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 .
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) 1-10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ide (US 20160181650 A1) in view of Zhang (US 20220344667 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Ide discloses a battery cell (para 35 “secondary battery 100; fig.1) comprising: an electrode assembly (para 35 “electrode laminate”), comprising an active material (para 36 “active material 2”; fig. 1) and a foil 3 (para 36, 74, fig 12); and a can accommodating the electrode assembly (para 46 "a can case made of flexible film 30"; fig.1) wherein the foil includes a bottom surface and a top surface, and comprises:: a first region covered with the active material and having a first thickness extending from the bottom surface of the foil to the top surface of the foil; a second region covered with the active material and extending from the first region and having a second thickness extending from the bottom surface of the foil to the top surface of the foil; and a third [AltContent: textbox (Figure 1: Annotated figure 12 from Ide et al.)]
PNG
media_image1.png
182
578
media_image1.png
Greyscale
region protruding from the second region, with a third thickness extending from the bottom surface of the foil to the top surface of the foil (fig. 12; see annotated figure 1 below).
Ide does not disclose the third thickness is greater than the first thickness, and the second thickness is greater than the first thickness and less than the third thickness.
Zhang discloses current collector 100 with functional layers with nonuniform thicknesses (para 6). Zhang teaches a first region 223 (fig 6) with a first thickness extending from the bottom surface of the foil to the top surface of the foil (fig 6, para 56-58); a second region 221 extending from the first region and having a second thickness extending from the bottom surface of the foil to the top surface of the foil (fig 6, para 56-58); and a third region 211/213 protruding from the second region, wherein the third region has a third thickness extending from the bottom surface of the foil to the top surface of the foil, greater than the first thickness, and the second thickness is greater than the first thickness and less than the third thickness (para 56-58; fig. 6). Zhang further discloses the second region 221 has “thickness “gradually decreasing” (para 58). Accordingly, Zhang discloses the third region (para 56, “213/211”) has a third thickness extending from the bottom surface of the foil to the top surface of the foil, greater than the first thickness, and the second thickness (para 58, “second coating segment 221”) is greater than the first thickness and less than the third thickness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the battery cell of Ide such that the third thickness, is greater than the first thickness, and the second thickness is greater than the first thickness and less than the third thickness as taught by Zhang as doing such enhances “the electrical conductivity and the current conductivity at the connection between the coating segment and the tab segment …thereby improving comprehensive overcurrent capability of the positive current collector” (para 6).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang discloses the second region 221 formed to gradually be thicker as it is closer to the third region 213/211 than the first region 223 (para 58; fig.6).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang discloses uniform first thickness, and tapered second region (para 58; fig.6).
Regarding claim 4, Ide discloses third region is not covered with the active material (fig.12, see annotated fig.1 above). Zhang also discloses the third region 213/211 “has a surface as the tab region” (tab 213) and thus is not covered with the active material (para 56).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang discloses third thickness 213/211 is uniform (fig. 6).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang discloses the thicknesses and shapes of each region can be varied as required by the design parameters. These variations can include tapered and/curved thicknesses (para 59-62, fig 8-9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for the third thickness to increase in a direction away from the second region as such would be a design choice obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA). Additionally, changes in dimensions are obvious. MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 7, Ide discloses the active material includes a first cover region having a fourth thickness, being uniform, and a second cover region having a fifth thickness less than the fourth thickness (fig.12, see annotated fig.1 above).
Regarding claim 8, Ide discloses the first cover region is disposed on the first region, and the second cover region is disposed on the second region (fig.12, see annotated fig.2 below).
Regarding claim 9, Ide discloses the foil includes a cathode foil and an anode foil (para 15, “positive/negative electrode current collector 3/8”).
Ide does not explicitly disclose a ratio of the third thickness to the first thickness is equal to a ratio of a total width of the electrode assembly to a first width of the third region of the anode foil or a second width of the third region of the cathode foil.
Zhang discloses current collector having a third region with a thickness greater than the first region and states that the thickness ratio is selected to improve electrical conductivity between the tab region and the coated region (para 8). Zhang further discloses width of the thicker third region extending into the coated region may be selected to improve overcurrent capability (para 10). Zhang teaches both the thickness of the third region and the width of the third region as variables affecting the electrical performance of the electrode.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the battery cell of Ide to optimize the thickness and width such that a ratio of the third thickness to the first thickness is equal to a ratio of a total width of the electrode assembly to a first width of the third region of the anode foil or a second width of the third region of the cathode foil through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired balance of electrical conductivity and overcurrent capability (para 8-10).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang discloses the foil having an arcuate or tapered width (para 59-62, fig 8-9).
Regarding claim 12, Ide discloses foil includes a cathode foil 3 (para 36) and an anode foil 3 (para 79, fig. 12), and the active material includes a positive electrode active material applied on the cathode foil and a negative electrode active material applied on the anode foil (para 36, 74-79, figs 1-2, 11-12).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ide (US 20160181650 A1) and Zhang (US 20220344667 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Ou Et al. (CN 113097427 A, see machine translation of record).
Regarding claim 11, Ide discloses foil not covered with active material (fig.12). Ide and Zhang fail to disclose the foil includes a protruding region protruding from the first region and not covered with the active material, and the first region is located between the protruding region and the second region.
Ou discloses the foil includes a protruding region protruding from the first region and not covered with the active material, and the first region is located between the protruding region and the second region (para 41 “empty foil area”; fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the battery cell of Ide and Zhang such that the foil includes a protruding region protruding from the first region and not covered with the active material, and the first region is located between the protruding region and the second region as taught by Ou as doing such allows space for setting the negative lug (para 77).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ide (US 20160181650 A1) and Zhang (US 20220344667 A1), as applied to claim 12 above, in view of Cho (US 8999543 B2).
Regarding claim 13, Ide discloses a cathode terminal connected to the third region of the cathode foil (para 35, “positive electrode terminal 11”; fig. 1) and an anode terminal connected to the third region of the anode foil (para 35, “negative electrode terminal 16”; fig. 1). Ide and Zhang fail to disclose an upper cap assembly connected to the can.
Cho discloses an upper cap assembly connected to the can (C3, L54; fig 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the battery cell of Ide and Zhang such that upper cap assembly is connected to the can as taught by Cho as doing such closes and seals the case (C1, L54).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 6/03/2026, have been fully considered but they are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection.
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 ARTI KHANAL whose telephone number is (571)272-8608. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00am-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, Michael N Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1746
/CHRISTOPHER T SCHATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights