ELECTRODE ASSEMBLY AND ELECTROCHEMICAL APPARATUS
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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to communication filed on 7/14/2026:
Claims 1, 5, 6, and 11 have been amended; no new matter has been entered.
Previous drawing objections have been modified.
Previous rejections under 35 USC 103 have been upheld.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant discloses: “In response, regarding the drawings objection, Applicant respectfully traverses the objection to the drawings under 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(a). In particular, as outlined in MPEP 608.02 Drawing, the statutory requirement for showing the claimed invention only requires that the "applicant shall furnish a drawing where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter to be patented..." (See 35 U.S.C. 113, See also 37 CFR §1.81(a), which states "[t]he applicant for a patent is required to furnish a drawing of the invention where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter sought to be patented...").
In this case, the terms "electrode assembly," "electrode plate, "tab," and "projection area," as recited in claim 1 of the present application, are common terms in the technical field of the present application, and one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand these terms. Thus, Applicant is not required to furnish drawings to show these common terms because the drawings are not necessary for the understanding of the claimed subject matter of the present application.”
The Examiner respectfully traverses. While these are common terms in the technical field, the tab and the projection area are part of the inventive concept presented in the claims.
The Applicant discloses: “Wu does not cure the deficiencies of Shi. Specifically, as shown in Fig. 15 of Wu, a top edge of the first protective adhesive 50 is flush or overlaps with a top edge of the second protective adhesive 80. That is, the first protective adhesive 50 is not located in a middle of the second protective adhesive 80.”
The Examiner respectfully traverses. The first protective adhesive being located in a middle of the second protective adhesive is not commensurate within the scope of the claims.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “tab” and “projection area” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-6, 9-16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al. (CN 107 887 562 A) and further in view of Wu et al. (CN 113 826 240 A using US 2023/0344019 A1 as an English language translation.).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 11-13, Shi et al. disclose an electrochemical apparatus (Abstract discloses a secondary battery.), comprises an electrode assembly (Fig. 2 shows electrodes being encased inside a housing, element 3.); the electrode assembly comprising an electrode plate and a tab disposed on the electrode plate (Paragraph 0028), wherein the tab comprises a metal strip (Figs. 3 and 4, element 2 discloses a tab.) and a tab adhesive provided on the metal strip (Paragraphs 0028-0030; Figs. 3 and 4, element 1 disclose a tab sealing structure comprising adhesive material.); and along a thickness direction of the tab, the tab adhesive comprises a first adhesive layer provided on the metal strip and a second adhesive layer provided on the first adhesive layer (Figs. 4 and 5 disclose a first adhesive layer, element 11, fixed to the tab, element 2, and a second adhesive layer, element 12, provided on the first adhesive layer, element 11.). However, Shi et al. do not teach wherein a projection area of the first adhesive layer along the thickness direction of the tab is A1, a projection area of the second adhesive layer along the thickness direction of the tab is A2, A1 is greater than A2, and 8%≤ (A1 - A2)/A2≤50%; and wherein, as viewed along the thickness direction of the tab, a length and a width of the first adhesive layer are greater than a length and a width of the second adhesive layer respectively, and the first adhesive laver extends beyond the second adhesive laver in both length and width directions.
Wu et al. teach an electrode assembly (Abstract) having a tab (Figs. 14 and 15, element 41). Further, the tab can comprise a first adhesive layer (Paragraph 0078; Figs. 14-15 disclose a second protective adhesive, element 80.) and a second adhesive layer (Paragraph 0078; Figs. 14-15 disclose a first protective adhesive, element 50.), wherein a projection area of the first adhesive layer along the thickness direction of the tab is A1, a projection area of the second adhesive layer along the thickness direction of the tab is A2, A1 is greater than A2, and 8%≤ (A1 - A2)/A2≤50%; wherein, as viewed along the thickness direction of the tab, a length and a width of the first adhesive layer are greater than a length and a width of the second adhesive layer respectively, and the first adhesive laver extends beyond the second adhesive laver in both length and width directions. (Paragraph 0029 discloses in some embodiments, width of the second protective adhesive and width of the first groove are the same, both of which are W5; length of the second protective adhesive and length of the first groove are the same, both of which are L5, and a size relationship between the first groove and the second groove satisfies: 1 mm≤L5-L2≤10 mm, and 1 mm≤W5-W2≤10 mm.)
Further, Figs. 14 and 15 disclose W5 and L5 can correspond to the dimensions of the first adhesive layer (Figs. 14 and 15, element 80) and W2 and L2 can correspond to the dimensions of the second adhesive layer (Figs. 14 and 15, element 50). One of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of optimizing the different areas using the boundary conditions in paragraph 0029. Therefore, if one were to let W5=9mm, L5=11mm, W2=8mm, L2=10mm, then A1-A2/A2= (L5*W5-L2*W2)/(L2*W2)=(99mm2-80mm2)/80mm2=0.2375*100=23.75%.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Shi with the dimensions of Wu in order to reduce the risk of a short circuit.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, the combination of Shi and Wu et al. teach the electrode assembly of claim 1 and the electrochemical apparatus of claim 11. Further, Wu et al. teach wherein Al ranges from 14 mm2 to 64 mm2, and A2 ranges from 10 mm2 to 56 mm2 (Paragraph 0029 discloses in some embodiments, width of the second protective adhesive and width of the first groove are the same, both of which are W5; length of the second protective adhesive and length of the first groove are the same, both of which are L5, and a size relationship between the first groove and the second groove satisfies: 1 mm≤L5-L2≤10 mm, and 1 mm≤W5-W2≤10 mm.)
Figs. 14 and 15 disclose W5 and L5 can correspond to the dimensions of the first adhesive layer (Figs. 14 and 15, element 80) and W2 and L2 can correspond to the dimensions of the second adhesive layer (Figs. 14 and 15, element 50). One of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of optimizing the different areas using the boundary conditions in paragraph 0029. Therefore, if one were to let W5=5mm, L5=8mm, W2=4mm, L2=7mm, then A1=40 mm2 and A2=28 mm2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Shi with the dimensions of Wu in order to reduce the risk of a short circuit.
Regarding claims 5, 6, 15, and 16, the combination of Shi and Wu et al. teach the electrode assembly of claim 1 and the electrochemical apparatus of claim 11. Further, Shi et al. teach wherein a thickness of the second adhesive layer ranges from 20 µm to 100 µm, or 40 µm to 80 µm (Paragraph 0038 discloses the overall thickness of the second adhesive layer, element 12, is 0.025 mm to 0.15 mm, or 25 µm to 150 µm.).
Regarding claims 9, 10, 19, and 20, the combination of Shi and Wu et al. teach the electrode assembly of claim 1 and the electrochemical apparatus of claim 11. Further, Shi et al. wherein the first adhesive layer comprises polyethylene and the second adhesive layer comprises polypropylene (Paragraph 0030 discloses the first adhesive layer, element 11, can comprise polyethylene, and the second adhesive layer, element 12, can comprise polypropylene.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 8, 17, and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the subject matter of claims 7, 8, 17, and 18 are not disclosed in the prior art of record. The prior art whether alone or in combination, fails to teach of fairly suggest the limitation of “elongation at break of the first adhesive layer is ε1, an elongation at break for the second adhesive layer is ε2, ε1 is greater than ε2, and 0.19%≤( ε1- ε2)/ ε2≤4.30%”.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DANIEL S GATEWOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-7958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
Daniel S. Gatewood, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1729
/DANIEL S GATEWOOD, Ph. D/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729 July 30th, 2026
Prosecution Insights