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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, drawn to a battery cell, Species A1, and Species B2 in the reply filed on 03/09/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 4 and 11-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, Species A2, and Species B1, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/09/2026.
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 8-9 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.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase “the second bonding portion of the electrode lead” (line 3) renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear whether Applicant is referring to the “a second bonding portion” which is “on an end of the electrode tab” previously established in claim 8, line 2, or a second bonding portion of the electrode lead. For the purpose of this Office Action, the claim limitation has been interpreted to read, “with the second bonding portion of the electrode tab” which aligns with [0039]-[0042] of the instant specification.
Claim 9 is similarly rejected as being dependent from claim 8.
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.
Claims 1-3, and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oh et al. (US 20170214028 A1), hereinafter Oh '028.
Regarding claim 1, Oh ‘028 discloses a battery cell (Abstract), comprising:
an electrode assembly (Abstract);
an electrode tab drawn out from one surface of the electrode assembly (i.e. electrode tab protruding from electrode plates, Abstract); and an electrode lead (Abstract) to which the electrode tab is coupled (i.e. electrode lead coupled with end of bent electrode tabs to form tab-lead coupler, Abstract),
wherein a bonding portion (i.e. tab-lead coupler, [0060]) in which the electrode tab and the electrode lead are bonded to each other (i.e. tab-lead coupler connected with method such as welding, [0036], Fig. 5a, 390) is disposed to face the electrode assembly as shown in Annotated Oh ‘028 Fig. 5a below,
PNG
media_image1.png
517
1193
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Oh ‘028 Fig. 5a
and wherein, the bonding portion (Fig. 5a, 390), an end of the electrode tab and an end of the electrode lead are disposed to be oriented in the same direction, as shown in annotated Oh ‘028 Fig. 5a below.
PNG
media_image2.png
528
1192
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Oh ‘028 Fig. 5a
Regarding claim 2, Oh ‘028 discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Oh ‘028 further discloses a protective member formed of an insulating material (i.e. insulating cap C, [0121]) and covering a surface of the bonding portion (i.e. tab-lead coupler surrounded by insulating cap C, [0121]).
Regarding claim 3, Oh ‘028 discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Oh ‘028 further discloses the protective member surrounds an end of the electrode tab and the end of the electrode lead ([0121], Fig. 5a).
Oh’ 028 further discloses insulating cap may be frictionally engaged into the end of the tab-lead coupler or may be inserted in the end of the tab-lead coupler and then adhered thereto by means of an adhesive ([0121]), thus satisfying the claim limitation, “wherein the protective member surrounds an end of the electrode tab and an end of the electrode lead and is coupled to the bonding portion”.
Regarding claim 5, Oh ‘028 discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Oh ‘028 further discloses wherein the protective member has an accommodation space in a form of a pocket (i.e. insulating cap has groove corresponding to shape of the end of the tab-lead coupler, [0121]), and the bonding portion is inserted into and disposed in the accommodation space through an opening provided in the protective member ([0121], Fig. 5a and 5b)
Regarding claim 6, Oh ‘028 discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Oh ‘028 further discloses at least a portion of the protective member is disposed between the bonding portion and the electrode assembly ([0132]), as shown in Annotated Oh ‘028 Fig. 5a below.
PNG
media_image3.png
501
783
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Oh ‘028 Fig. 5a
Regarding claim 7, Oh ‘028 discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Oh ‘028 further discloses a case accommodating the electrode assembly (i.e. battery case, [0047]) and the protective member therein, wherein at least a portion of the electrode lead is disposed externally of the case ([0047], Fig. 5a, 360).
Regarding claim 8, in view of the 112(b) rejection above, Oh ‘028 discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Oh ‘028 further discloses the bonding portion including a second bonding portion formed on an end of the electrode tab and first bonding portion bonded to (i.e. connected with a method such as welding, [0036]) and in surface contact with the second bonding portion of the electrode tab, as shown in Annotated Oh ‘028 Fig. 5a below.
PNG
media_image4.png
546
783
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Oh ‘028 Fig. 5a
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oh et al. (US 10615398 B2), hereinafter Oh '398.
Regarding claim 10, Oh ‘398 discloses a battery cell (Abstract) comprising:
a case (col 6, lines 44-51); an electrode assembly accommodated in the case (col 6, lines 44-51), an electrode lead coupled to the electrode tab (i.e. tab-lead coupling part, col.6, lines 28-31) and having at least a portion disposed externally of the case (Fig. 6, 230),
wherein the electrode lead includes a first bonding portion bonded to the electrode tab and a lead-out portion extending from the first bonding portion and having at least a portion externally of the case, as shown in annotated Oh ‘398 Fig. 6 below,
PNG
media_image5.png
691
1264
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Oh ‘398 Fig. 6
and wherein the first bonding portion is disposed side by side with one surface of the electrode assembly, and the lead-out portion is disposed in a center of a thickness range of the electrode assembly, as shown in annotated Oh ‘398 Fig. 6 below.
PNG
media_image6.png
718
1263
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated Oh ‘398 Fig. 6
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (US 20170214028 A1), hereinafter Oh '028, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Park et al. (US 20200127269 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Oh ‘028 discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Oh ‘028 further discloses the electrode lead further includes a lead-out portion extending from the first bonding portion and having at least a portion disposed externally of the case (Fig. 5a, 360). Oh ‘028 further discloses a desire to enhance space utilization as the electrode tabs and tab-lead coupler protrude from one side of an electrode assembly to occupy a certain volume which does not contribute to the enhancement of the battery capacity ([0002];[0018]).
Oh ‘028 appears to show a 180° angle between the first bonding portion and the lead-out portion, as shown in Annotated Oh ‘028 Fig. 6 below, thus not explicitly disclosing an angle of less than 180° as claimed, however, Oh does not explicitly strictly limit the angle between the first bonding and lead-out portion to be 180° specifically either.
PNG
media_image7.png
447
1175
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Annotated Oh ‘028 Fig. 5a
Park teaches a similar electrode assembly wherein the coupling portion comprising of the first bonding portion of the electrode lead (i.e. first lead end) and the electrode tabs may be bent at an angle of 75° to 105° with respect to the lead-out portion (i.e. lead body) toward the side surface ([0021]-[0022]). Park further teaches in bending the electrode lead, the electrode lead does not protrude outwards from the electrode assembly, thus further reducing the space occupied by electrode tabs and the electrode lead, and in turn, reducing the volume of the battery cell while maintaining the same capacity ([0024]). This will effectively increase the energy density of the battery cell and overall battery module ([0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have bent the lead-out portion such that the angle between the first bonding portion and lead-out portion have an angle between 75° to 105°, which is within the claimed less than 180°, for the benefit of further reducing the space occupied by electrode tabs and the electrode lead to increase energy density of the battery module, as taught by Park and desired by Oh ‘028.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESTHER J TAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3479. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:30PM.
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.
/E.J.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 4/7/2026
Prosecution Insights