed by cutting out a portion hat is spaced outward by a predetermined distance in an axial direction from a boundary portion of the uncoated portion and a coated portion (claim 19).
Regarding claim 26, ‘052 claims the core portion is formed in a hollow shape passing through a central portion of the electrode cell body portion (claim 23).
Regarding claim 28, ‘052 claims a recessed portion (the portion where the uncoated portion is removed) disposed in the uncoated portion of the electrode cell body portion at a side of the core portion (section adjacent to the core) having a height at which the recessed portion is more recessed than the uncoated portion in an axial direction (as the uncoated portion is removed in an axial direction, the height of this portion will be lower than the height of the uncoated portion) the uncoated portion being disposed more outward from the recessed portion in a radial direction thereof (the portion wherein the uncoated portion is removed is adjacent to the core portion, therefore the portion of the uncoated portion that is not removed will be more outward in a radial direction) (claim 22).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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, 20, 24-26, and 28-32 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 jelly-roll type configuration” in line 4 which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear if “a jelly-roll type configuration” means that the electrode cell body portion must have a jelly-roll configuration (i.e. a wound electrode) or if it may have a configuration similar to a jelly-roll configuration (i.e. a different configuration with similar properties) that is different to a jelly-roll configuration.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “an uncoated portion” in lines 14 and 17 which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear if “an uncoated portion” is the same uncoated portion in line 4 of claim 17, or they are separate uncoated portions entirely.
Claim 17 recites the limitations “an uncoated portion formed in an end portion of at least one of the first electrode sheet and the second electrode sheet” in lines 4-6 and “wherein the pair of cut surface portions are formed by a pair of first cut lines in an uncoated portion of each of the first electrode sheet and the second electrode sheet in an axial direction of the electrode cell body portion and a pair of second cut lines, peripheral ends of which are connected to the first cut lines, in an uncoated portion of each of the first electrode sheet and the second electrode sheet in a peripheral direction of the electrode cell body portion” in lines 14-18 which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear if the uncoated portion may be formed in only the first electrode sheet, the second electrode sheet, or both the first and second electrode sheet, as stated in lines 4-6, or if the uncoated portion is formed in both the first and second electrode sheet, as stated in lines 14-18.
Claim 28 recites the limitations “the electrode assembly of claim 17, further comprising a recessed portion disposed in the uncoated portion of the electrode cell body portion” in lines 1-2, “the recessed portion is more recessed than the uncoated portion” in line 4, and “the uncoated portion being disposed more outward from the recessed portion in a radial direction thereof” in lines 5-6 which render the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear how the recessed portion can be more recessed than the uncoated portion when the recessed portion is in the uncoated portion. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted to mean that the recessed portion is more recessed than the peripheral end of the uncoated portion.
Claim 29 recites the limitation “a pair of cut lines provided in an outer portion than the recessed portion” in line 2 which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It appears there is a typographical error in this limitation, therefore it is unclear if this limitation means that a pair of cut lines are provided in an outer portion that is outside of the recessed portion, or that a pair of cut lines are provided in an outer portion as opposed to in the recessed portion.
Claim 31 recites the limitation “the cut line” in line 2 which renders the claim vague and indefinite. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation. It is unclear if “the cut line” is in reference to one of the pair of first cut lines of claim 17, line 14, one of the pair of second cut lines in claim 17, line 16, or one of the pair of cut lines provided in an outer portion than the recessed portion in claim 29, line 2 (on which claim 31 is not dependent).
Claim 32 recites the limitation “the predetermined portion” in line 2 which renders the claim vague and indefinite. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation. No predetermined portion has been claimed in claims 17 or 28, on which claim 32 is dependent. For purpose of examination, it will be understood that “the predetermined portion” is the same predetermined portion claimed in claim 31.
Claim 32 recites the limitation “the recessed portion has a height corresponding to the predetermined portion in the axial direction” in lines 1-2 which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear how the height of the recessed portion is corresponding to the predetermined portion, whether that be corresponding to the height, width, length, or another feature of the predetermined portion, or if the limitation means that the recessed portion has a height that results in the recessed portion contacting the predetermined portion.
Claims 20, 24-26, and 28-32 are further rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 17, 20, 24-26, and 28-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated Otani (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2021/020237). For prior art discussion see English translations for WO-2021020237-A1.
Regarding claim 17, Otani teaches an electrode assembly comprising an electrode cell body portion, which includes a separator stacked between a first electrode sheet (strip-shaped positive electrode) and a second electrode sheet (strip-shaped negative electrode) ([0007], [0022], and fig. 2 ref. #21-#23) . The first electrode sheet, the second electrode sheet, and the separator are wound in a jelly-roll type configuration (spiral shape) ([0022] and fig. 4, the jelly-roll type body). An uncoated portion is formed in an end portion of each of the first electrode sheet and the second electrode sheet in a width direction, wherein an active material layer is not coated on the uncoated portion ([0023] and fig. 2 ref. #21C and #22C).
A pair of cut surface portions (grooves) are formed at a opposite sides of the uncoated portion along a diameter direction around a core portion of the electrode cell body portion ([0028] and fig. 4B, ref. #43, see below, and fig. 7A, ref. #43). A forming portion is disposed between the pair of cut surface portions, the forming portion being uncut portions of the uncoated portion that are laid down at a bending planned portion ([0051], fig. 4C, see below).
The pair of cut surface portions are formed by first cut lines in an uncoated portion of each of the first electrode sheet and the second electrode sheet in an axial direction of the electrode cell body portion and second cut lines, peripheral ends of which are connected to the first cut lines, in an uncoated portion of each of the first electrode sheet and the second electrode sheet in a peripheral direction of the electrode cell body portion ([0028] and fig. 4B, see below).
PNG
media_image1.png
479
481
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Otani further teaches the forming portion is formed along the diameter direction of the core portion (forming portions, fig. 4B and 4C, see above, which are formed along the diameter direction of the core).
Regarding claim 24, Otani further teaches the forming portion is formed in a shape to be laid down toward a side of the core portion from opposite outer sides of the forming portion (forming portion, fig. 4C, see above, as well as [0055]-[0056] and fig. 7A, 7B).
Regarding claim 25, Otani further teaches the cut surface portion is a portion that is spaced outward by a predetermined distance in an axial direction from a boundary portion of the uncoated portion and a coated portion ([0028], the grooves are formed in the uncoated portion, therefore the distance between the bottom of the grooves in fig. 4B, seen above, to a boundary portion, or the edge of the active portion, is the predetermined distance).
The limitation “is formed by cutting out a 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 difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because Otani discloses the above claimed cut surface portions.
Regarding claim 26, Otani further teaches the core portion is formed in a hollow shape passing through a central portion of the electrode cell body portion (through-hole, [0027] and fig. 4 ref. #26).
Regarding claim 28, Otani further teaches a recessed portion disposed in the uncoated portion of the electrode cell body portion at a side of the core portion (the bottom portion of the groove that is adjacent to the core portion, fig. 7, see below). The height at of the recessed portion is more recessed than the uncoated portion in an axial direction thereof (fig. 4, the bottom of the groove is below the top of the uncoated portion in an axial direction), with the uncoated portion being disposed more outward from the recessed portion in a radial direction thereof (as the portion of the groove that is being defined as the recessed portion is shown below, the uncoated portion is disposed more outward from the recessed portion).
PNG
media_image2.png
572
688
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 29, Otani further teaches a pair of cut lines (the sides of the grooves, fig. 7A, see below) provided in a portion that is outer than the recessed portion in the radial direction in the uncoated portion of the electrode cell body portion (as the recessed portion is defined as a portion that is near the core portion, see fig. 7A below, and the grooves are throughout the entire radius of the uncoated portion, the grooves are in a portion that is outer than the recessed portion in a radial direction of the uncoated portion) that is formed to a predetermined depth in the axial direction (the depth of the grooves is predetermined by the size of the flat plate portion of the jig used to create them, [0053] and fig. 5 ref. #54).
Regarding claim 30, Otani further teaches a width of the recessed portion in the radial direction corresponds to a height of the bending planned portion in the axial direction, the width being measured from a lower end portion of the cut line disposed adjacent to the recessed portion in the radial form (as the recessed portion is merely a portion of the grooves, the width may be arbitrarily decided. As the length of the groove is greater than the height of the groove, and the height of the groove corresponds to the bending planned portion, see fig. 4B and C, the width of the recessed portion may correspond to a height of the bending planned portion in the axial direction).
Regarding claim 31, Otani further teaches a cutting depth of the cut line (grooving depth of the groove) reaches a predetermined portion (the bottom of the groove, fig. 4) that is spaced outward by a predetermined distance in the axial direction from a boundary portion of the uncoated portion and a coated portion ([0028], the grooves are formed in the uncoated portion, therefore the distance between the bottom of the grooves, or a predetermined portion, in fig. 4B, seen above, to a boundary portion, or the edge of the active portion, is the predetermined distance).
Regarding claim 32, Otani further teaches the recessed portion has a height corresponding to the predetermined portion in the axial direction (as the heights of the recessed portions and predetermined portions can be determined arbitrarily, as they are simply portions of the uncoated portion, the heights can correspond to one another).
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 08/20/2026
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights