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 § 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 9 is 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 9 recites the limitation "the short side surface of the case" in lines 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, 2, 8, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Guen ‘918 (US 2018/0040918 A1).
Claim 1: Guen ‘918 teaches a rechargeable (i.e., secondary) battery (101) [0003] comprising:
An electrode assembly (10) comprising a first electrode plate (11) from which a current collecting tab (11a) protrudes (Fig. 3; [0049, 0050]), a second electrode plate (12) from which a second current collecting tab (12a) protrudes (Fig. 3; [0051]), and a separator (13) between the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate [0049];
A case (28) accommodating the electrode assembly (10) (Fig. 3; [0029]);
A current collector plate (41) electrically connected to the first current collecting tab and comprising protrusions (417a) (Figs. 3-5; [0060, 0061]);
Wherein the first current collecting tab is vertically coupled to the current collector plate and comprises coupling grooves to which the protrusions are coupled (See element 11a in Fig. 5).
Claim 2: Guen ‘918 explicitly discloses multiple grooves spaced apart: "In an embodiment, a plurality of first grooves 417 is formed in the first current collector 41, and the first grooves 417 are arranged to be separated in the width direction (e.g., an x-axis direction) of the first current collector 41." [0059].
Claim 8: Guen ‘918 explicitly discloses "The first current collector 41, in an embodiment, is disposed to be parallel to the cap plate 31 above the electrode assembly 10." (Fig. 2; [0052]). Guen ‘918 further discloses that “a first groove 417 is formed on a first surface of the first current collector 41 facing toward the first electrode 11, and a plurality of minute protrusions 417a are arranged in the first groove 417” [0058]. The first surface of the current collector faces toward the first electrode, meaning the protrusions arranged in this groove protrude toward the electrode assembly [0058].
Claim 9: Guen ‘918 discloses "The first electrode tab 11a and the second electrode tab 12a are protruded to be parallel to the winding axis X1 toward the cap plate 31 at the upper end of the electrode assembly 10, and are disposed to be separated from each other in a width direction of the electrode assembly 10." [0051]. Guen ‘918 also discloses "The first electrode tab 11a includes a bonding part 11aa welded to the first current collector 41, and a lead part 11ab protruded from the upper end of the electrode assembly 10 and connected to the bonding part 11aa." [0051]. This disclosure of electrode tabs protruding only at specific portions of the electrode plate, with positioning within the current collector, anticipates Claim 9's limitation.
Claim 10: Guen ‘918 discloses "The first current collector 41, in an embodiment, is disposed to be parallel to the cap plate 31 above the electrode assembly 10." (Fig. 2; [0052]). The positioning of the current collector “above” the electrode assembly indicates a separation space between these components.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guen ‘918 (US 2018/0040918 A1) in view of Kim ‘211 (US 2020/0403211 A1).
Claim 3: Guen ‘918 discloses the secondary battery of claim 1 as set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose an adhesion member disposed between the coupling groove to fix the first current collecting tab. Kim ‘211 discloses an electrode assembly in which “a conductive adhesive portion is disposed between the uncoated portion and the electrode tab,” wherein “the conductive adhesion portion 250 has an adhesive property and thus fixes the positive electrode tab 240 to the positive electrode current collector 211” [0065]. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the adhesive fixing member of Kim ‘211 to the tab-to-collector coupling structure of Guen ‘918, as both references address the same problem of reliably securing an electrode tab to a current collector in a secondary battery, and the combination would predictably improve mechanical fixation of the tab within the coupling groove structure taught by Guen ‘918.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guen ‘918 (US 2018/0040918 A1) in view of Wang ‘935 (US 10388935 B2).
Claim 4: Guen ‘918 discloses the welding of the tab to the current collector, but does not explicitly teach multiple welding beads forming in the protrusions. Wang ‘935 explicitly teaches the formation of multiple welding structures; "a welding region having a plurality of welding spots, the welding region being connected with the current collector through the plurality of welding spots, wherein a welding area of each welding spot of the plurality of welding spots is less than 1 mm2, and a number of welding spots per square millimeter of the welding region is larger than 1." (Claim 1).
Wang ‘935 further teaches the advantages of multiple welding spots, stating “through limiting the largest thickness of the electrode tab structure after welding to be less than or equal to 1.5 times of the sum of the thickness of the electrode tab substrate and the current collector makes the thickness of the electrode tab suitable, which avoids defect of the too large welding resistance caused by too large thickness of the electrode tab structure, so as to improve the internal structure symmetry of the cell, increase the reliability of the electrode tab structure, and avoid from deforming, which improves the overall performance of the battery” (Col. 5, lines 29-40). Wang ‘935 further discloses: "Preferably, the plurality of welding spots are defined in a line-row layout or a circular layout." (Claim 5). The combination of Guen (teaching the coupling groove structure and welding the tab to the collector) with Wang ‘935 (teaching plural welding spots for securing tabs to collectors) results in a predictable use of known elements yielding predictable results. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the plural welding spots teaching of Wang ‘935 to the electrode tab to current collector coupling structure of Guen ‘918.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guen ‘918 (US 2018/0040918 A1).
Claim 5: Guen ‘918 discloses the secondary battery of claim 1, including the coupling groove that receives the first current collecting tab. Guen ‘918 teaches that “the first groove 417 is formed in a thickness direction of the first current collector 41 to be recessed, the first groove 417 receives the first electrode tab 11a inserted therein” [0059], and that the bonding part of the tab is welded within this groove [0059]. Guen ‘918 does not explicitly disclose that the coupling groove has a specific depth of 0.8 mm to 1.2 mm. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the depth of the coupling groove through routine experimentation. Guen ‘918 expressly teaches that the groove is formed so that “an anvil or a horn may be inserted into the groove such that a load applied to the current collector may be minimized or reduced during welding” [0016], and further teaches that “because a load applied near the fuse hole 416 is reduced, the surroundings of the fuse hole 416 may be prevented or substantially prevented from being damaged by the ultrasonic welding” [0061]. A person having ordinary skill in the art would therefore recognize that the depth of the groove governs competing, recognized outcomes: a groove that is too shallow would fail to adequately receive and eat the inserted electrode tab and would limit insertion of the horn and anvil, while a groove that is too deep would excessively reduce the remaining thickness and structural integrity of the current collector, particularly in the vicinity of the fuse hole that Guen ‘918 identifies as a region requiring protection [0061]. Because the general conditions of the claim – a recessed coupling groove of a recognized depth that receives the tab and accommodates the welding tooling – are disclosed in Guen ‘918, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the claimed depth range of 0.8mm-1.2mm through routine optimization.
Claim 6: Claim 6 claims a proportional relationship where the coupling groove depth equals 45% to 64% of the protruding length of the first current collecting tab. Guen ‘918 teaches the coupling groove and the protruding tab structure, showing that the tab protrudes from the electrode plate and is inserted into the groove of the current collector [0050, 0059]. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to establish a proportional relationship between groove depth and tab protruding length to achieve optimal mechanical coupling and structural efficiency. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a groove depth within the known design space by establishing a proportional relationship between groove depth and tab strength, as Guen ‘918 teaches the importance of groove depth optimization in battery assemblies. The range of 45-64% represents routine mechanical engineering optimization to ensure adequate tab engagement and load distribution without over-deepening the groove. Such proportional design relationships are standard engineering practice for achieving mechanical coupling between components. The use of a proportional relationship to optimize mechanical interface design is within the skill of the art and represents predictable optimization using known techniques.
Claim 7: Claim 7 claims an interval between coupling grooves of 10mm or more. Guen ‘918 explicitly teaches multiple grooves "arranged to be separated in the width direction" of the current collector [0059], but does not specify the exact spacing distance. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to space the multiple grooves taught by Guen at least 10mm apart to ensure adequate material remaining between grooves for structural integrity. The spacing of 10mm or more represents routine engineering calculation based on standard electrode tab width material strength properties, mechanical stress distribution requirements, and manufacturing tolerances. The determination of optimal groove spacing to maintain structural integrity is a predictable design consideration within the skill of the art, yielding predictable results using standard design practices.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ATEF A SHAT whose telephone number is (571)270-0364. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 5712721418. 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.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1712
/MICHAEL B CLEVELAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights