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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant has argued that neither Chen nor Fang discloses or suggests the limitation regarding a ratio of L1 to R0 ranging from 0.3 to 0.7 (Remarks, Pgs. 7-8). Applicant has argued that even if Chen discloses an overlapping ratio of L1 to R0, Chen does not further specify any particular ratio to achieve a specific technical effect (Remarks, Pgs. 9-10). Applicant has noted that the present application involves a specific shape design for a cylindrical battery, with structural proportions set for a specific purpose, which differs from Chen’s non-specific structural proportions (Remarks. Pg. 10). Accordingly, Applicant has argued that the instant application cannot be easily achieved by a person skilled in the art by modifying Chen (Remarks, Pg. 10).
The Examiner has carefully considered this argument, but respectfully does not find it persuasive. The Examiner notes that no specific error has been pointed out in the previous rejection of Claim 1, and Applicant’s arguments appear to concede that Chen discloses an overlapping ratio of L1 to R0. Although Applicant has argued that the instant application achieves a special technical effect, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). As laid out in the rejection of Claim 1 (see above), Chen discloses an overlapping ratio of L1 to R0, and therefore the alleged technical effect of the instant application would naturally flow from the disclosure of Chen. The Examiner notes that there is currently no evidence on record to establish criticality to the claimed range. See MPEP 716.02(d), II.
For clarity of record, the Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments at the top of Pg. 9 regarding the relationship between L2 and R0 do not apply to Claim 1 (the Examiner notes that limitations regarding the ratio of L2 to R0 appear in Claim 6), and therefore such arguments are moot in relation to Claim 1.
Applicant has argued that the purpose of setting H1 (or h1) and L1 in Chen is completely different from the instant application, that the technical solutions and technical effects are completely different, and artisans skilled in the art will not be able to deduce the technical means from the disclosure of Chen (Remarks, Pgs. 10-11). Specifically, Applicant has argued that the design of H1 in Chen is primarily intended to address structural safety issues while facilitating assembly and reserving space for component installation, while the benefits of the preset application are aimed at optimizing the electrolyte permeability and gas expulsion rate, while reducing the weight of the electrode assembly and maintaining sufficient overcurrent capability within a certain range to avoid thermal runaway and ensure battery reliability (Remarks, Pgs. 11-12). Applicant notes that the instant application recites disadvantages when the ratio of L1/R0 is outside the claimed range, and has argued that the technical problem to be solved in Chen is obviously different than the technical problem to be solved by Claim 1 (Remarks, Pgs. 12-13). Applicant has argued that even if the numerical range of Chen overlaps mathematically with the numerical range in current Claim 1, Chen still fails to teach or imply any specific technical effect resulting from optimizing its parameters to the L1/R0 ratio (Remarks, Pg. 12).
The Examiner has carefully considered this argument, but respectfully does not find it persuasive. As previously noted, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Chen discloses an overlapping range which substantially encompasses the claimed range (see rejection of Claim 1, above). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in selecting any potion of the range, including the overlapping portion (MPEP 2144.05, I). The Examiner notes that there is currently no evidence on record to establish the criticality of the claimed range. See MPEP 716.02(d), II. Thus, the rejection of Claim 1 over Chen is maintained.
Regarding Claim 7, as best understood Applicant appears to have argued that the diameter of the electrode assembly body of Chen may differ from the diameter of the electrode assembly body of the instant application and therefore, given that the specifications of the selected electrode assembly may differ, Chen fails to disclose the limitations of Claim 7 (Remarks, Pg. 13).
The Examiner has carefully considered this argument, but respectfully does not find it persuasive. As laid out in the rejections of record (see rejection of Claim 7, above), Chen discloses 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 (MPEP 2144.05, I), and Chen further discloses motivation to optimize the cut-out areas h1 and h3 in relation to the diameter of the electrode assembly (D), including selecting values which result in a first tab region which falls within the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05, II). Since Applicant has not pointed out a specific error in the rejections of record, the rejections are maintained as set forth, above.
Applicant has argued that Fang does not teach the ratio of L1/R0 as recited in Claim 1, nor that the location of the first tab region is located between 1/10 N turns and 2/5 N turns of the electrode assembly body as recited in Claim 7 (Remarks, Pgs. 13-14).
The Examiner has carefully considered this argument, but respectfully does not find it persuasive. The Examiner notes that Fang is not relied upon to teach the limitations of Claims 1 or 7 (instead being relied upon to teach limitations of Claim 5 upon which Claim 7 depends), and therefore arguments directed towards Fang not teaching these limitations are moot.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 7/28/2026
Prosecution Insights