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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-12) in the reply filed on June 12, 2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
In this instance, the abstract recites the legal terms “comprises” (in the 2nd line) and “comprising” (in the 3rd line).
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.
Claims 1-12 are 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 1 recites the limitation "the width direction" in the 5th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Since claims 2-12 depend from claim 1, these claims are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for the same reason.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the second electrode sheet" in the 7th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “each” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Since claims 2-12 depend from claim 1, these claims are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for the same reason.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the bending segment" in the 2nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is believed that “the” should be replaced with “each” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the center" in the 2nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the bending segment" in the 2nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is believed that “the” should be replaced with “each” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the width" in the 2nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the ends" in the 1st line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to delete “the” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the bending direction" in the 2nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the thickness direction" bridging the 3rd and 4th lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the diaphragm" in the 5th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the parts" in the 5th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to delete “the” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the diaphragm" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the thickness direction" bridging the 3rd and 4th lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the diaphragm" in the 5th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the width direction" in the 6th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 7 recites (two instances of) the limitation "the diaphragm" in the 6th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the projection" in the 2nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the projection" in the 3rd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the area" in the 3rd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “an” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the stacking segment" in the 4th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the area" in the 4th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “an” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 213340434 U, of which a complete copy of the Chinese document with an English abstract was provided with the Information Disclosure Statement dated November 3, 2023, with an English equivalent to Jin et al. (US 2022/0344718) for use in reference to translated text (rather than a machine translation of CN 213340434 U).
Regarding independent claim 1, CN ‘434 (refer to equivalent US 2022/0344718) discloses an electrode assembly (see abstract; paragraphs [0053]-[0058], [0064]-[0073], [0080], [0081], and [0087]-[0089]; and Figures 1-6, 9, and 12-14), in which the electrode assembly (10) includes the following structural features:
a first electrode sheet (11), comprising a plurality of bending segments (111) and a plurality of stacking segments (112) arranged in layers, wherein each of the bending segments (111) is configured to connect two adjacent stacking segments (112), the first electrode sheet (11) has a first broken seam (in the form of groove (113a) of guiding portions (113)), and the first broken seam (113a) extends in a width direction of the first electrode sheet (11) to break the first electrode sheet (11) – see paragraphs [0064]-[0073]; and Figures 5 and 6; and
a plurality of second electrode sheets (12), wherein a polarity of each second electrode sheet (12) is opposite to a polarity of the first electrode sheet (11), and each of the second electrode sheets (12) is arranged between two adjacent stacking segments (112) in a stacking direction of the plurality of stacking segments (112) – see paragraphs [0064]-[0073]; and Figures 5 and 6.
Regarding claims 2, 3, and 5, CN ‘434 (US ‘718) discloses that the first broken seam (113a) is arranged at a center (middle) of each bending segment (111) – see paragraph [0072] and Figure 5, wherein ends of two adjacent stacking segments (112) in the bending direction of the bending segment (111) are exposed at the first broken seam (113a) – see paragraphs [0068]-[0073]; and Figures 5 and 6.
Regarding claim 6, CN ‘434 (US ‘718) discloses that the electrode assembly (10) further comprises two diaphragms (separators (13) of Figure 5 – see paragraph [0064]) attached to both sides of the first electrode sheet (11) in a thickness direction, respectively, to isolate the first electrode sheet (11) and the second electrode sheet(s) (12), wherein each diaphragm (13) is a continuous strip structure, and parts of the first electrode sheet (11) on both sides of the first broken seam (113a) are connected by the diaphragm (13) – see paragraph [0064] and Figure 5.
Regarding claim 7, CN ‘434 (US ‘718) discloses that the electrode assembly (10) further comprises two diaphragms (13) attached to both sides of the first electrode sheet (11) in a thickness direction, respectively, to isolate the first electrode sheet (11) and the second electrode sheet(s) (12), wherein each diaphragm (13) is provided with a second broken seam (113a), and second broken seam (113a) extends in a width direction (see paragraphs [0064], [0080], and [0081]; and Figures 5 and 9).
Regarding claim 8, CN ‘434 (US ‘718) discloses that the first electrode sheet (11) is a negative electrode sheet, and the second electrode sheet (12) is a positive electrode sheet (see paragraph [0064]; and Figures 5 and 12).
Regarding claim 10, CN ‘434 (US ‘718) discloses a battery cell (2011) that comprises the electrode assembly (10) that includes all structural features of claim 1 (see paragraphs [0057] and [0058]; and Figures 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 11, CN ‘434 (US ‘718) discloses a battery (2000) comprising the battery cell (2011) that includes the features of claim 10 (see paragraphs [0053]-[0057]; and Figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 12, CN ‘434 (US ‘718) discloses an electrical device (motor (4000) of a vehicle (1000)) comprising the battery cell (2011) according to claim 10, wherein the battery cell (2011) is configured to provide electrical energy (see paragraphs [0053]-[0057]; and Figures 1-3).
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.
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.
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.
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 213340434 U (US 2022/0344718).
Regarding claim 4, although CN ‘434 (US ‘718) discloses all features of independent claim 1, wherein Figure 6 of CN ‘434 (US ‘718) discloses that the first electrode sheet (11) is in an unfolded state and would include predetermined dimensions (see paragraph [0073] and Figure 6), CN ‘434 (US ‘718) does not explicitly disclose a width of the first broken seam (in an unfolded state of the first electrode sheet (11)) to be between 0.1 mm and 2 mm. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that one or more dimensions (including width range of the first broken seam) of the first electrode sheet (11) within the electrode assembly (10) of CN ‘434 (US ‘718) would be readily modified based on desired dimensions of the electrode assembly (10) under consideration of reduced cost and higher efficiency of the battery cells comprising the electrode assembly (see paragraph [0054] of CN ‘434 (US ‘718). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980).
Regarding claim 9, although CN ‘434 (US ‘718) discloses all features of independent claim 1 and claim 8, wherein CN ‘434 (US ‘718) further discloses that, in the stacking direction of the plurality of stacking segments (112), a projection (tab (118)) of each of the stacking segments (112) completely covers a projection (118) of each of the second electrode sheets (12), as disclosed in paragraphs [0064]-[0073] and in Figures 5 and 6, CN ‘434 (US ‘718) does not explicitly disclose that an area of the projection (118) of the stacking segment (112) is greater than an area of the projection (118) of the second electrode sheet (12). However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that one or more dimensions of an area of each projection (118) would be readily selected by routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success to be one of greater, smaller, or similar to one another, in order to match desired dimensions of each of the first and second electrode sheets (11,12) within the electrode assembly (10). Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that selection between greater, smaller, or similar would be within “obvious to try” rationale in view of a finite number of predictable solutions of desired area dimensions of each of the first and second electrode sheets (11,12) within the electrode assembly (10) – see paragraphs [0064] and [0073]; and Figure 5 of CN ‘434 (US ‘718).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN P KERNS whose telephone number is (571)272-1178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached at (571)272-3458. 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.
/KEVIN P KERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735 August 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights