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 1-7 were rejected in the Office Action from 03/12/2026.
Applicant filed a response, and amended claim 1-7.
Claims 1-17 are currently pending in the application, of claims 8-17 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-7 are being examined on the merits in this Office Action.
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) 1-3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0233540) and further in view of Kwak et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0136004).
Regarding claim 1, Kato teaches a secondary battery (paragraph [0003]) comprising:
a case (5) (paragraph [0038]) (see figure 1);
an electrode assembly (i.e., electrode body) (10) that is wound and accommodated in the case (paragraph [0038]) (see figure 1); and
a support plate (paragraph [0051]-[0052]) (see figure 5) including a plate-shaped base plate disposed at one end of the electrode assembly (see figures 5-6) and supporting the one end of the electrode assembly (see figures 5-6) (paragraph [0051]-[0052]), and
a first rib (121) vertically protruding from the plate-shaped base plate (see figure 6) to be inserted into a wound inner portion of the electrode assembly or to be in contact with an outer surface of the electrode assembly (paragraph [0051]-[0053]), and
at least one second rib (122a, 122b) vertically protruding from the plate-shaped base plate to be in contact with an outer surface of the electrode assembly (see figures 5 and 6) (paragraph [0052]-[0053]).
PNG
media_image1.png
674
713
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kato does not teach the first rib and the at least one second rib are electrically insulated from the electrode assembly.
Kwak, also directed to a secondary battery (abstract), teaches a battery having ribs (i.e., support plates) located between the electrode assembly and outside of the electrode assembly (paragraph [0037]-[0038]). Kwak teaches the ribs are electrically insulated which results in improved safety and reliability of the battery (paragraph [0037]-[0038], [0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kato plate and ribs to be electrically insulated, as suggested by Kwak, in order to improve safety and reliability of the battery.
Regarding claim 2, Kato teaches wherein the first rib rib extends vertically from the center of the plate-shaped base plate (see figure 6) and along a length direction of the base plate (see figure 5) and is inserted into the wound inner portion of the electrode assembly (see figure 6) (paragraph [0051]-[0053]).
PNG
media_image2.png
298
404
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Kato teaches the at least one second rib extends vertically from at least one of a first edge and a second edge of the plate-shaped base plate (122a, 122b) and along a length direction of the plate-shaped base plate (see figure 5) (paragraph [0053]) and contacts the outer surface of the electrode assembly (see figure 5 below), the length direction being substantially parallel with the at least one of the first edge and the second edge (see figures 5-6 below) (paragraph [0051]-[0053]).
PNG
media_image3.png
305
696
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
553
562
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, kato teaches the plate-shaped base plate has a surface having a plurality of trenches (i.e., openings) (123a, 123b) (paragraph [0053]) formed in a length direction of the base plate (see fig. 5).
PNG
media_image5.png
305
518
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0233540) and Kwak et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0136004), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0073380).
Regarding claims 4-5, Kato teaches the battery including the plate-shaped base plate and at least one of the first rib and the at least one second rib as described above in claim 1.
Kato does not teach the at least one rib made or coated with an insulated material.
Kim, also directed to a battery with an electrode assembly (paragraph [0002]) teaches a rib (900) comprising an insulative material (paragraph [0060]-[0061]) which prevents deformation and supports the entire area of the electrode assembly (paragraph [0061]-[0063]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rib of Kato to be made or coated with an insulated material as suggested by kim, with a reasonable expectation of success in which deformation is prevented and increased support is provided in the electrode assembly.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0233540) and Kwak et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0136004), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chao et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0287429).
Regarding claim 6, kato teaches the battery including the electrode assembly and the plate-shaped base plate as described above in claim 1.
Kato does not teach the plate-shaped base plate has a plurality of holes.
Cho, also directed to a battery (paragraph [0003]), teaches a base plate (20) (paragraph [0030]) (see figure 2) having a plurality of holes (24) (paragraph [0038]). Cho teaches the plurality of holes allow electrolyte to flow and impregnate uncoated regions of the electrode assembly (paragraph [0039]).
Consequently, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base plate of Kato to include a plurality of holes as taught by Cho in order to allow electrolyte to flow and impregnate uncoated regions of the electrode assembly.
Response to Arguments
In response to the amendments in the claims, the previous claim objections are withdrawn from the record.
Applicant’s argument filed on 05/29/2026 are deemed moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office Action, necessitated by Applicant’s amendment to the claims which significantly affected the scope thereof (i.e., by incorporating new limitations into the independent claims, which require further search and consideration). The new limitations have been fully addressed above in view of Kwak.
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