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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/16/2024 and 11/18/2025 was considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informality: in line 2, ‘positive electrode tab at the winding start’ should read “positive electrode tab is at the winding start end”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (KR 20160101347 A). The English translation of this reference was relied upon for purposes of examination.
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses an electrode assembly (200 in Fig. 3, paragraph 50) comprising a positive electrode plate (260 in Fig. 3, paragraph 50) which comprises a current collector plate (211, in Fig. 3, paragraph 51), a positive electrode mixture layer (212 in Fig. 3, paragraph 51) and at least one uncoated portion (221, 222 and 223 in Fig. 3, paragraph 51) and at least one positive electrode tab (231, 232 and 233 in Fig. 3, paragraph 51) attached to the uncoated region and protruding upwards. It further teaches that the electrode assembly, 200, comprises a negative electrode (260 in Fig. 3, paragraph 52) which comprises a current collector plate (261 in Fig. 3, paragraph 52), a negative electrode mixture layer (262 in Fig.3, paragraph 52) and at least one uncoated portion (271, 272, 273 in Fig.3, paragraph 52) and at least one negative electrode tab (281,282 and 283 in Fig. 3, paragraph 52) attached to an uncoated region and protruding downwards. Lee also teaches a separator between the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate (separation membrane in abstract)
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches that the uncoated portions, 221 and 222, are at the winding start end and the winding finish end of the positive electrode respectively. (Fig 3, paragraph 47). Lee also teaches that the uncoated portions, 271 and 272, are at the winding start end and the winding finish end of the negative electrode respectively. (paragraph 48, Fig 3)
Regarding claim 3, Lee teaches that the positive electrode tab, 231, is at the winding start end (Fig 2) and the negative electrode tab, 281, is at the winding start end (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches that the positive electrode tab, 232, is at the winding finish end and the negative electrode tab, 282 is at the winding finish end (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches that the positive electrode tab, 231, is at the winding start end and the negative electrode tab, 282, is at the winding finish end (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 6, Lee teaches that the positive electrode tabs, 231 and 232, are at the winding start end and the winding finish end respectively and the negative electrode tabs, 281 and 282, are at the winding start end and winding finish end respectively (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 7, Lee teaches that the positive electrode tab, 233 and the uncoated portion, 223, are at the center of the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode tab, 283, and the uncoated portion, 273, are at the center of the negative electrode plate (paragraph 52, Fig 3)
Regarding claim 8, Lee teaches that the positive electrode tabs, 231,232 and 233, are attached to uncoated portions, 221, 222 and 223, at the winding start end, the winding finish end and the center of the plate respectively (paragraph 51, Fig 3). Lee also teaches that negative electrode tabs, 281, 282 and 283, attached to uncoated portions, 271, 272, 273, at the winding start end, the winding finish end and the center of the plate respectively (paragraph 52, Fig 3)
Claim 1 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2009/0317713 A1 ).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses an electrode assembly (100 in Fig. 9, paragraph 50) comprising a positive electrode plate (110, paragraph 44) which comprises a current collector plate (111, paragraph 44), a positive electrode mixture layer (112, paragraph 44) and at least one uncoated portion (113, paragraph 44) and at least one positive electrode tab (140 in Fig. 9, paragraph 45) attached to the uncoated region and protruding upwards (Fig 9). It further teaches that the electrode assembly, 100, comprises a negative electrode (120, paragraph 47) which comprises a current collector plate (121, paragraph 47), a negative electrode mixture layer (122, paragraph 46) and at least one uncoated portion (123, paragraph 47) and at least one negative electrode tab (150 in Fig. 9, paragraph 52) attached to an uncoated region and protruding downwards (Fig 9). Lee also teaches a separator between the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate (130, paragraph 36)
Double Patenting
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 of this application are patentably indistinct from claim 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Application No. 18/639884 respectively. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1,3,4 and 6-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of copending Application No. 18/639884 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the reference discloses a “plurality” of electrode tabs whereas claim 1 of the instant application mentions “at least one” electrode tab. The term “at least one” encompasses the “plurality” claimed in the reference so the claim does not represent a patentably distinct invention. Claim 3 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1 as it inherits the term “at least one” from claim 1 but is otherwise identical to claim 2 of the reference. Claim 4, 6,7 and 8 are similarly rejected over claims 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the reference respectively.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAZIAH OWUSU-ANSAH whose telephone number is (571)272-0441. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9am - 7pm.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at (571) 270-7457. 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.
/KAZIAH OWUSU-ANSAH/Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights