DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgement has been made of applicant’s claim for priority under 35 USC 119 (a-d). The certified copy has been filed on 09/04/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed 09/18/2023 and 07/22/2024 have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings received 07/26/2023 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 04/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims Status.
This Office Action is responsive to the Remarks filed on 04/20/2026. Claims 1-19 were pending. Claims 1-19 are now pending. Claims 16-19 are withdrawn from examination as being drawn to non-elected invention. Claims 1-15 are presented for examination.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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. In claim 1 it is unclear what kind of structural limitation described by the term “bendable”. Any material could be bend on certain angle even very small and as such” bendable”. Moreover it appears that Applicant claims some structural element that could be bend, but is not bend at the moment. It is not clear also if Applicant trying to claim certain angle on which member bent, or certain material which allow said member to be bend. A description of a genus may be achieved by means of a recitation of a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or of a recitation of structural features common to the members of the genus, which features constitute a substantial portion of the genus. Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F3d 1559, 1569, 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1406 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
In claim 9, it is not clear what structural limitation is claimed. Positive and negative electrodes plates include current collectors and faced each other through separator.
Claims 2-15 depend from claim 1 directly or indirectly and fall therewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 4-7, and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by US 2012/0308863 to Masumoto.
Regarding claim 1, Masumoto discloses a secondary battery (claim 5) comprising: an electrode assembly including a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a separator between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (para 47), an exterior body that houses the electrode assembly (para 46), a terminal electrically connected to the positive electrode or the negative electrode (para 46, 47) and an electrode lead electrically connected to the terminal and the positive electrode (33, Fig. 2) or the negative electrode (11a and 11a, Fig. 2). Regarding the limitation: “the electrode lead being bendable in all directions” both electrode leads are in the bent form, and as such bendable. Since the battery housing is cylindrical (claim 1), the leads could be bend in all directions.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Masumoto wherein the electrode lead is bent along an outer peripheral edge of the electrode assembly (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Masumoto discloses wherein the positive electrode, the negative electrode, and the separator are stacked in a stacking direction.
Regarding claim 6, Masumoto discloses , wherein the positive electrode or the negative electrode has a rectangular shape (30, Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 7, Masumoto discloses wherein a width of the current collector is equal to a width of an electrode active material layer of the positive electrode or the negative electrode (Fig. 10,11).
Regarding claim 10, Masumoto discloses wherein the current collector is wound along a direction perpendicular to a direction in which the positive electrode and the negative electrode face each other (member 11, 11a, Fig. 2 above).
Regarding claim 9, Masumoto discloses wherein the current collector is bent along a direction in which the positive electrode and the negative electrode face each other (member 11a, Fig. 14, 11, Fig. 15).
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Masumoto discloses that the positive electrode lead as a port of the positive electrode current collector (para 61), made from aluminium (para 55), while the negative electrode lead is integral with the negative electrode current collector(Fig. 2) and made from nickel or copper (para 53).
Regarding claim 12, Masumoto discloses wherein the electrode lead is a first electrode lead that is electrically connected to the positive electrode and the terminal, and the secondary battery further includes a second electrode lead that is electrically connected to the negative electrode and the exterior body (Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Masumoto discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 1 and incorporated therein, including lid-shaped member (combination of 3 and 5, closing opening 2c, Fig. 2), wherein the positive electrode lid electrically connected to lid-shaped member( re claim 14, Fig.2) and the negative electrode lead (11 and 11a) is electrically connected to housing 2a, which is negative terminal. The housing 2 (2a) is interpreted as cup shaped. (Cup-shaped (adjective) describes something that has a concave, hollow, or rounded form similar to a drinking cup). Office personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55,44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding claim 15, Masumoto discloses wherein the positive electrode and the negative electrode are capable of occluding and releasing lithium ions (para 44, para 55)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 2, 3, 8, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0308863 to Masumoto.
Regarding claim 2, Masumoto discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 1 and incorporated therein. Masumoto does not expressly disclose wherein the electrode lead has a value of second moment of area within 25% in the all directions. However, since the criticality of electrode lead having the value the of second moment of area within 25% in the all directions- a position claimed by Applicant is not supported by any showing of criticality of such structure in the instant specification, nor did Applicant stated that such structure serves any specific purpose or performs any specific function other that the function disclosed in Masumoto, it would have been obvious top those skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed determine a suitable value for the second moment of the area in order to provide a battery which can be easily reduced in size and of which the energy density can also be improved as an obvious design choice, and as such it does not impact the patentability of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Masumoto discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 1 and incorporated therein. Masumoto does not expressly disclose wherein the electrode lead is a wire rod having a circular or elliptical sectional shape. However, since the criticality of use an electrode lead being a wire rod having a circular or elliptical sectional shape- a position claimed by Applicant is not supported by any showing of criticality of such structure in the instant specification, nor did Applicant stated that such structure serves any specific purpose or performs any specific function other that the function disclosed in Masumoto, it would have been obvious top those skilled in the art at the time the invention was to use the a wire having a circular or elliptical sectional shape in order to provide a battery which can be easily reduced in size and of which the energy density can also be improved as an obvious design choice, and as such it does not impact the patentability of claim 2.
Regarding claim 8, Masumoto discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 1 and incorporated therein. Masumoto does not expressly disclose wherein a width of the current collector is equal to a width of an electrode active material layer of the positive electrode or the negative electrode. However, since the criticality of positive or negative electrode having the same width as a current collector- a position claimed by Applicant is not supported by any showing of criticality of such structure in the instant specification, nor did Applicant stated that such structure serves any specific purpose or performs any specific function other that the function disclosed in Masumoto, it would have been obvious top those skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to find a suitable width for the current collector and electrode active material in order to provide a battery which can be easily reduced in size and of which the energy density can also be improved as an obvious design choice, and as such it does not impact the patentability of claim 8.
Alternatively, regarding claims 13 and 14, Masumoto discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 1 and incorporated therein, including lid-shaped member (combination of 3 and 5, closing opening 2c, Fig. 2), wherein the positive electrode lid electrically connected to lid-shaped member( re claim 14, Fig.2) and the negative electrode lead (11 and 11a) is electrically connected to housing 2a, which is negative terminal. Masumoto does not expressly disclose the housing 2(2a) as cup-shaped. However, the courts have held that changes in shape are a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04. Therefore, It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the housing 2 into cup shape in order to provide a battery which can be easily reduced in size and of which the energy density can also be improved as an obvious design choice.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure US 20220102789.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER USYATINSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-7703. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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.
/Alexander Usyatinsky/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights