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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2022-128628, filed on 8/12/2022.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: Electrode Tabs for Battery.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
" . . .and this slanted part is inclines towards the end in the winding direction . . ."
should read
" . . .and this slanted part is inclined towards the end in the winding direction . . . "
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 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 4 recites the limitation "second part" in 5th line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of this examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “second straight part”.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (U.S. Publication Number: US 2016/0218345 A1), hereinafter Kim, as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Cho, et al., (KR20160092748A), hereinafter Cho.
Regarding Claim 1, Kim teaches:
A battery having a wound electrode body comprising a strip-shaped first electrode and a strip-shaped second electrode stacked with a strip-shaped separator in between and wound in a winding direction, wherein ([0058],FIGS. 2 and 3 - the electrode assembly 10 includes a positive electrode 11, a negative electrode 12, and a separator 13 placed between the positive electrode 11 and the negative electrode 12, which have a band shape, and has a wound structure.)
the first electrode has multiple tabs that protrude from an edge extending in the winding direction to a protruding direction perpendicular to the winding direction, ([0069-0071], Fig.6 - the positive electrode includes a plurality of first electrode tabs, and the first electrode tabs protrude upwardly from the first coated portion.)
these multiple tabs include a first tab and multiple second tabs, ([0071] – the first tab Tn can be different from the other first tabs T1-Tn-1 on the electrode)
given W1 (mm) as the width of the first tab at a position at a distance L (L = 3 to 10 mm) in the protruding direction from the base connecting to the edge, W2 (mm) as the width of the second tabs at the distance L in the protruding direction from the base connecting to the edge, and W3 (mm) as the width of the base of the first tab, W1, W2 and W3 are in the relation expressed by the following formulae (1) and (2):
(W2/W1) > 1.2 (formula 2). ( [0090], Fig. 6 - WC2 (wide)/WC1 (Narrow) - The width WC2 of the tab of each of the other first electrode tabs Sn-Sn−1 can be about 1.5 times the width WC1 of each of the tabs SA1 and SA2 of the first electrode tab Sn placed at the outermost side.)
Regarding Claim 1, Kim is silent with respect to calculating the width ratio of the base portion (W3) of the first tab with the upper portion (W1) of the first tab:
(W3/W1) > 1.5 (formula 1);
Cho teaches:
(W3/W1) > 1.5 (formula 1) (Disclosure, Fig. 6 – the length of the first region 114a (W3) is 3 to 4 times the length of the second region 114b (W1))
The ratio disclosed by Cho (3 to 4 times) falls within the range of the claimed invention (>1.5). Cho further teaches tabs having a wider base have a higher stress dispersion effect during winding, reducing folding of the electrode tab.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the first tab ratio value of 3 to 4 disclosed in Cho into the first tab ratio calculation in Kim in order to enhance the stress dispersion effect during the winding process, and reducing electrode tab folding. The ratio of widths between the base portion and upper portion of the tab disclosed in Cho falls completely within the claimed range. Absent any additional and more specific information, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP § 2144.05)
Regarding claim 2, the teachings of Kim as modified by Cho in claim 1 are incorporated herein. Kim teaches:
wherein the wound electrode body has a flat shape, and the first tab and multiple second tabs are superimposed and joined to a collector member. ([0058], Fig. 3 – shows electrode assembly 10 is wound around a winding axis (x1) while the separator 13 is interposed between the positive and negative electrodes 11 and 12, and then pressed to be flattened. [0067] – electrode tabs 11a and 12a are stacked to form electrodes 11 and 12, respectively.)
Regarding Claim 6, all the teachings of Kim as modified by Cho in claim 1 are incorporated herein. Kim teaches:
wherein the wound electrode body has a flat shape, and one first electrode is provided with at least 20 of the second tabs. ([0088] – The electrode tab Sn can include three or more tabs. )
The claimed range of “at least 20 of the second tabs” is within the range of “three or more tabs” disclosed by Kim. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP § 2144.05(I)).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al., (U.S. Publication: US 2016/0218345 A1) as modified by Cho, et al., (KR20160092748A), hereinafter Kim, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xue, et al., (U.S. Publication: US 2020/0235368A1), hereinafter Xue.
Regarding claim 3, all the teachings of Kim as modified by Cho in claim 1 are incorporated, herein.
Kim does not teach:
wherein the first tab has a first edge near the starting end in the winding direction and a second edge near the end in the winding direction, and the second edge has a stepped portion.
Xue teaches:
wherein the first tab has a first edge near the starting end in the winding direction and a second edge near the end in the winding direction, and the second edge has a stepped portion ([0041, 0045], Figure 4 shows tab 5132 as a stepped structure comprising a main (smaller) portion 51321 and a transition (wider) portion 51322)
PNG
media_image1.png
463
754
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Xue also teaches that because of the width of 51322 is larger than the width at 51321, when the electrode assembly 5 is formed by winding the electrode members or stacking the electrode members, it can reduce the flex of the second portion 5132, and improve the quality of the electrode assembly 5. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an electrode tab with a stepped structure to increase the connecting reliability of the tab to the electrode.
Regarding claim 4, all the teachings of Kim as modified by Cho in claim 1 are incorporated, herein.
Kim does not teach:
wherein the first tab has a first edge near the starting end in the winding direction and a second edge near the end in the winding direction, and the second edge has a first straight part, a second straight part and a third straight part, of which the first straight part and the third straight part extend in the protruding direction, while the second part connects the first straight part and the third straight part and extends in the winding direction.
Xue teaches:
wherein the first tab has a first edge near the starting end in the winding direction and a second edge near the end in the winding direction, and the second edge has a first straight part, a second straight part and a third straight part, of which the first straight part and the third straight part extend in the protruding direction, while the second part connects the first straight part and the third straight part and extends in the winding direction. (See annotated Figure 4, [0033], line 45- tab 5132 as a stepped structure comprising a main (smaller) portion 51321 and a transition (wider) portion 51322))
PNG
media_image2.png
368
634
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 4 is a limitation that further describes the stepped structure of claim 3, and the same discussion and rationale for claim 3 also applies to claim 4.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al., (U.S. Publication Number: US 2016/0218345 A1) as modified by Cho, et al., (KR20160092748A), hereinafter Kim, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morishima (U.S. Publication Number: US 2010/0081052A1), hereinafter Morishima.
Regarding claim 5, all the teachings of Kim as modified by Cho in claim 1 are incorporated, herein.
Kim does not teach:
wherein the first tab has a first edge near the starting end in the winding direction and a second edge near the end in the winding direction, the first edge has a slanted part that is slanted relative to the protruding direction, and this slanted part is inclines towards the end in the winding direction as it approaches the tip in the protruding direction.
Morishima discloses:
wherein the first tab has a first edge near the starting end in the winding direction and a second edge near the end in the winding direction, the first edge has a slanted part that is slanted relative to the protruding direction, and this slanted part is inclines towards the end in the winding direction as it approaches the tip in the protruding direction. ([0143] Fig. 13, tab 5 has a trapezoidal shape that has a slanted edge that extends distally away from the base of the leading edge of the electrode to the top of the tab.)
Morishima also teaches that because of the wider base, it becomes possible to prevent the electrode from being cut with the joint part of the tab 5 being a starting point, and handle the electrode easily when the electrode is treated to manufacture the rolled-up electrode group. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an electrode tab with a slanted edge structure to improve the strength of the electrode tab.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mario Gamboa whose telephone number is (571)272-9213. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 8:00 -5:00, Fri 8:00- 12:00 EST.
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 Ruddock 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.
/MARIO R GAMBOA/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights