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 Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the second parts”. Appropriate correction is required. This is considered an objection as it is being viewed as a typo that the “parts” is plural and should be amended to be “part
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 3 and 8-10 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.
Regarding claim 3, it is not clear what part the second part is considered to have a different height than. For the purpose of examination, it is considered that the height difference is intended to be between the first and second parts. Clarification is required.
Additionally, claim 3 recites the limitation "the second parts" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites the limitation "the first part" in line 3 and it is unclear if this is intended to limit the first part required by claim 1 or a first part of the corner cutting edge. Also, it is not clear if the “a second part” is referring to the second part of claim 1 or a different second part. Additionally, claim 8 recites the limitation "the fourth side" in line 3. 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)(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(s) 1-3, 11, 12, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Xia et al (US 2012/0237811).
Regarding claim 1, Xia teaches an anode plate comprising anode extending portions 166 (0033 and fig 1), which are considered to be the instantly claimed plurality of tabs. As shown in figure 9, to further prevent the anode extending portion 166, an isosceles trapezoid shape is used and considered to have a first part being the interrupted line and the line parallel thereto and the second part is the remaining outer part (fig 9 and 0040). Figure 9 shows the shape of the first part and the second part to be different.
Regarding claim 2, it is considered inherent that deformation would occur when the electrode is built into the battery cell casing.
Regarding claim 3, as shown in figure 9, to further protect the anode extending portion 166, an isosceles trapezoid shape is used and considered to have a first part being the interrupted line and the line parallel thereto and the second part is the remaining outer part (fig 9 and 0040). Figure 9 shows the height of the first part and the second part to be different.
Regarding claim 11, Xia teaches in figure 4 the extending tabs 166 are along a length of the electrode plate 16 which is shown to be unfolded.
Regarding claim 12, Xia shows in figure 4 that a predetermined length is present between the tab 166 and the end of the anode plate 16.
Regarding claim 17, Xia teaches a lithium ion battery (0002) which would include an electrode assembly.
Regarding claim 18, Xia teaches a lithium ion battery including a cathode plate 12 and an anode plate 16 with a separator 14 therebetween. The anode plate includes anode extending portions 166, considered to be the instantly claimed tabs, and the cathode plate includes cathode extending portions 126, considered to be the instantly claimed tabs (0033-0034).
Regarding claim 19, Xia teaches a lithium ion battery (0002 and 0033).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 8-10, 13-16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia et al (US 2012/0237811).
Regarding claim 8, Xia teaches the anode plate as discussed above.
Xia teaches in figure 4 the extending tabs 166 are along a length of the electrode plate 16 which is shown to be unfolded and considered to meet the instantly claimed edges as structurally shown.
Xia does not explicitly teach the removal of a sharp corner claimed.
However, the structure is considered capable of behaving as claimed and it is noted that this claim is to a structure and not a method. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to remove any sharp corner to ensure tearing or puncturing is not of concern.
Regarding claim 9, Xia teaches the anode plate as discussed above.
Xia does not explicitly teach the instantly claimed the corner cutting edges, as claimed. However, the structure is considered capable of behaving as claimed and it is noted that this claim is to a structure and not a method. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to remove any sharp corner to ensure tearing or puncturing is not of concern.
Regarding claim 10, Xia teaches the anode plate as discussed above.
Xia does not explicitly teach the instantly claimed the corner cutting edges, as claimed. However, the structure is considered capable of behaving as claimed and it is noted that this claim is to a structure and not a method. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to remove any sharp corner to ensure tearing or puncturing is not of concern and utilizing any shape, such as an arc or bevel shape, would be considered obvious as a matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 13, Xia shows in figure 4 that a predetermined length is present between the tab 166 and the end of the anode plate 16.
Xia does not explicitly teach that length range.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to determine distance to be any range dependent upon the desired result, such as the instantly claimed range, without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 14, Xia shows in figure 4 that a predetermined length is present between the tabs 166.
Xia does not explicitly teach that length range.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to determine distance to be any range dependent upon the desired result, such as the instantly claimed range, without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 15, as shown in figure 9, to further protect the anode extending portion 166, an isosceles trapezoid shape is used and considered to have a first part being the interrupted line and the line parallel thereto and the second part is the remaining outer part (fig 9 and 0040). Figure 9 shows the height of the first part and the second part to be different.
Xia does not explicitly teach that height difference range.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to determine distance to be any range dependent upon the desired result, such as the instantly claimed range, without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 16, as shown in figure 9, to further protect the anode extending portion 166, an isosceles trapezoid shape is used and considered to have a first part being the interrupted line and the line parallel thereto and the second part is the remaining outer part (fig 9 and 0040). Figure 9 shows the height of the first part and the second part to be different.
Xia does not explicitly teach that height difference range.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to determine distance to be any range dependent upon the desired result, such as the instantly claimed range, without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 20, Xia teaches the lithium ion battery, as discussed above.
Xia does not explicitly teach the battery being used in an electric device, as claimed.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to utilize the battery in an electric device as such is a customary use of a battery.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The closest prior art is considered to be Xia et al (US 2012/0237811) which neither teaches nor renders obvious the electrode plate of instant claim 4. Claims 5-7 depend from instant claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH A SLIFKA whose telephone number is (571)270-5838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/SARAH A. SLIFKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759 July 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights