DETAILED ACTION
This is the final office action for 18/325,134, filed 5/30/2023, which is a continuation of PCT/CN2021/106359, filed 7/14/2021.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 10-25 are pending; Claims 1-4, 6, 10-18, and 21-25 and are considered herein.
In light of the claim amendments filed 5/11/2026, the rejections are withdrawn, and new grounds of rejection are presented.
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 .
Additional Prior Art
The Examiner wishes to apprise the Applicant of the following references, which are not currently applied in a rejection.
U.S. Patent 7,297,443: This reference teaches a wound battery with an insulating spacer 30 between adjacent current collectors (Figs. 7-8).
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0280406 A1: This reference teaches an insulating reinforcement layer 21 on anode and cathode plates (Fig. 8).
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0151295 A1: This reference teaches cathode current collector tabs disposed in a bent region of a wound battery (Fig. 3A).
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 1-4, 6, 10-18, and 21-25 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.
Claim 1 recites “the main body portions” in line 14. This limitation is indefinite, because there is no prior recitation of “main body portions,” merely “a main body portion” in line 13.
Claims 2-4, 6, 10-18, and 21-25 are indefinite, because of their dependence on Claim 1.
Claim 22 further recites “the two end portions of the electrically conductive layer extending in a bending direction.” This limitation is indefinite, because there is no prior recitation of “two end portions of the electrically conductive layer extending in a bending direction.”
Claim 23 further recites “the two end portions of the electrically conductive layer extending in a bending direction.” This limitation is indefinite, because there is no prior recitation of “two end portions of the electrically conductive layer extending in a bending direction.”
Claim 24 further recites “the two end portions of the electrically conductive layer extending in a bending direction.” This limitation is indefinite, because there is no prior recitation of “two end portions of the electrically conductive layer extending in a bending direction.”
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 1-4, 6, 10-16, and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moon, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0179461 A1).
In reference to Claim 1, it is noted that Claim 1 is indefinite, as described above. The following rejection represents the Examiner’s best understanding of the indefinite claim limitations.
Moon teaches an electrode assembly (Figs. 1-5, paragraphs [0033]-[0045]).
The assembly of Moon comprises a cathode plate 110 (Figs. 2-3, paragraphs [0035]-[0040]), an anode plate 120 (Fig. 2, paragraph [0043]), and a separator 130 configured to separate the cathode plate and the anode plate (Fig. 2, paragraph [0034]).
Moon teaches that the cathode plate 110, the separator 130 and the anode plate 120 are wound to form a bent region (Figs. 4-5).
Moon teaches that the electrode assembly comprises an electrically conductive layer 111/115 configured such that at least a part of the electrically conductive layer 111/115 is provided on a surface of the cathode plate 110 in the bent region (Figs. 4-5).
Moon teaches that the cathode plate 110 comprises a covered region that is covered by the electrically conductive layer 111/115. This “covered region” corresponds to the portion in which the active material layer 112 is covered by the conductive layer 111, Figs. 2-5.
Figs. 2-5 teach that the electrically conductive layer 111/115 is in parallel connection with (i.e. disposed parallel to) the covered region. This is shown in the inset below.
Moon teaches that the electrically conductive layer 111/115 comprises an electrically conductive base layer 111.
The inset below teaches that the electrically conductive base layer 111 comprises, in the bent region and in a winding direction of the electrode assembly, two end portions located on two sides of a center line of the bent region, the two end portions being electrically connected to the covered region (i.e. because they are all part of the same layer 111).
The inset below teaches that the electrically conductive base layer 111 further comprises a main body portion and an ion barrier layer 115 (paragraphs [0038]-[0040]).
The inset below teaches that the main body portion(s) is/are connected to the two end portions.
Fig. 3 teaches that the ion barrier layer 115 is provided between the main body portion of the electrically conductive base layer 111 and the cathode plate 110 (i.e. between a portion of the main body portion of the electrically conductive base layer 111 and a portion 120 of the cathode plate 110).
Because the ion barrier layer 115 is disposed to cover at least a portion of the cathode plate (Fig. 3), the ion barrier layer 115 is “configured to block at least some of ions from escaping from the cathode plate located on one side of the ion barrier layer.”
Figs. 3-5 teach that the ion barrier layer 115 has a length less than a length of the electrically conductive base layer 111 in the winding direction, such that the two end portions of the electrically conductive base layer extend beyond the ion barrier layer 115.
PNG
media_image1.png
430
735
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
439
966
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In reference to Claim 2, Fig. 5 teaches that one or both surfaces of the cathode plate are provided with the electrically conductive layer 111/115 (i.e. the top surface of some of regions 120 and the bottom surface of some of layers 120).
In reference to Claim 3, Figs. 4-5 teach that at least a part of the electrically conductive layer 111/115 is provided at a first-bend part and/or a second-bend part of the cathode plate in the bent region.
In reference to Claim 4, Fig. 4 teaches that the electrically conductive layer 111/115 is further provided at (i.e. near) a first-bend part and/or a second-bend part of the anode plate 120 in the bent region, and is in parallel connection with the anode plate (i.e. structurally connected to and disposed physically parallel to the anode plate).
Fig. 4 teaches that a radially outer surface of the first-bend part of the anode plate 120 is provided with an electrically conductive layer 121, and a radially outer surface of the second-bend part of the anode plate 120 is provided with an electrically conductive layer 121, because layer 121 forms a radial outer surface of at least a portion of the anode plate 120 in both the first and second bend portions.
In reference to Claim 6, Moon teaches that an entire surface of the side of the electrically conductive base layer 111 adjacent to the cathode plate is electrically connected to the covered region in the bent region, because all of the covered regions (i.e. regions in which layers 120 are disposed) are electrically connected to all portions of layer 111 (Figs. 2-3).
The inset under the rejection of Claim 1 above teaches that a center line of the bent region passes through the electrically conductive base layer in a winding direction of the electrode assembly.
In reference to Claim 10, Fig. 3 teaches that the electrically conductive layer 111/115 further comprises an insulation layer (i.e. another of the layers 115 that does not correspond to the “ion barrier layer”) provided on the side of the electrically conductive base layer away from the cathode plate and covers the electrically conductive base layer (paragraphs [0038]-[0040]).
In reference to Claim 11, Fig. 4 teaches that a plurality of electrically conductive base layers 111 are provided, and the plurality of electrically conductive base layers are arranged at intervals in a direction parallel to a winding axis Z of the electrode assembly (Fig. 4).
In reference to Claim 12, Fig. 1 teaches that a current collecting layer 114 is connected to the electrically conductive base layer 111 (paragraph [0035]).
Fig. 1 further teaches that a total current passing area of the electrically conductive base layer 111 is greater than or equal to 1/3 of a current passing area of a current collector 114 of the cathode plate connected to the electrically conductive base layer.
In reference to Claim 13, Moon teaches that the material of the ion barrier layer 115 includes at least one of magnesium oxide, calcium oxide, aluminum oxide, or silicon dioxide (paragraph [0040]).
In reference to Claim 14, Moon teaches that the material of the electrically conductive base layer 111 includes aluminum (paragraph [0035]).
In reference to Claim 15, Moon teaches that a plurality of electrically conductive layers 111/115 are provided, and the plurality of electrically conductive layers are arranged at intervals in a direction parallel to a winding axis of the electrode assembly (Fig. 4). Even though item 111 is a single piece, it is the Examiner’s position that it forms a plurality of layers upon winding, as shown in Fig. 4.
In reference to Claim 16, Moon teaches a battery cell, comprising: a shell 300 (Fig. 1, paragraph [0046]), an electrolyte (paragraph [0047]), a cover plate 460 (Fig. 1, paragraph [0047]), and at least one electrode assembly of claim 1 (described in the rejection of Claim 1 above).
Fig. 1 teaches that the shell 300 has a receiving cavity and an opening, and the electrode assembly and the electrolyte are received in the receiving cavity; and the cover plate is configured to close the opening of the shell (paragraph [0047]).
In reference to Claim 21, Fig. 4 teaches that a part of the electrically conductive layer 111/115 is located in the bent region, and another other part of the electrically conductive layer 111/115 extends into a flat region connecting to the bent region.
Fig. 4 further teaches that a part of the electrically conductive layer 111/115 does not cover an entirety of the flat region, because a portion of the flat region is covered by/comprises the cathode plate and separator.
In reference to Claim 22, it is noted that Claim 22 is indefinite, as described above. The following rejection represents the Examiner’s best understanding of the indefinite claim limitations.
the inset under the rejection of Claim 1 above teaches that the two end portions of the electrically conductive layer extending in a bending direction are both located in the bent region.
In reference to Claim 23, it is noted that Claim 23 is indefinite, as described above. The following rejection represents the Examiner’s best understanding of the indefinite claim limitations.
An alternate interpretation of Moon is applied below.
Because the “electrically conductive layer” is a portion of the continuous layer 111, the “ends” of the electrically conductive layer may be identified as shown in the inset below.
This interpretation teaches the limitations of Claim 23, wherein one of the two end portions of the electrically conductive layer extending in a bending direction is located in the flat region, and the other one of the two end portions is located in the bent region.
PNG
media_image3.png
439
966
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In reference to Claim 24, it is noted that Claim 24 is indefinite, as described above. The following rejection represents the Examiner’s best understanding of the indefinite claim limitations.
The inset under the rejection of Claim 1 above teaches that the two end portions of the electrically conductive layer extending in a bending direction are both located at a junction of the bent region and the flat region.
In reference to Claim 25, Fig. 4 teaches that the bent region comprises a first bent region and a second bent region located on two sides of the flat region (shown in the inset below).
Fig. 4 teaches that an innermost electrode plate 120 in the first bent region and the second bent region is the anode plate (paragraph [0034]).
Fig. 4 teaches that an inner side surface of at least an innermost cathode plate 110 in the first bent region and the second bent region are provided with the electrically conductive layer, because the electrically conductive layer corresponds to the portion of layer 111 in the bent region.
PNG
media_image4.png
472
808
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0179461 A1), in view of Takenouchi, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0377640 A1).
In reference to Claim 17, Moon does not teach the battery structure recited in Claim 17.
To solve the same problem of providing a secondary battery with a wound structure, Takenouchi teaches a battery module comprising a plurality of wound batteries connected in series (Fig. 11, paragraphs [0040]-[0043]).
Takenouchi teaches that this module is used to power electric vehicles or digital cameras (paragraph [0044]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have connected a plurality of cells of Moon into the battery pack of Takenouchi, in order to use the cells of Moon to power an electric vehicle or digital camera.
Connecting a plurality of cells of Moon into the battery pack of Takenouchi, in order to use the cells of Moon to power an electric vehicle or digital camera, teaches the limitations of Claim 17, of a battery comprising a case (i.e. the case shown in Fig. 11 of Takenouchi) and at least one battery cell of claim 16 received in the case.
Connecting a plurality of cells of Moon into the battery pack of Takenouchi, in order to use the cells of Moon to power an electric vehicle or digital camera, teaches the limitations of Claim 18, of a power consuming device configured to receive power provided by a battery of claim 17.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of the claims and the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, these rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 102, and 103.
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 SADIE WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-3245. The examiner can normally be reached 6am-2:30pm ET.
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, Allison Bourke, can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/SADIE WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights