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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-11 were rejected in the Office Action from 02/23/2026.
Applicant filed a response, amended claims 1-3, 5, 7, and 10-11, and cancelled claim 6.
Claims 1-5 and 7-17 are currently pending in the application, of claims 12-17 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-5 and 7-11 are being examined on the merits in this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
In response to the amendments in the claims, the previous claim objections and the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections for the claims are withdrawn from the record.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) have been fully considered. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Jung.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0081570) and further in view of Jung et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0372335).
Regarding claim 1, Jang teaches an electrode (i.e., electrode plate) (paragraph [0032]) (see figures 7A and 7B) comprising a coated portion (212) that is coated with an active material (paragraph [0078);
an uncoated portion (213a; 213b) that is not coated with the active material (paragraph [0010]) (see figure 7A below); and
at least one selected from the group consisting of a first straight section formed by cutting out a part of the boundary region between the coated portion and the uncoated portion (see figure 7A below) and a second straight section (216a) formed by cutting out an edge of the coated portion (paragraph [0086]).
Jang does not explicitly articulate the specifics of wherein a length of a side where the coated portion and the uncoated portion come into contact is longer than a length of a side opposing the same.
Jung, directed to an electrode assembly (abstract), teaches an electrode assembly with electrode tabs (110 and 120) protruding from the electrode where a length of a side where the coated portion and the uncoated portion come into contact is longer than a length of a side opposing the same (i.e., tab may have a trapezoidal shape) (paragraph [0037) (see figure 3). Jung teaches such configuration improve durability and prevent cracks from occurring (paragraph [0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date if the claimed invention to modify Jang tab wherein a length of a side where the coated portion and the uncoated portion come into contact is longer than a length of a side opposing the same, as suggested by Jung, in order to improve durability of the tab and prevents cracks from occurring.
PNG
media_image1.png
382
377
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
614
597
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Jang teaches the first straight section comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of a 1-1 straight section having a predetermined length in a direction from one end of the coated portion to the center of the coated portion that is set to be perpendicular to the boundary region (see figure 7a below).
PNG
media_image3.png
358
450
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Jang teaches the coated portion comprises a first edge portion adjacent to the boundary region with the uncoated portion (see figure 7a below); and a second edge portion spaced apart from the boundary region with the uncoated portion (see figure 7a below), and the second straight section comprises at least one selected from the group consisting a 2-1 straight section and a 2-2 straight section formed by cutting out the first edge portion (see figure 7a below).
PNG
media_image4.png
378
425
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 7-8, Jang teaches an electrode assembly comprising an electrode including a cathode or an anode and a separator interposed between the cathode and the anode (paragraph [0016]).
Regarding claim 9, Jang teaches the electrode assembly may be one in which the cathode and the anode are alternately stacked (i.e., stacked structure) (paragraph [0037]).
Regarding claims 10-11, Jang teaches the electrode assembly include a plurality of positive electrodes, a plurality of negative electrodes, and a plurality of separators in a stacked structure (paragraph [0037]) therefore, the first and second straight sections on the cathode or anode would be align in the stacking direction.
Claim(s) 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0081570) and Jung et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0372335) as applied to claims 1-2 and 4 above, and further in view of Byun et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0177982).
Regarding claims 3 and 5, Jang teaches the electrode as described above in claim 1 including the first straight section and the second straight section.
Jang fails to disclose or suggest the particular dimensions of the straight sections as described in the instant claims.
Byun, also directed to an electrode assembly (paragraph [0007]), teaches an electrode assembly with a coated and uncoated portion (paragraph [0007]) with a boundary region (paragraph [0008]). Further, Byun teaches the dimension of the boundary regions are selected to reduce heat generated during current flow (paragraph [0008]). Thus, it is interpreted that Byun recognizes that the boundary geometry/dimension and length affect electrical resistance, and heat dissipation may be optimized accordingly.
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art seeking to improve thermal performance of the electrode of Jang would be motivated to modify the dimensions of the straight sections of the boundaries in view of Byun teaching that such dimension directly affects heat generation. It would have been obvious to optimize the lengths of the straight sections and boundary interfaces in Jang to achieve a reduce heat generation, as taught by Byun. Adjusting a dimension (such as a length ≥ 2mm or making one side longer than the opposite side) to achieve a known performance (i.e., heat reduction) is generally considered an instance of routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kanda et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0266845). Kanda teaches an electrode tab with a trapezoidal shape (paragraph [0023]-[0024]) (see figure 2).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHRISTIAN ROLDAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 am - 7:00 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, TONG GUO can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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.
/CHRISTIAN ROLDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights