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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 2-4 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 03/04/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 3 in the reply filed on 03/04/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Claim 5 should belong to Species 3, not Species 2. This is partially persuasive since the subject matter of Claim 5 belongs to both Species 2 and Species 3. The election of Species 3 is acknowledged, and the restriction requirement of Claim 5 is withdrawn since Claim 5 is acknowledged as not being mutually exclusive to Species 2. The Examiner notes that Species 1-3 are still drawn towards mutually exclusive structures (e.g. in Species 2 the second tab is electrically connected to the surrounding wall [0043], while in Species 3 the second tab is electrically connected to the cover plate [0049-0050]; see also explanation provided in the Requirement for Restriction/Election mailed 01/15/2026). Therefore, the restriction requirement between Species 1-3 is maintained since the species are mutually exclusive, as exemplified by Figs. 1, 4 and 7. Claim 8 is acknowledged as another generic claim to the restriction requirement
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 01/23/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. Specifically, the NPL document “Office Action of Japan Counterpart Application” is not in the English language, and no English translation has been provided. Accordingly, the NPL document has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The Examiner further notes that the NPL reference “Search Report of Europe Counterpart Application” contains references in addition to those individually listed in the IDS. Only the references individually listed in the IDS have been considered (see MPEP 609.04(a)).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the liquid injection hole 21 in Fig. 7 as described in the specification [0049]. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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 Objections
Claims 1 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 contains a typographical error. The recitation “wherein the electrode assembly comprises a electrode assembly body” (lines 6-7) should read “wherein the electrode assembly comprises an electrode assembly body” (emphasis added).
Claim 8 contains a typographical error. The recitation “The cylindrical cell according to claims 1” should read “The cylindrical cell according to claim 1” (emphasis added).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US-20240128569-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Chen discloses a cylindrical cell (battery; Figs. 1-3), comprising:
a housing (case 20; [0012, 0040]), having an end wall and a surrounding wall enclosing a peripheral side of the end wall (see annotation of Chen Fig. 3, below);
an electrode pole (pole 40; [0017, 0045]), penetrating through the end wall (i.e. via the mounting hole 400; [0045, 0048]) and being fixed to the end wall in an insulated manner (i.e. via an insulating seal; [0019, 0048]).
PNG
media_image1.png
982
959
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Chen Fig. 3.
Chen further discloses that the cylindrical cell comprises:
an electrode assembly (coil 10), disposed in the housing [0012, 0041],
wherein the electrode assembly comprises an electrode assembly body and a first tab (positive electrode tab 1; [0034]; see annotation of Chen Fig. 2, below), the first tab is located at a first end of the electrode assembly body facing the electrode pole [0046-0047].
PNG
media_image2.png
1042
889
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Chen Fig. 2.
Chen discloses that the first tab comprises a center cut-out area (122. Fig. 2) and an outer cut-out area (121, Fig. 2) [0034, 0037-0038]. This results in a configuration wherein the first tab protrudes from the electrode body (see Fig. 2; [0034]). Accordingly, an orthographic projection of the first tab on the first end of the electrode assembly can be depicted as seen below. The resulting structure has an annular first tab region.
PNG
media_image3.png
301
672
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Illustration of orthographic projection.
Chen discloses that the outer ring cut-out area has a width (h1) of 1-10 mm [0037], that the center cut-out area has a width (h3) of 3-15 mm [0038], and that the diameter (D) of the entire electrode assembly (coil 10) is 30-60 mm [0039]. Chen further discloses that the space between the case and the electrode assembly (coil 10) is minimized in order to improve energy density [0003].
Therefore, although Chen does not explicitly teach the radius of the inner side of the surrounding wall, the diameter of the electrode assembly can be approximated as the diameter of the diameter of the inner side of the surrounding wall, since one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to have minimized the distance (i.e. empty space) between the electrode assembly and the case in order to maximize energy density. Accordingly, Chen renders obvious distances as laid out, below:
PNG
media_image4.png
266
545
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Here, the distance h1 corresponds to “a distance between any point on an outer boundary of the first tab region and an inner side of the surrounding wall” (i.e. L1) and half of the diameter (D) corresponds to “a radius of the inner side of the surrounding wall” (i.e. R0). Accordingly, the ratio L1 to R0 can be calculated, and falls within the range of 0.03 (i.e. 1/30) to 0.66 (i.e. 10/15). This range overlaps the claimed range.
Therefore, although not Chen does not explicitly teach that a ratio of L1 to R0 ranges from 0.3 to 0.7, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected any portion of the range disclosed in the prior art, including selecting the overlapping portion, with a reasonable expectation that a ratio of L1 to R0 of 0.3 to 0.66 would result in a diameter (D) and a width of the outer ring cut-out area (h1) capable of being used in a successful cylindrical cell (MPEP 2144.05, I).
Regarding Claim 8, Chen renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth, above. Chen further discloses that the cylindrical cell further comprises a cover plate (first current collection plate 30; [0041]), and the cover plate is fixed to one end of the surrounding wall away from the end wall (i.e. via connecting parts 302; see Fig. 3; [0041-0042]).
Regarding Claim 9, Chen renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth, above. Chen further discloses that the electrode assembly further comprises:
a second tab (negative electrode tab 2, Fig. 2) [0034, 0037],
the second tab is disposed at a second end of the electrode assembly body close to the cover plate (see Figs. 2-3; [0034, 0041-0042, 0044]), and
the second tab is directly and electrically connected to the cover plate (“collector plate main body 301 is welded with the tab of the first end of the coil 10” [0042]), and the cover plate is electrically connected with the surrounding wall (“connecting parts 302 are located in the tab outer ring cut-out area 121 of the tab of the first end of the coil 10, and welded connect with the inner wall of the case 20” [0042]).
Regarding Claim 10, Chen renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth, above. Chen discloses that the second tab comprises a center cut-out area (122. Fig. 2) and an outer cut-out area (121, Fig. 2) [0034, 0037-0038]. This results in a configuration wherein the second tab protrudes from the electrode body (see Fig. 2; [0034]). Accordingly, an orthographic projection of the second tab on the second end of the electrode assembly can be drawn as depicted below. The resulting structure has an annular second tab region.
PNG
media_image5.png
289
665
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Illustration of orthographic projection.
Chen discloses that the outer ring cut-out area has a width (H1) of 1-10 mm [0037], that the center cut-out area has a width (H3) of 3-15 mm [0038], and that the diameter (D) of the entire electrode assembly (coil 10) is 30-60 mm [0039]. Furthermore, as laid out in the rejection of Claim 1 (see above), Chen renders obvious that the diameter of the electrode assembly can be approximated as the diameter of the diameter of the inner side of the surrounding wall. Accordingly, Chen renders obvious distances as laid out, below:
PNG
media_image6.png
343
647
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Here, half of H3 corresponds to “a distance between any point on an inner boundary of the second tab region and a centerline of the electrode assembly body” (i.e. L3), and half of D corresponds to R0 (see rejection of Claim 1, above). Accordingly, the ratio L3 to R0 can be calculated, and falls within the range of 0.05 (i.e. 1.5/30) to 0.5 (i.e. 7.5/15). This range overlaps the claimed range.
Therefore, although not Chen does not explicitly teach that a ratio of L3 to R0 ranges from 0.5 to 0.8, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected any portion of the range disclosed in the prior art, including selecting the overlapping portion, with a reasonable expectation that a ratio of L3 to R0 of 0.5 would result in a diameter (D) and a width of the center cut-out area (H3) capable of being used in a successful cylindrical cell (MPEP 2144.05, I).
Chen discloses that the electrode assembly is wound to form a cylindrical shape [0035]. Therefore, although Chen does not explicitly teach the number of turns of the electrode assembly body, it is understood that the electrode assembly body inherently has an innermost turn (i.e. first turn) and an outmost turn (i.e. Nth turn).
Although Chen does not explicitly teach that the second tab region is located between ½ N turns and N turns of the electrode assembly body, Chen does disclose possible widths for the center cut-out area (H3), the outer ring cut-out area (H1), and the diameter of the coil (D) (see illustration above; [0037-0039]). The Examiner notes that the location of the second tab region depends on the H1, H3 and D. For instance, a larger H1 value and a smaller H3 value would result in a second tab region which is located closer to the center of the electrode assembly body. On the other hand, a smaller H1 value and a larger H3 value would result in a second tab region which is located closer to the outer edge of the electrode assembly body (see illustrations, below). The values of H1 and H3 disclosed by Chen are in relation to the total diameter (D) of the electrode assembly, and thus the location of the second tab region depends on the value of D.
PNG
media_image7.png
272
604
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Illustration of location of second tab region depending on H1 and H3 values
Chen discloses values of H1, H3 and D which would result in a second tab region which falls within the claimed range of “½ N turns and N turns of the electrode assembly body”. For instance, if D is selected to be ~30 mm, H1, is selected to be ~1 mm, and H3 is selected to be ~15 mm [0037-0039], the resulting second tab region is located “between 1/2 N turns and N turns of the electrode assembly body”, thus rendering obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05, I).
Chen further discloses that the center cut-out area (H3) helps prevent blocking of the center hole, and facilitates the welding needle or thimble to enter the center hole and reserves a space for the installation of the electrode pole [0035, 0038]. The outer cut-out area (H1) facilitates installation of the electrode assembly, and helps prevent tab deformation and internal short circuits, thereby increasing safety [0035-0037, 0042]. Chen also indicates that dead space between the housing and the electrode assembly is preferably reduced in order to improve energy density of the battery [0003].
Therefore, in seeking to achieve a balance between providing sufficiently large cut-out portions (H1, H3) such that the center hole remains accessible and such that installation of the electrode assembly is facilitated, while preventing excessively large cut-out portions in order to maximize energy density, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to have optimized the widths of the cut-out areas (H1, H3) in relation to the diameter of the electrode assembly (D), including selecting widths and a diameter which result in the second tab region being located “located between 1/2 N turns and N turns of the electrode assembly body” with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful balance between the advantageous effects of the cut-out portions and maximizing energy density (MPEP 2144.05, II).
Claim(s) 5-7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US-20240128569-A1) as applied to Claim 1, above, and in view of Fang et al. (WO-2023023917-A1; see attached English translation for citations).
Regarding Claim 5, Chen renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Chen discloses that the application provides a structure which ensures the safety of battery products and improves assembly efficiency [0004, 0011]. Chen does not teach that the electrode pole comprises a liquid injection hole.
Fang teaches a similar battery cell including a wound electrode assembly accommodated in a housing [0006-0008, 0135, 0150-152, 0155, 0164-0165]. Fang teaches an electrode terminal (reads on electrode pole) which includes a terminal body comprising a connecting part [0162, 0223]. The connecting part is provided with a first through hole which connects to the internal space of the housing [0234]. The first through hole can be used as a liquid injection hole, and can also be used to extract gas generated inside the battery [0237-0239]. Advantageously, by allowing electrolyte to be smoothly injected into the housing, the wetting efficiency of the electrode assembly is improved [0243]. Additionally, the first through hole can release welding stress and reduce the risk of a break in the connection between the electrode terminal and a current collecting member [0236].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided a through hole (reads on a liquid injection hole) in the electrode pole of Chen with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful cylindrical cell with improved wetting efficiency and reduced welding stress.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Chen renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including that the first tab region can be represented by the following orthographic projection (see rejection of Claim 1, above).
PNG
media_image3.png
301
672
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Illustration of orthographic projection.
Chen also renders obvious that the outer cut-out area (h1), the center cut-out area (h3), and the diameter (D) of the electrode assembly (which can be used to approximate the diameter of the inner side of the surrounding wall) can have the following values (see rejection of Claim 1, above).
PNG
media_image4.png
266
545
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Here, half of h3 corresponds to “a distance between any point on an inner boundary of the first tab region and a centerline of the surrounding wall” (i.e. L2), and half of D corresponds to R0 (see rejection of Claim 1, above). Accordingly, the ratio L2 to R0 can be calculated, and falls within the range of 0.05 (i.e. 1.5/30) to 0.5 (i.e. 7.5/15). This range overlaps the claimed range.
Therefore, although not Chen does not explicitly teach that a ratio of L2 to R0 ranges from 0.1 to 0.4, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected any portion of the range disclosed in the prior art, including selecting the overlapping portion, with a reasonable expectation that a ratio of L2 to R0 of 0.1 to 0.4 would result in a diameter (D) and a width of the center cut-out area (h3) capable of being used in a successful cylindrical cell (MPEP 2144.05, I).
Regarding Claim 7, Chen renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Chen discloses that the electrode assembly is wound to form a cylindrical shape [0035]. Therefore, although Chen does not explicitly teach the number of turns of the electrode assembly body, it is understood that the electrode assembly body inherently has an innermost turn (i.e. first turn) and an outmost turn (i.e. Nth turn).
Although Chen does not explicitly teach that the first tab region is located between “1/10 N turns and 2/5 N turns of the electrode assembly body”, Chen does disclose possible widths for the center cut-out area (h3), the outer ring cut-out area (h1), and the diameter of the coil (D) (see illustration above; [0037-0039]). The Examiner notes that the location of the first tab region depends on the h1, h3 and D. For instance, a larger h1 value and a smaller h3 value would result in a first tab region which is located closer to the center of the electrode assembly body. On the other hand, a smaller h1 value and a larger h3 value would result in a first tab region which is located closer to the outer edge of the electrode assembly body (see illustrations, below). The values of h1 and h3 disclosed by Chen are in relation to the total diameter (D) of the electrode assembly, and thus the location of the first tab region depends on the value of D.
PNG
media_image8.png
272
604
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Illustration of location of first tab region depending on h1 and h3 values
Chen discloses possible values of h1, h3 and D which would result in a first tab region which falls within the claimed range of “1/10 N turns and 2/5 N turns of the electrode assembly body”. For instance, if D is selected to be ~30 mm, H1, is selected to be ~10 mm, and H3 is selected to be ~4 mm [0037-0039], the resulting first tab region is located “between 1/10 N turns and 2/5 N turns of the electrode assembly body”, thus rendering obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05, I).
Chen further discloses that the center cut-out area (h3) helps prevent blocking of the center hole, and facilitates the welding needle or thimble to enter the center hole and reserves a space for the installation of the electrode pole [0035, 0038]. The outer cut-out area (h1) facilitates installation of the electrode assembly, and helps prevent tab deformation and internal short circuits, thereby increasing safety [0035-0037, 0042]. Chen also indicates that dead space between the housing and the electrode assembly is preferably reduced in order to improve energy density of the battery [0003].
Therefore, in seeking to achieve a balance between providing sufficiently large cut-out portions (h1, h3) such that the center hole remains accessible and such that installation of the electrode assembly is facilitated, while preventing excessively large cut-out portions in order to maximize energy density, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to have optimized the widths of the cut-out areas (h1, h3) in relation to the diameter of the electrode assembly (D), including selecting widths and a diameter which result in a first tab region being located “located between 1/10 N turns and 2/5 N turns of the electrode assembly body” with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful balance between the advantageous effects of the cut-out portions and maximizing energy density (MPEP 2144.05, II).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Chen renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Although Chen discloses a cylindrical cell (battery) according to Claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 1, above; [0002-0004, 0011-0012]), Chen does not teach an electronic device comprising the battery.
Fang teaches a similar battery cell including a wound electrode assembly accommodated in a housing [0006-0008, 0135, 0150-152, 0155, 0164-0165]. Fang teaches that battery cells are widely used in electronic devices, and Fang teaches a vehicle as a specific embodiment of an electronic device (see Fig. 1; [0002, 0136-0140]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used the cylindrical cell disclosed by Chen in Claim 1 in a vehicle (reads on electronic device) as taught by Fang with a reasonable expectation that providing a vehicle (electronic device) comprising the cylindrical cell according to Claim 1 would result in a successful electronic device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DREW C NEWMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9873. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 10:00 AM - 6:00 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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1292. 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.
/D.C.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights