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 .
Claims 1-19 are pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 11/14/2023 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because: English translation of a) “office action of Japan counterpart application” issued on November 6th 2023 p1-p3 and b) “office action of Japan counterpart application” issued on November June 20th 2025 p1-p3 were not provided.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "5'" and "5"" have both been used to designate current collector "5" in figures 7 and 8. 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. 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 Objections
Claim1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites” overlaps at least a portion”, applicant should change it to “overlaps with at least”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "extension portion is configured to be adapted" in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-19 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 “extension portion is configured to be adapted to”, it is unclear whether the extension portion is required to be configured to fold away, adapted to fold away, or configured to become adapted to fold away rendering the claim vague and discrete.
Claim 4 recites “adjacent ones of the extension portions”, it is unclear what structures are being referenced by the term “ones” rendering the claim vague and indefinite.
Claim 7 recites “ connection portions connecting adjacent ones of the adjacent ones of the extension portions”, it is unclear what structures are being referenced by the term “ones” rendering the claim vague and indefinite.
Claim 15 recites the notch is a “closed curve or a non-closed curve”, it is unclear whether the by closed curve the applicant implies the notch fully encloses the weakened end wall and by the non-closed curve the applicant implies the notch does not fully enclose the weakened end wall rendering the claim vague and indefinite.
Claim 16 recites, “corresponding ones of the tab”, it is unclear what structures are being referenced by the term “ones” rendering the claim vague and indefinite.
Claim 17 recites, the welding zone satisfies R1 - R2 = 5-15 mm and R1≤20mm, and R2≥6mm. these limitations cannot all be satisfied simultaneously at the recited upper end. The maximum radial width permitted by the other two limitations is :
when R1 – R2 = 15 mm and when R1 is 20 mm, R2 is calculated as 5 which violates the claimed limitation of R2≥6mm. The claims own limitations are mutually inconsistent at their boundaries rendering the claim vague and indefinite.
Claims 2-19 are similarly rejected as they are dependent on claim 1.
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 1-4, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Tyler (US PG Pub. 2013/0040176 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tyler discloses cylindrical battery, comprising: a casing (ref. 26, figure 3) comprising a cylindrical circumferential side wall and two end walls (figure 3, Examiner figure A) , wherein at least one of the end walls is formed with a discharge zone (ref 52, figure 5, para. 0034).
PNG
media_image1.png
1040
354
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
304
447
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner figure B
Tyler discloses the battery is equipped with a discharge zone (ref 52, figure 5, para. 0034) that may separate from the battery housing to enable trapped gases to escape, opening (ref 52, figure 5, para. 0034) forms the weakened end wall; a cylindrical cell disposed in the casing (cell element, ref 28, Fig. 3, para. 0031), wherein two end portions of the cell correspond to the two end walls (figure 3, para. 0030); a current-collecting plate (ref. 36, figure 3-5) disposed between the weakened end wall and the corresponding end portion of the cell (para. 0036) and orthographic projection of the discharge zone (ref 52, figure 5, para. 0034) towards the current-collecting plate overlaps at least a portion of the current-collecting plate (figure 3-5, examiner figure B). Tyler further discloses the current-collecting plate comprises at least one extension portion (ref. 48, or 60, figure 5-7) and fixed legs (ref. 60) and the outer portion (ref. 58) can be coupled to the cell element to provide electrical contact there by meeting the limitation electrically connected to the corresponding end portion of the cell (para. 0035, 0039, 0041-0043, figure 4, 6). Tyler discloses the extension portion (ref. 48, figure 5-7) extending from the circumferential outer edge of the weakened end wall to within a range of the orthographic projection (figure 3-5, para. 0041). Tyler discloses at least one extension portion (flexible leg, ref. 48) extends in a direction away from the corresponding end portion of the cell (para. 0034 figure 3-7) thereby meeting the limitation at least one extension portion is configured to be adapted to be folded away from the corresponding end portion of the cell.
Regarding claim 2, Tyler discloses a plurality of extension portions (flexible leg ref. 48, figure 6, 8, 11-13, para. 0034) are provided, and the plurality of extension portions are disposed along a circumferential direction of the weakened end wall.
Regarding claim 3, Tyler discloses within the range of orthographic projection, the plurality of extension portions is spaced apart from one another (figure 6, 8, 11-13).
Regarding claim 4, Tyler discloses within the range of the orthographic projection, adjacent ones of the extension portions are connected by first weakened portions (6, 8 and 11, figure 5, Examiner figure C)
PNG
media_image3.png
449
599
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner figure C
Regarding claim 18 and 19, Tyler discloses a battery assembly, comprising the cylindrical battery and an electrical apparatus, comprising the battery assembly (para. 0029,0030, figure 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.
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 5 and 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyler (US PG Pub. 2013/0040176) in view of Chi (US PG Pub. 2024/0154268).
Tyler is relied upon as described above.
Regarding claim 5 and 6, Tyler fails to disclose a second weakened portion is disposed on each extension portion, and the second weakened portion extends along the circumferential direction and is close to an outer end of the extension portion of the weakened end wall.
Chi discloses a cylindrical battery (figure 3) with a weakened end wall (para. 008-0099) and a current collector (ref. 24, figure 4 and 6) having an extension portion (ref. 2421, figure 11) provided with a second weakened portion (notching grove ref. 2423, figure 9, para. 0117-0119) to bend connection section (ref. 2422) relative to the extension portion (ref. 2421, figure 11). Chi further discloses that the second weakened portion extends along the circumferential direction allowing the current collector to bend toward the outer circumference forming a second weakened region (fig 9, para. 0117-0119). Chi further discloses the second weakened portion is close to an outer end of the extension portion (para. 0118).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the current collector of Tyler as taught by Chi.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the current collector of Tyler with the notching groove taught by Chi to implement bending of the current collector towards the outer circumference and the structure is simple and easy to implement.
Claims 7, 8, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyler (US PG Pub. 2013/0040176) in view of Hwangbo (US PG Pub. 2022/0231345).
Regarding claim 7, Tyler discloses the current-collecting plate comprises of connection portions (ref. 58, figure 6, Examiner figure A) connected among adjacent ones of the extension portions.
Tyler fails to discloses the connection portion are outside the orthographic projection.
Hwangbo discloses cylindrical battery, comprising: a casing, a cylindrical circumferential side wall and two end walls (figure 3), wherein at least one of the end walls is formed with a discharge zone (venting portion, ref. 31 figure 13) to form a weakened end wall (para. 0190) and a current collecting plate (ref. 80, figure 15) Hwangbo further discloses plurality of extension portions (ref. 82, figure 15, para. 0262) and connection portion (ref. 83a, figure 15), which are outside the orthographic projection (figure 13, para. 0261, 0263). Hwangbo discloses for stable contact and coupling, the connection portion have a shape extending beyond the orthographic projection (para. 0263).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the current collector of Tyler as taught by Hwangbo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the current collector of Tyler with the teaching of Hwangbo for stable contact and coupling onto the inner surface of the battery housing.
Regarding claim 8, Tyler discloses the connection portion (ref. 58, figure 6, Examiner figure A) and the extension portion (ref. 48, figure 5-7 ) form an integral structure (figure 6).
Regarding claim 14 and 15, Hwangbo discloses the cylindrical battery which has the weakened end wall (figure 13) is formed with a notch, and the notch defines the discharge zone walls (para. 0190, figure 13). Hwangbo further discloses the notch encloses the weakened end wall (figure 13, para. 0065, 0190) there by meeting the limitation notch is a closed curve or a non-closed curve.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the weakened end wall of Tyler to have a notch as taught by Hwangbo in order to reduce the thickness of the venting portion of battery can for proper venting of the gas.
Regarding claim 16, Tyler fails to disclose cell comprises a plurality of electrode sheets wound together, edge portions of the plurality of electrode sheets corresponding to the weakened end wall are stacked to form tabs, and the plurality of extension portions have welding zones to be welded and connected to corresponding ones of the tabs.
Hwangbo discloses the cell comprises a plurality of electrode sheets wound together (jelly roll, para. 0012), edge portions of the plurality of electrode sheets corresponding to the weakened end wall are stacked to form tabs (second uncoated region, ref. 12, figure 13, para. 0166). Hwangbo discloses he plurality of extension portions (ref. 82) have welding zones to be welded and connected to corresponding ones of the tabs (para. 0006, 0009, 0258, figure 3, 13) in order to improve current collecting efficiency (para. 0009).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the current collector of Tyler by adding welding zones to the as taught by Hwangbo in order to improve the current collecting efficiency.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyler (US PG Pub. 2013/0040176) in view of Hwanbo (US PG Pub. 2022/0231345) as applied to claims 1-8, 14 and 16 above, and further in view of Fuhr (US 2011/0256433).
Tyler and Hwanbo are relied up as described above.
Regarding claim 9, Tyler fails to disclose a plurality of installation portions on the current-collecting plate, and the plurality of installation portions extend from the connection portions towards the circumferential side wall of the casing and are connected to the circumferential side wall of the casing.
Fuhr discloses a cylindrical battery (figure 3) and a current collector plate (ref. 540, figure 20-20A, para. 0098) which has a plurality of installation portion (upper portion, ref. 544, figure 20-20A) extending from the connection portion (lower portion, ref. 542, figure 19) towards the circumferential side wall of the casing and are connected to the circumferential side wall of the casing (figure 20- 20A, para. 0098-0099). Fuhr further discloses extension portions (lower portions ref. 542, figure 20-20A), and the installation portion (upper portion, ref. 544) are coupled to the housing to create a conductive path between the electrode and the casing (para. 0098-0099).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the current collector as disclosed by the combination of Tyler and Hwanbo as taught by Fuhr. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the current collector of Tyler with the teaching of Fuhr to have plurality of installation portion that extends and connects towards the circumferential side wall of the casing to create a conductive path between the electrode and the casing.
Regarding claim 10, Tyler discloses a plurality of the extension portions are circumferentially aligned. As discussed above with respect to claim 9, Fuhr discloses a plurality of installation portions (upper portion, ref. 544, figure 20-20A).
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyler (US PG Pub. 2013/0040176) in view of Miyata (US PG Pub 20170133645 A1) and Lim '245 (US 20230246245 A1).
Tyler is relied up as described above.
Regarding claim 11, Tyler fails to disclose the portion of the current-collecting plate within the range of the orthographic projection occupies less than 85% of an area of the orthographic projection.
Lim ‘245 discloses a cylindrical battery (ref. 1, figure 1) comprising a venting portion (ref. 41, figure 1, 0304) and a current collector (ref. 60, figure 1). Lim ‘245 discloses the battery diameter of 46 mm (para. 0348) with a thickness of 1 mm (para. 0225) bringing the inner diameter to be about 45 mm. Lim ‘245 discloses the current collector may have the outer diameter ranging from approximately 33% to 98.5% compared to the inner diameter of the battery housing (para. 0318). Therefore the diameter of the current collector diameter occupying the inner diameter of the battery housing is
45
*
33
100
=
14.85
m
m
, giving the radius of 7.43 mm and an area of 173.3 mm2. Lim ‘245 further discloses the minimum value of the outer diameter of the current collector is a numerical value for preventing the resistance from increasing too much (para. 0318).
Tyler and Lim ‘245 fail to disclose the diameter of the discharge zone.
Miyata discloses a cylindrical battery with wound electrode assembly (abstract, ref.10, figure 1) with a weakened end wall (lid, ref. 22, figure 1, abstract, para. 0020) and current collectors (ref. 18, 19 figure 1). Miyata further discloses the lid (ref. 22) has a discharge zone defined by the fragile portion (ref. 22a, figure 1, para. 0028-0029) and the diameter of the weakened end wall (ref.22) is 18 mm (para. 0053) Miyata further discloses the discharge zone has a diameter of 9 mm (para. 0050). Therefore, the discharge zone occupies 50% of the end wall of the battery. Combination of Lim and Miyata disclose the portion of the current collecting plate with in the range of the orthographic projection occupies as shown by the calculation below.
50
100
*
45
m
m
=
22.5
m
m
and a radius of 11.3 mm and the area of the discharge zone occupying the inner diameter of the battery housing is 397.4 mm2.
Therefore, the portion of the current collecting plate within the range of the orthographic projection occupies 44% of an area of the orthographic projection.
173.3
397.4
*
100
=
44
%
Miyata discloses the discharge zone of the battery can does sufficiently manage gas evacuation when the battery undergoes thermal runaway (para. 0018)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the current collector of Tyler to occupy less than 85% of an area of the orthographic projection as taught by Lim and Miyata. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the current collector to occupy area in the claimed range for preventing the resistance from increasing too much and manage gas evacuation when the battery undergoes thermal runway when the internal pressure of the battery reaches a predetermined operating pressure.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyler (US PG Pub. 2013/0040176) in view of Hwangbo (US PG Pub. 2022/0231345) as applied to claims 1-8, 14 and 16 above, and further in view Miyata (US 20170133645 A1).
Tyler is relied up as described above
Regarding claim 12, Tyler discloses the discharge zone is located in a middle portion of the weakened end wall (figure 3-5).
Hwangbo discloses the discharge zone (venting portion, ref. 31 figure 13-14) is circular (para. 0193).
Tyler and Hwangbo Tyler fail to disclose the ratio of a diameter of the discharge zone to a diameter of the weakened end wall is between 0.3 and 0.9.
As discussed above Miyata discloses the diameter of the weakened end wall (ref.22) is 18 mm (para. 0053). Miyata further discloses the discharge zone has a diameter of 9 mm (para. 0050) and such a cylindrical battery can sufficiently manage gas evacuation even if a gas is generated rapidly inside the battery (para. 0018, 0032).
Therefore, the ratio of a diameter of the discharge zone to a diameter of the weakened end wall can be calculated as
9
18
=
0.5
, thereby overlapping the claimed range. MPEP 2144.05 (I)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the cylindrical battery of Tyler to have the ratio of a diameter of the discharge zone to a diameter of the weakened end wall of as taught by Miyata. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the cylindrical battery to possess the ratio in the claimed range so that battery can sufficiently manage gas evacuation when the battery undergoes thermal runaway.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyler (US PG Pub. 2013/0040176) in view of Hwangbo (US PG Pub. 2022/0231345) and Miyata (US PG Pub 20170133645 A1) as applied to claim 1-8, 12, 14 and 16 above, and further in view of Lim '245 (US 20230246245 A1).
Tyler, Hwangbo and Miyata are relied up on as described above
Regarding claim 13, Tyler fails to disclose ratio of a diameter of the discharge zone to a diameter of the weakened end wall is between 0.4 and 0.65 and the portion of the current-collecting plate within the range of the orthographic projection occupies more than 10% and less than 50% of an area of the orthographic projection.
As discussed above with respect to claim 12, Miyata discloses the diameter of the weakened end wall (ref.22) is 18 mm (para. 0053). Miyata further discloses the discharge zone has a diameter of 9 mm (para. 0050) and such a cylindrical battery can sufficiently manage gas evacuation even if a gas is generated rapidly inside the battery (para. 0018, 0032).
Therefore, the ratio of a diameter of the discharge zone to a diameter of the weakened end wall can be calculated as
9
18
=
0.5
, thereby overlapping the claimed range. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
As discussed above with respect to claim 11, the combination of Lim and Miyata disclose the portion of the current collecting plate with in the range of the orthographic projection occupies 44% overlapping the claimed range. MPEP 2144.05 (I)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the current collector of Tyler to occupy more than 10% and less than 50% of an area of the orthographic projection as taught by Lim and for the cylindrical battery to have a ratio of the diameter of the discharge zone to the diameter of the weakened end wall in the claimed range as taught by Miyata. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the current collector to occupy area in the claimed range for proper discharge of gas inside the battery when the internal pressure of the battery reaches a predetermined operating pressure and to modify the cylindrical battery to possess the ratio in the claimed range so that battery can sufficiently manage gas evacuation when the battery undergoes thermal runaway.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyler (US PG Pub. 2013/0040176) in view of Hwangbo (US PG Pub. 2022/0231345) as applied to claim1 and 16 above, and further in view of Lim '517 (US PG Pub. 2024/0128517A1).
Regarding claim 17, Tyler fails to disclose R a distance from an outer edge of each welding zone to a central axis of the cell is R1, and a distance from an inner edge of the welding zone to the central axis of the cell is R2, and a difference between R1 and R2 is between 5mm and 15mm, R1≤20mm, and R2≥6mm. Lim ‘517 discloses a cylindrical battery (para. 0008) with a jelly-roll type electrode assembly (0131) and a current collector welded to the electrode assembly (para. 0008-0009). Lim ‘517 further discloses the welding area may be spaced apart by a distance of 4 mm or more and 50% or less of the radius of the electrode assembly in a radial direction with respect to the center of the core of the electrode assembly (para. 0086) and the radius of the electrode assembly to be 22 mm (para. 0112). Lim discloses bending the uncoated portions exposed at both ends of the electrode assembly, it is possible to prevent the separator or the active material layer from being damaged even if the welding power is increased by sufficiently securing an area where the uncoated portion is overlapped into 10 or more layers in the radial direction of the electrode assembly (para. 0098). Lim ‘517 bounds the welding region radially and
R
2
≥
4
m
m
(para. 0086)
R
1
≥
50
100
*
22
m
m
=
11.5
m
m
and the difference between R1 and R2 is 7.5. There by meeting the limitation R1 and R2 is between 5mm and 15mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the current collector of Tyler to have welding zone in the radius as taught by Lim ’517. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the current collector to have a welding zone as taught by Lim ‘517 to prevent the separator or the active material layer from being damaged.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISWARYA MATHEW whose telephone number is (571)272-9515. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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, ALICIA CHEVALIER can be reached at (571) 272-1490. 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.
/I.M./
Iswarya MathewExaminer, Art Unit 1788 06/10/2026
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 06/16/2026
Prosecution Insights