DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Claims 2, 8, and 9 are amended.
Claims 1-14 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 02/04/2026, with respect to claims 2, 8, and 9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of 01/14/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 02/04/2026, with respect to claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, and 13 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Double-Patenting rejection of 01/14/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/04/2026, with respect to the 102 rejections of claims 1, 3, 7, 8, and 10 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the prior art of record does not teach calculating a first position of the tab from the first image and calculating a second position of the tab from the second image.
In figure 9 of Yoon, axis b is a longitudinal axis of the positive electrode tab 10 and axis a is the central axis of the battery. Yoon determines whether deformation has occurred based on the change in angle between axis a and b after charging and discharging the battery assembly. Measuring the change in position of the tab’s axis b relative to the battery’s central axis a is equivalent to measuring the position of the tab itself since the axis does not move or change position independently of the tab.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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(s) 1, 3, 7, 8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yoon (EP 4235889 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Yoon discloses a method for analyzing deformation of a secondary battery having an electrode assembly with a tab received in a case (“Evaluation of Axis distortion of positive electrode tab” [0103]), the deformation analysis method comprising:
obtaining a first image by performing computed tomography (CT) imaging on the secondary battery (“50cycled” images on the left in Figs. 8-11);
calculating a first position of the tab from the first image (left image of Fig. 9, axis b of electrode tab 10);
obtaining a number of charge and discharge cycles of the secondary battery after charging and discharging the secondary battery multiple times so that the secondary battery deteriorates (50 cycles and 100 cycles for the left and right images respectively of Figs. 8-11);
obtaining a second image by performing CT imaging on the secondary battery deteriorated (right image, “100cycled”, of Figs. 8-11);
calculating a second position of the tab from the second image (right image of Fig. 9, axis b of electrode tab 10); and
determining that the electrode assembly is deformed if an amount of change between the first position and the second position is greater than a reference value ([0106]: “…referring to FIG. 9, when the cylindrical secondary battery was charged and discharged 50 times, it could be confirmed that the virtual axis b of a positive electrode tab 10 was inclined with respect to the central axis a of the cylindrical secondary battery, and when the cylindrical secondary battery was charged and discharged 100 times, distortion of the positive electrode tab 10 occurred as seen from the fact that the virtual axis b of the positive electrode tab 10 was more inclined as compared with the central axis a of the cylindrical secondary battery.”).
Regarding Claim 3: Yoon discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the secondary battery has a cylindrical shape (Fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 7: Yoon discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the reference value is 1% to 5% (deviation of 1% or less, [0047]).
Regarding Claim 8: Yoon discloses a device for analyzing deformation of a secondary battery having an electrode assembly with a tab received in a case, the device comprising:
a control circuit;
a processor installed in the control circuit; and
a memory installed in the control circuit and operably coupled to the processor, wherein the processor executes a program code stored in the memory and is configured to:
obtain a first image that is obtained by performing computed tomography (CT) imaging on the secondary battery (“50cycled” images on the left in Figs. 8-11);
calculate a first position of the tab from the first image (left image of Fig. 9, axis b of electrode tab 10);
obtain a number of charge and discharge cycles of the secondary battery after charging and discharging the secondary battery multiple times so that the secondary battery deteriorates (50 cycles and 100 cycles for the left and right images respectively of Figs. 8-11);
obtain a second image that is obtained by performing CT imaging on the secondary battery deteriorated (right image, “100cycled”, of Figs. 8-11);
calculate a second position of the tab from the second image (right image of Fig. 9, axis b of electrode tab 10); and
determine that the electrode assembly is deformed if an amount of change between the first position and the second position is greater than a reference value [0106].
Regarding Claim 10: Yoon discloses the device as claimed in claim 8, wherein the secondary battery has a cylindrical shape (Fig. 9).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4-6, 9, and 11-14 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 2: Yoon teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, but Yoon fails to teach wherein the first and second positions are each defined as an angle between a first straight line connecting the tab and an intersection of a core-long diameter and a core-short diameter of the electrode assembly, and a second straight line connecting the intersection and a winding trailing end of the electrode assembly.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements outside of Applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record. Claims 4-6 are allowable by virtue of their dependency on claim 2.
Regarding Claim 9: Yoon teaches the device as claimed in claim 8, but Yoon fails to teach wherein the first and second positions are defined as an angle between a first straight line connecting the tab and an intersection of a core-long diameter and a core-short diameter of the electrode assembly, and a second straight line connecting the intersection and a winding trailing end of the electrode assembly.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements outside of Applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record. Claims 11-14 are allowable by virtue of their dependency on claim 9.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIYA DOWNING whose telephone number is (703)756-1840. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, David Makiya can be reached at (571) 272-2273. 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.
/MIYA DOWNING/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/DAVID J MAKIYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights