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 .
Examiner Note
It is noted that all references hereinafter to Applicant’s specification are to the published application US 2025/0007111 A1, unless stated otherwise. Further, it is noted that italicized text in parentheses recited in any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103 indicates the element of the claimed invention to which the preceding prior art element corresponds. Additionally, any italicized text utilized hereinafter is to be interpreted as emphasis placed thereupon.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and Remarks filed on 22 July 2026 in response to the Non-Final Rejection dated 04 May 2026 have been entered and fully considered, respectively. Claims 1, 8, and 19-20 have been amended and claims 15-16 remain withdrawn. As such, claims 1-14 and 17-20 remain pending and under consideration on the merits.
The objection over the Specification, previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection, is withdrawn due to the amendments to the Abstract filed on 22 July 2026.
Applicant requests withdrawal of the objection to claim 8 previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection.
The objection to claim 8 previously set forth is withdrawn due to the present claim amendments, and the Examiner thanks Applicant for correction of the issue.
Applicant’s arguments on Pages 10-12 of the Remarks, directed towards the reference of Park, are not found persuasive for the following reasons.
Applicant argues on Page 10 of the Remarks, that Park’s “…deformations 435 (interpreted by the Office as reading on the claimed corrugations) are not aligned with the edge of the active material layer. Rather, the corrugations are angled relative to the edge.” However, Claims 1 and 19-20 recite “the edge of the one of the cathode and the anode is aligned with the first axis”, therefore, the deformations of Park do not need to align with the edge of the active material layer. The edge of the cathode and the anode of Park are aligned with a first axis, see Park FIG. 2, wherein direction 150 reads on the claimed first axis. The claims do not require that the corrugations are aligned with the first axis/edge of the cathode or anode.
Although Park (Paragraph 71) discloses that bending along the dimension 440, illustrated in FIG. 12 is undesirable, nonpreferred and alternative embodiments still constitute prior art, and Applicant is respectfully directed to MPEP 2123(II). This undesirable effect does not teach away from the explicit disclosure of Park where the edge of the cathode and the anode are aligned with the first axis.
Additionally, Applicant does not claim any feature(s) or limitation(s) having to do with stiffness/flexibility, see MPEP 2145(VI) wherein “limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.”
Furthermore, although Park is directed towards increased stiffness due to deformation in a foil tab, while Applicant is directed towards increased flexibility due to corrugations in a foil tab, “the use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain” (MPEP 2123(I)). As pointed out on Page 10 of the Remarks, the interviews with the Examiner, the Examiner’s Supervisor, and the Agent of Record, extensively discussed that “the particular angles and alignments of the corrugations has a substantial impact on the flexibility and stiffness of the tab.” Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that corrugated foil tabs exhibit both stiffness and flexibility, depending on the angle of forces/impact, and therefore, Park and Applicant do not need to be directed towards the same technical problem/solution.
Applicant’s arguments on Pages 11-12 of the Remarks, directed towards the references of Chen and Yoshida, each which were used in combination with the primary reference of Park, are not found persuasive for the reasons listed above in ¶6b-6e.
For these reasons above, Applicant's arguments identified above have not been found persuasive.
Moreover, the grounds of rejections below have been updated to reflect the present claim amendments.
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 1-14 and 17-20 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 claims 1 and 19-20, “a corrugated foil tab coupled to on of the cathode and the anode” renders each claim indefinite. It is unclear if Applicant intended to mean coupled on the cathode and the anode, or if Applicant intended to mean coupled to one of the cathode and the anode. For the purposes of examination, claims 1 and 19-20 are each interpreted as instead reciting “a corrugated foil tab coupled to one of the cathode and the anode.” Support for this interpretation may be seen later within each of the claims.
Claims 2-14 and 17-18 are indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as they are directly or ultimately dependent upon claim 1 and therefore include, and do not remedy the aforementioned deficiencies.
Appropriate action is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 9, 12-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 2024/0332490 A1, cited in previous Non-Final Rejection; “Park”).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses an electrode web (a battery cell) [element 100, 0035-0036], comprising a cathode electrode (a cathode) and an anode electrode (an anode) [0036, 0083, 0086-0087], wherein each include an electrode foil tab [element 200, 0032, 0036-0038, FIG. 2] coupled to its respective electrode [0038, FIG. 2]. The three dimensional electrode foil tab has a patterned surface with deformations [0033-0034, 0040-0045, FIGs. 4], thereby, in totality, reading on a corrugated foil tab coupled to one of the cathode and the anode, as claimed. The patterned surface includes, inter alia, valleys and bumps along an axis parallel to a boundary of the patterned element (alternating peaks and troughs in a second plane along the length of the corrugated foil tab) [0041-0045, 0058-0059, 0071, FIGs. 2 and 4].
The cathode electrode defines a length along a direction 150 (first axis) [element 150, 0043, 0046-0048, 0060, 0063-0064, 0066-0068, 0074-0076, FIGs. 1-4] of a first plane [FIGs. 1-4] and width along a second axis [element 145, 0040, 0046-0047, 0068, 0073, FIGs. 1-3] of the first plane [FIGs. 1-4] and a height in a second plane [element 440, 0061, 0071, 0077, FIG. 4].
The anode defines a length along the direction 150 [element 150, 0043, 0046-0048, 0060, 0063-0064, 0066-0068, 0074-0076, FIGs. 1-4] of a first plane [FIGs. 1-4] and width along the second axis [element 145, 0040, 0046-0047, 0068, 0073, FIGs. 1-3] of the first plane [FIGs. 1-4] and a height in the second plane [element 440, 0061, 0071, 0077, FIG. 4].
The electrode foil tab with the patterned surface of deformations has a length along the direction 150 [FIGs. 1-3] and a width along the second axis [FIGs. 1-3]. The electrode foil tab with the patterned surface of deformations extends from an edge of the one of the cathode electrode and the anode electrode [0038, 0048, FIGs. 1-2, 6]. The first and second plane are orthogonal to each other [FIGs. 1-4], and the edge of the one of the cathode electrode and the anode electrode is aligned with the direction 150 [0043, 0046-0048, 0060, 0063-0064, 0066-0068, 0074-0076, FIGs. 1-4].
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the battery cell defined by claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, in view of the rejection of claim 2 above, Park further discloses that the cathode electrode foil tab is coupled to the cathode at a first end and to a first polarity terminal (first lead tab) at a second end [0036, 0082, FIGs. 2, 17, and 18], thereby reading on the battery cell defined by each and every limitation of claim 3.
Regarding claim 9, in view of the rejection of claim 3 above, Park further discloses that the anode electrode foil tab is coupled to the anode at a first end and to a second polarity terminal (second lead tab) at a second end [0036, 0082, FIGs. 2, 17, and 18], thereby reading on the battery cell defined by each and every limitation of claim 9.
Regarding claim 12, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, Park further discloses that the battery cell has, inter alia, a prismatic form factor (prismatic cell design) [0082, 0084, FIGs. 15 and 18].
Regarding claim 13, in view of the rejection of claim 12 above, Park further discloses that the electrode foil tabs are coupled directly to the cathode electrode or anode electrode without any intervening connecting structure [elements 1705 and 1710, 0082, FIGs. 17-19].
Regarding claim 14, in view of the rejection of claim 12 above, Park further discloses that the electrode foil tabs are coupled to the cathode electrode or anode electrode via a non-corrugated tab extending from the cathode electrode or the anode electrode [elements 1705 and 1710, 0082, FIGs. 17-19].
Regarding claim 17, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, Park further discloses that the patterned surface, of which includes, inter alia, valleys and bumps, has an angular cross-section along the axis parallel to a boundary of the patterned element (in the second plane) and/or (or combination of) a trapezoidal profile along the axis parallel to a boundary of the patterned element (trapezoidal cross-section in the second plane) [0041-0043, 0069-0070, FIGs. 4, and 7-11].
Regarding claim 18, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, Park further discloses that the patterned surface may be symmetrical or asymmetrical along the axis parallel to a boundary of the patterned element [0043], thereby reading on the battery cell defined by each and every limitation of claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein by reference (not repeated for sake of brevity). Park discloses a system (system) [0031-0032, FIGs. 16, 20, and 21] comprising the electrode web set forth above in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein by reference (not repeated for sake of brevity). Park discloses an electric vehicle (vehicle) [element 1405, 0078, FIG. 14] comprising a battery pack (battery pack) [element 1410] that is connected to an arrangement or network of electrical devices to power the electric vehicle (couple to the electric motor) [0078-0079, FIGs. 14 and 15]. The battery pack includes at least one battery cell [element 1420, 0078-0088, FIGs. 14 and 15], of which includes the electrode web set forth above in the rejection of claim 1 [0087].
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.
Claims 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park as applied to claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) above, in view of Chen et al. (CN 110098409 A, herein English machine translation is utilized for all citations, cited in previous Non-Final Rejection, copy provided previously; “Chen”).
Regarding claim 4, Park discloses the battery cell of claim 3, as set forth above. Furthermore, Park discloses that the electrode foil tab has an uncoated region that is not coated with any battery active material layer [element 112, 0037, 0039].
Park remains silent regarding the first corrugated foil tab comprises an insulating coating on the first end of the first corrugated foil tab.
Chen is directed to a secondary battery cell including a current collector, of which further includes a current collector body and an electrode tab connected to the current collector body [0005, 0010, 0013]. Chen teaches that the electrode tab is provided with an insulating coating layer [0013, 0125], wherein the coating layer includes a polymer, inorganic particles, and a binder [0044-0045]. The inorganic particles may be, inter alia, an oxide [0022].
Park and Chen each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention – ------a battery cell electrode tab. In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cathode electrode foil tab of Park such that the region with no battery active material layer, including a first end that is closest to the cathode side, is coated with the insulating coating layer of Chen in order to prevent the tab from breaking easily and to prevent a short circuit inside the battery due to the tab breaking, as well as, to improve the high voltage resistance of the battery cell [Chen, 0027, 0045, 0049, 0125].
Regarding claim 5, Park as modified by Chen, in the rejection of claim 4 above, teaches the insulating coating of claim 5. The coating layer includes a polymer, inorganic particles, and a binder [0044-0045], wherein the inorganic particles may be, inter alia, an oxide [0022], thereby reading on a ceramic material of claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Park as modified by Chen, in the rejection of claim 4 above, teaches the insulating coating of claim 6. Chen further teaches the coating layer preferably has a thickness of 0.5-10 μm [0052], of which overlaps with the claimed thickness range, about 5 micrometers to 40 micrometers, thereby rendering the range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 7, Park discloses the battery cell of claim 3, as set forth above. Furthermore, Park discloses that the electrode foil tab has an uncoated region that is not coated with any battery active material layer [element 112, 0037, 0039].
Park remains silent regarding the first corrugated foil tab comprises a polymer coating on the second end of the first corrugated foil tab, the polymer coating including one or more of: a thermoplastic, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polyurethane, acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber (NBR), a polytetrafluoroethylene/butyl rubber blend, a nylon-6/polypropylene blend, and a urethane/acrylate interpenetrating polymer network.
Chen is directed to a secondary battery cell including a current collector, of which further includes a current collector body and an electrode tab connected to the current collector body [0005, 0010, 0013]. Chen teaches that the electrode tab is provided with an insulating coating layer [0013, 0125], wherein the coating layer includes a polymer, inorganic particles, and a binder [0044-0045]. Further, the polymer may be, inter alia, polyurethane (polyurethane) [0021].
Park and Chen each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention – ------an electrode tab for a battery cell. In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cathode electrode foil tab of Park such that the region with no battery active material layer, including a second end that is closest to the first polarity terminal, is coated with the insulating coating layer of Chen, of which comprises a polymer, i.e. polyurethane, in order to prevent the tab from breaking easily and to prevent a short circuit inside the battery due to the tab breaking, as well as, to improve the high voltage resistance of the battery cell [Chen, 0027, 0045, 0049, 0125].
Regarding claim 8, in view of the rejection of claim 7 above, Park as modified by Chen teaches the battery cell of claim 8. Chen further teaches a weight ratio of polymer, inorganic particles, and binder in the insulating coating layer is (60-80):(10-30):(5-15) [0051], and the insulating coating layer preferably has a thickness of 0.5-10 μm [0052]. Chen exemplifies the coating layer in totality having a thickness of 2 μm [Examples 1-3 and 8-14, Table 1], therefore through calculation, the polymer portion within the coating layer may contribute a thickness of 1.2-1.6 μm.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the cathode electrode foil tab of Park such that the insulating coating layer preferably has a thickness of 0.5-10 μm, for example, a thickness of 2 μm, in order to prevent the tab from breaking easily and to prevent a short circuit inside the battery due to the tab breaking, as well as, to improve the high voltage resistance of the battery cell [Chen, 0027, 0045, 0049, 0125], wherein, if the coating thickness is too small, the current collector will be only partially encapsulated when the tab breaks, and short circuits cannot be effectively prevented [0052], while, excessive coating thickness can affect the transport rate of lithium ions and charges in the electrode plates, increase the thickness of the negative electrode, reduce the energy density of the cell, and affect the dynamic performance of the cell, resulting in poor charge and discharge performance at high rates [0052] (see MPEP 2144.05(II)). The aforementioned range overlaps with the claimed thickness range, about one micrometer to two micrometers, and the aforementioned example thickness is within the claimed thickness range, both of which thereby render the claimed range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park as applied to claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) above, in view of Yoshida (US 2025/0257430 A1, cited in previous Non-Final Rejection; “Yoshida”).
Regarding claim 10, Park discloses the battery cell of claim 1, set forth above.
Park remains silent regarding the corrugated foil tab comprises copper and at least one of: about one to two percent by mass of tin, about 0.1 to 0.2 percent by mass of zinc, and about 0.2 to 0.5 percent by mass of magnesium.
Yoshida is directed to an aluminum alloy sheet for a tab [0002]. Yoshida teaches an alloy sheet for a tab comprising, inter alia, copper [0023, 0040], and zinc in a content of 0.25 mass% or less [0039].
Park and Yoshida each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention – ------electrode foil tabs. In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrode foil tab of Park so that it has a composition comprising copper, and zinc in a content of 0.25 mass% or less in order to ensure both high tab-bending strength and high toughness [Yoshida, 0016], wherein the aforementioned range overlaps with the claimed range, about 0.1 to 0.2 percent by mass of zinc, thereby rendering the range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 11, Park discloses the battery cell of claim 1, set forth above.
Park remains silent regarding the corrugated foil tab comprises aluminum and at least one of: about 0.1 to 0.4 percent by mass of iron, and about 0.1 to 0.5 percent by mass of silicon.
Yoshida is directed to an aluminum alloy sheet for a tab [0002]. Yoshida teaches an alloy sheet for a tab comprising, inter alia, aluminum [0023, 0040], and iron in a content of 0.30-0.70 mass% [0028-0029].
Park and Yoshida each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention – ------electrode foil tabs. In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrode foil tab of Park so that it has a composition comprising aluminum, and iron in a content of 0.30-0.70 mass% in order to ensure both high tab-bending strength and high toughness [Yoshida, 0016], wherein the aforementioned range overlaps with the claimed range, about 0.1 to 0.4 percent by mass of iron, thereby rendering the range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
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 l.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 l.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR l.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 JENNA X. COLTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at (571)272-8935. 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.
/JENNA X. COLTON/Examiner, Art Unit 1782
/AARON AUSTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1782
