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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: reference is made to connecting piece 114a of Fig. 3 in Paragraph 9 under the heading “Description of Preferred Embodiments”. No item 114a is labeled in Fig. 3. Appropriate correction is required.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-4 in the reply filed on 09/15/2026 is acknowledged. Claim 5 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20220278431 A1), further in view of Herle et al. (US 2016/0308243 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Park teaches manufacturing a tables cylindrical battery with a positive electrode and negative electrode having structures in which a sheet-shaped current collector is coated with an active material and includes an uncoated portion at one long side along the winding direction (Paragraphs [0010], [0011]). Park teaches the plurality of segments or individual tabs to have a cut groove between segments adjacent to each other along the winding direction (Paragraph [0046]). Park teaches the electrode assembly to be wound about an axis defining a core and an outer circumference of the electrode assembly (Paragraph [0027]). Park teaches configurations of the segments which can be cut or arranged to lean toward the winding core (Fig. 9), where the segments of Park are analogous to the connecting pieces of the instant application.
Park does not teach a coupling portion of the uncoated end region of the current collector to fracture along the cuts to form individual connecting pieces. Herle teaches a cutting method of scribe and fracture along with other cell cutting methods, with attention drawn to avoiding edge smearing and shorting of electrodes (Paragraph [0021]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the scribe and fracture cutting method as taught by Herle with the uncoated current collector segments as taught by Park in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as using a known foil cutting process as taught by Park (Paragraph [0341]) in which the cutting method for a wound electrode body is appropriately associated with roll-to-roll processes as taught by Herle (Paragraph [0021]). See Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 89 USPQ2d 1535 (Fed. Cir. 2008) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (A).
Regarding Claim 2, Park teaches that each of the plurality of segments may have a geometric shape with a width that gradually decreases from a lower portion to an upper portion, and a lower internal angle of a segment (Paragraph [0041]). Park also teaches individual segments to have angles of incline (Fig. 9) as in Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 4, Park does not teach forming the cuts such that the orthogonal length of the coupling portion gradually decreases along the winding direction. Park does teach optimizing the segments in the orthogonal direction with respect to the radius of the winding process (Paragraph [0041]).
It should be noted that cut segment height with respect to winding radius is a result-effective variable. Park teaches that the bent portions of the uncoated current collector segments should be overlapped in multiple layers without any gaps in order to enable sufficient welding strength (Paragraph [0017]), and further motivations to provide an electrode assembly having an improved uncoated portion structure to relieve stress applied to the uncoated portion when bending the uncoated portion exposed at both ends of the electrode assembly (Paragraph [0019]), improved physical properties of a welding region by applying a segment structure to the uncoated portion of the electrode and optimizing the dimensions (width, height, separation pitch) of the segments to sufficiently increase the number of overlapping layers of the segments in an area used as a welding target region (Paragraph [0022]), and improved energy density and reduced resistance by applying a structure in which a current collector is welded over a large area to a bending surface region formed by bending the segments (Paragraph [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the cut connecting portions or segments in the winding direction based on the teachings of Park using the scribe and fracture method of Herle to result in orthogonal cuts that gradually decrease the coupling portion since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the cuts in the winding direction according to the teachings by Park above.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20220278431 A1) and Herle et al. (US 2016/0308243 A1) as in Claims 1 and 2 above, further in view of Kasahara et al. (JP 2004/095487 A).
Regarding Claim 3, Park does not teach the continuous coupling portion. Herle teaches a cutting method of scribe and fracture along with other cell cutting methods, with attention drawn to avoiding edge smearing and shorting of electrodes (Paragraph [0021]) as in Claim 1 above. Kasahara teaches a continuous uncoated current collector portion (Paragraph [0008]; Fig. 7) which is folded rather than cut.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the continuous uncoated current collector as taught by Kasahara with the scribe and fracture cutting method as taught by Herle in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as utilizing a cutting method for a wound electrode body appropriately associated with roll-to-roll processes as taught by Herle (Paragraph [0021]). See Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 89 USPQ2d 1535 (Fed. Cir. 2008) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (A).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vivian Cheng whose telephone number is (571)270-1930. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 7:30am-5pm ET, Fri 7:30am-12pm ET.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571)270-1547. 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.
/V.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights