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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on June 29, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 19-20, 23, 26, and 29-49 remain pending in the application. Claims 19, 30, 34, and 36 are amended. Claims 21-22, 24-25, and 27-28 are canceled. Claims 39-49 are newly presented. Claims 30-38 and 44-49 remain withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 19-29 and newly presented claims 39-43, in the reply filed on June 29, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that independent claim 19 has been amended to require an insulating coating layer be formed between the first active material portion and the lower portion of the cut groove with its end positioned within -2 mm to +2 mm based on the bottom of the cut groove, that claim 30 has been amended to depend from claim 19, and that there is no undue burden to examine all of the claims in the application.
This is not found persuasive because the limitations of amended claim 19 lack an inventive step and do not provide a special technical feature that is a contribution over Deng et al. (CN 113193165 A, translation provided by Applicant in IDS filed on July 15, 2024, and hereinafter “Deng”) and Tsuruta et al. (US 2020/0144676 A1, disclosed by Applicant in IDS filed on November 05, 2025, and hereinafter “Tsuruta”).
Deng discloses an electrode assembly (Fig. 5) comprising a first electrode ([0055] and Fig. 5, positive tab 21), a second electrode ([0055] and Fig. 5, negative tab 22), and a separator interposed therebetween ([0055] and Fig. 5, first separator 23), the first electrode, the second electrode, and the separator being wound in a winding direction about a winding axis to define a core and an outer circumference of the electrode assembly ([0055] and Fig. 5, positive tab 21, negative tab 22, and first separator 23 wound into battery core 2), wherein the first electrode includes a first active material portion coated with an active material layer along the winding direction ([0037] and Fig. 1, coating area 11) and a first uncoated portion not coated with an active material layer ([0037] and Fig. 1, empty foil area 12), wherein the first uncoated portion includes a plurality of segments which are independently bendable ([0038] and Fig. 2, plurality of tabs 14 formed in cutting area 121 of empty foil area 12), wherein a cut groove is located between adjacent segments along the winding direction ([0045] and Fig. 13, interval between tabs 14), wherein a lower portion of the cut groove is a round portion ([0045] and Fig. 13, angle b and angle c are rounded).
Tsuruta (US 2020/0144676 A1) discloses an insulating layer 114 between a first coating 110 and a noncoated conductive portion 118 ([0038]-[0039] and Fig. 1). In wound batteries, providing an insulating layer between a coated portion of an electrode and a non-coated portion of the same electrode is a known technical feature.
Deng further discloses that the distance between the dividing line 123 and the boundary line 13 is greater than or equal to 0.5 mm and less than or equal to 2 mm ([0009] and Fig. 3), which would be the length of the retention area 122 in a winding axis direction ([0037] and Fig. 3). One of ordinary skill in the art could have provided Deng with the known technical feature of an insulating layer between the retention area 122 and the coating area 11 ([0037] and Fig. 3), such that the end of the insulating layer in a winding axis direction would be 0.5 mm to 2 mm from the lower portion of the cut groove (Figs. 3 and 13).
One of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize the amendment to claim 19 as a special technical feature that is a contribution over Deng and Tsuruta.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that there is no undue burden to examine all of the claims in the application, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The battery of claims 30-38 and 44-49 require a different field of search, such as searching different subclasses and search queries, compared to the electrode assembly of claims 19-20, 23, 26, 29, and 39-43.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 30-39 and newly presented claims 44-49 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on June 29, 2026.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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 19-20, 23, 26, 29, and 39-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "adjacent segments" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Line 8 recites “a plurality of segments”. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted the limitation of line 10 as “adjacent segments of the plurality of segments”, referring to the limitation of line 8. Claims 20, 23, 26, 29, and 39-43 are similarly rejected because they depend upon claim 19.
Claim 26 recites the limitation “wherein a curvature radius of the round portion gradually increases and then gradually decreases from the side portion of one segment of the adjacent segments to the side portion of another segment of the adjacent segments in a region corresponding to a separation pitch of the adjacent segments in the winding direction” in lines 4-7. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted the limitation as “wherein a curvature radius increases at the side portion of one segment of the adjacent segments and decreases at the side portion of another segment of the adjacent segments in a region corresponding to a separation pitch of the adjacent segments in the winding direction”.
Claim 43 recites the limitation “in the range of along the winding axis direction” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted the limitation as “in a range in the winding axis direction”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 19-20, 23, 26, and 41-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Deng (CN 113193165 A) in view of Tsuruta (US 2020/0144676 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Deng discloses an electrode assembly (Fig. 5) comprising a first electrode ([0055] and Fig. 5, positive tab 21), a second electrode ([0055] and Fig. 5, negative tab 22), and a separator interposed therebetween ([0055] and Fig. 5, first separator 23), the first electrode, the second electrode, and the separator being wound in a winding direction about a winding axis to define a core and an outer circumference of the electrode assembly ([0055] and Fig. 5, positive tab 21, negative tab 22, and first separator 23 wound into battery core 2), wherein the first electrode includes a first active material portion coated with an active material layer along the winding direction ([0037] and Fig. 1, coating area 11) and a first uncoated portion not coated with an active material layer ([0037] and Fig. 1, empty foil area 12), wherein the first uncoated portion includes a plurality of segments which are independently bendable ([0038] and Fig. 2, plurality of tabs 14 formed in cutting area 121 of empty foil area 12), wherein a cut groove is located between adjacent segments along the winding direction ([0045] and Fig. 13, interval between tabs 14), wherein a lower portion of the cut groove is a round portion ([0045] and Fig. 13, angle b and angle c are rounded).
Deng does not disclose wherein an insulating coating layer is formed at a region of the first uncoated portion between the first active material portion and the lower portion of the cut groove, and wherein an end of the insulating coating layer in a winding axis direction is located within a range of -2 mm to +2 mm based on a bottom of the cut groove.
Tsuruta (US 2020/0144676 A1) discloses an insulating layer 114 between a first coating 110 and a noncoated conductive portion 118 ([0038]-[0039] and Fig. 1). The noncoated conductive portion 118 of Tsuruta ([0039] and Fig. 1) is analogous to the empty foil area 12 of Deng ([0037] and Fig. 1).
Deng and Tsuruta are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrode assemblies. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive tab of Deng with the teachings of Tsuruta, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Doing so would reduce or prevent electrical contact between the electrodes during winding (Tsuruta [0038]).
Deng further discloses that the distance between the dividing line 123 and the boundary line 13 is greater than or equal to 0.5 mm and less than or equal to 2 mm ([0009] and Fig. 3), which would be the length of the retention area 122 in a winding axis direction ([0037] and Fig. 3). The insulating layer of modified Deng would be provided between the retention area 122 and the coating area 11 (Deng [0037] and Fig. 3), such that the end of the insulating layer in a winding axis direction would be 0.5 mm to 2 mm from the lower portion of the cut groove (Deng Figs. 3 and 13).
Regarding claim 20, modified Deng discloses the limitations of claim 19. Deng further discloses wherein the round portion has substantially a same shape as a circle having a diameter that is equal to a separation pitch of the adjacent segments in the winding direction ([0045] and Figs. 3 and 13, the radius of rounded corners of angles b and c from 0 to length N of the interval, so the diameter is from 0 to 2N). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 23, modified Deng discloses the limitations of claim 19. Deng further discloses wherein the round portion has a shape that approximately follows a circle having a diameter that is equal to a separation pitch of the adjacent segments in the winding direction ([0045] and Figs. 3 and 13, the radius of rounded corners of angles b and c from 0 to length N of the interval, so the diameter is from 0 to 2N). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 26, modified Deng discloses the limitations of claim 19. Deng further discloses wherein the round portion connects side portions of the adjacent segments located on opposite sides of the cut groove ([0038], [0045], and Fig. 13, first side 141 and second side 142 of adjacent tabs connected by round portion) and wherein a curvature radius of the round portion gradually increases and then gradually decreases from the side portion of one segment of the adjacent segments to the side portion of another segment of the adjacent segments in a region corresponding to a separation pitch of the adjacent segments in the winding direction (see Deng Annotated Fig. 13 below). The curvature radius of the round portion increases at the second side 142 and decreases at the first side 141.
Deng Annotated Fig. 13
PNG
media_image1.png
838
1306
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 41, modified Deng discloses the limitations of claim 19. Deng further discloses wherein the round portion does not have a straight shape ([0045] and Fig. 13, angle b and angle c are rounded, and the intersection of the two sides is a smooth transition).
Regarding claim 42, modified Deng discloses the limitations of claim 19. The additional limitations of claim 42 recite a process of forming the cut groove, but do not recite distinct structural characteristics that distinguish the electrode assembly of claim 42 over the prior art (see MPEP § 2113). The electrode assembly of modified Deng is considered to meet the limitations of claim 42. The examiner notes that Deng further discloses that the positive tab tabs 21 are formed by laser cutting the positive tab 21 ([0062]).
Regarding claim 43, modified Deng discloses the limitations of claim 19. Deng further discloses wherein the end of the insulating coating layer in the winding axis direction is positioned in the range of along the winding axis direction based on the end of the separator ([0009], [0019], and [0059], the distance between the tab 211 and the top of first separator 23 is 0.5-5 mm after smoothing).
As set forth above in the rejection of claim 19, the insulating layer of modified Deng would be provided between the retention area 122 and the coating area 11 ([0037] and Fig. 3), such that the end of the insulating layer in the winding axis direction would be 0.5 mm to 2 mm from the lower portion of the cut groove (Figs. 3 and 13). The lower portion of the cut groove of Deng ([0045] and Fig. 13, interval between tabs 14) is at the same level as the bottom of the tab 14 in the winding axis direction. Therefore, the end of the insulating coating layer is positioned relative to the end of the separator in the winding axis direction.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng (CN 113193165 A) in view of Tsuruta (US 2020/0144676 A1) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Tanaka et al. (JP 2014022116 A, translation provided by Applicant in IDS filed on December 29, 2025, and hereinafter “Tanaka”).
Regarding claim 29, modified Deng discloses the limitations of claim 19. Deng discloses wherein side portions of the adjacent segments located on opposite sides of the cut groove extend in a straight line ([0038] and Fig. 13, first side 141 and second side 142). Deng does not disclose wherein an upper portion of each segment extends linearly along the winding direction and wherein an upper corner of each segment where the upper portion and the side portion meet has a round shape.
Tanaka discloses trapezoidal positive electrode tab portions 37 and 39 ([0035] and Fig. 4) with an upper portion that extends linearly along the winding direction ([0035] and Fig. 4, sides 37C and 39C), straight side portions ([0035] and Fig. 4, sides 37A, 37B, 39A, and 39B), and round corners where the upper portion and side portion meet ([0035] and Fig. 4, angles θ5-θ8).
Tanaka is analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of electrode assemblies. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive tab tabs of Deng with the teachings of Tanaka, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Doing so would reduce stress concentration and tab deformation during manufacturing (Tanaka [0035]).
Claims 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng (CN 113193165 A) in view of Tsuruta (US 2020/0144676 A1) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 2021/0344033 A1, disclosed by Applicant in the IDS filed on November 05, 2025).
Regarding claim 39, modified Deng discloses the limitations of claim 19. Deng further discloses wherein the plurality of segments are bent and overlapped in several layers along a radial direction to form a bending surface region ([0055] and Figs. 5 and 7, positive tab tabs 211 are stacked to form a ring shape), and wherein an area of the bending surface region in which a stack number of segments in the winding axis direction is 10 or more (Figs. 5 and 7).
Modified Deng does not disclose that the area is a welding target region to which at least a part of a current collector is welded.
Park discloses a first current collecting plate 141 welded to a first non-coated part 111b containing a plurality of tabs ([0042] and Fig. 1).
Park is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of electrode assemblies. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wound battery of modified Deng with the teachings of Park according to known methods to yield the predictable result of directing current from the positive tab tabs of Deng, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so (see MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 40, modified Deng discloses the limitations of claim 39. Modified Deng further discloses wherein the welding target region includes an area in which the stack number of segments in the winding axis direction is at maximum (Park [0042] and Fig. 1, first current collecting plate is welded to and covers the first non-coated part 111b).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jackie Liang whose telephone number is (571)-272-0880. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:45AM to 4:45PM.
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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached at (571)-272-1307. 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.
/J.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 2 September 2026
Prosecution Insights