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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted 04/29/2024 and 08/08/2025 were received and have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted 04/29/2024 were received and are approved by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Tab Configuration For Electrochemical Apparatus and Electric Device.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-13, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kageyama (U.S. 20220181726; referenced in IDS submitted 08/08/2025 as WO 2021065340).
With respect to claims 1-2 and 10-11, Kageyama discloses an electric device (electronic apparatuses) ([0003]) comprising an electrochemical apparatus (secondary battery) ([abstract]), comprising:
a housing (10 – outer package film), wherein the housing (10) comprises a top wall (M1 – bottom wall part), a side wall (M3 – side wall part), and a bottom wall (M2 – bottom wall part) (Fig. 2; [0047]), the top wall (M1) being provided with a first electrode (32 – positive electrode lead part) (Fig. 2);
an electrode assembly (20 – batter device) accommodated in the housing (10) (Fig. 2), wherein the electrode assembly (20) comprises a first electrode plate (21 – positive electrode) and a second electrode plate (22 – negative electrode) (Fig. 2);
a first tab (30 – positive electrode lead) connected to the first electrode plate (21) and the first electrode (32) (Fig. 2; [0066]); and
a second tab (40 – negative electrode lead) connected to the second electrode plate (22) (Fig. 2; [0067]);
wherein when viewed in a direction perpendicular to the top wall (looking down at battery), an angle between a length direction of the first tab (30) and a length direction of the second tab (40) is denoted as θ, and θ = 0° (as the first tab 30 and second tab 40 would align when viewed from the top, therefore θ = 0° (Fig. 10), thus falling into the claimed ranges of 0° ≤ θ ≤ 60° and 0° ≤ θ ≤ 30° (claims 2 and 11) with sufficient specificity.
It is noted that the embodiment which describes the angle θ (Fig. 10) is a different embodiment than relied upon for the teaching the structure of the electrode body and its internal connections (Fig. 2). This is because the prior art does not provide a figure which depicts the internal structure of the battery when the leads are arranged as shown in embodiment 10. However, the prior art does say that Fig. 10 “…illustrates a perspective configuration of a secondary battery of a comparative example, and corresponds to FIG. 1. FIGS. 11 and 12…” Therefore, it is inherent that the internal structure of the battery shown in Fig. 10 is extremely close, if not identical, to those shown in previous figures such as Figs. 2, 7B, 8B, and 9B, of which 7B, 8B, and 9B show the manufacturing of figure 2.
Applicant is reminded that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
PNG
media_image1.png
357
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to clams 3-4 and 12-13, Kageyama discloses the first tab (30) comprises a first connecting zone (31 – lead part) connected to the first electrode plate (21) and a third connecting zone (labeled) connected to the first electrode (32) (Fig. 2- above; [0071]);
the second tab (40) comprises a second connecting zone (41 – lead part) connected to the second electrode plate (22) and a fourth connecting zone (labeled) connected to the housing (10) (Fig. 2 – above); [0073]).
Kageyama does not explicitly disclose that when viewed in the direction perpendicular to the top wall, a distance between a center of the first connecting zone and a center of the third connecting zone is denoted as L1, and a distance between a center of the second connecting zone and a center of the fourth connecting zone is denoted as L2, and 0.18 ≤ L1/L2 ≤ 2.75.
However, as the lengths between the above labeled connecting zones are approximately equal, it would inherently be true that the ratio of L1/L2 would fall in a ranges of 0.18 to 2.75 and 0.45 to 2.2 (claims 4 and 13), as that is a large range which allows either L1 or L2 to be significantly larger than the other with every value of a ratio in between included.
Further, applicant is reminded that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). In this instance, the length of the lead parts between connecting zone does not change the performance of the lead parts or battery, therefore the recitation of relative dimensions does not patentable distinct the application from the prior art.
Applicant is reminded that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
With respect to claims 7-8 and 16-17, Kageyama discloses the electrode assembly (20) is a wound structure (Fig. 3; [0060]);
the first electrode plate (21) comprises a first active material layer ([0062]), the first active material layer comprises a first end portion (coated on both sides of the current collector) ([0062]), and the first end portion is disposed at a winding start end of the wound structure (Figs. 2-3; [0062] - would inherently be at both the start and end of the wound as the current collector is coated on both sides with the active material);
the second electrode plate (22) comprises a second active material layer ([0063]), the second active material layer comprises a second end portion (coated on both sides of the current collector) )[0063]), and the second end portion is disposed at the winding start end of the wound structure(Figs. 2-3; [0063] - would inherently be at both the start and end of the wound as the current collector is coated on both sides with the active material);
the first tab (30) comprises a first connecting zone (31) connected to the first electrode plate (21) (Fig. 2; [0071]);
the second tab (40) comprises a second connecting zone (41) connected to the second electrode plate (22) (Fig. 2; [0073]).
Again, Kageyama does not explicitly disclose that along a length direction of the first electrode plate, a distance between a center of the first connecting zone and the first end portion is denoted as D1; and along a length direction of the second electrode plate, a distance between a center of the second connecting zone and the second end portion is denoted as D2, and 0.5 ≤ D1/D2 ≤ 2.
However, as the distances between the centers of the connecting zones to the end portions of the electrode plates are approximately equal, it would inherently be true that the ratio of D1/D2 would fall in a ranges of 0.5 to 2 and 0.9 to 1.1 (claims 8 and 17), as that is a range which allows either L1 or L2 to be larger than the other with every value of a ratio in between included.
Further, applicant is reminded that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). In this instance, distances between the centers of the connecting zones to the end portions of the electrode plates does not change the performance of the lead parts or battery, therefore the recitation of relative dimensions does not patentable distinct the application from the prior art.
Applicant is reminded that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
With respect to claims 9 and 18, Kageyama discloses the first tab (30) and the second tab (40) are located on opposite sides of the electrode assembly (20) (Fig. 10).
Claim(s) 5-6 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kageyama as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Morikawa et al. (U.S. 20030235087).
PNG
media_image2.png
376
462
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 5 and 14, Kageyama discloses electrochemical apparatuses comprising an electrode body and lead parts connected to the electrode body (see above rejection of claims 1 and 10), but does not disclose the electrochemical apparatuses further includes first and second connecting members connected outside the battery housing.
Morikawa discloses an electrochemical apparatus (18 – storage cell) and teaches the electrochemical apparatus (18) further comprises:
a first connecting member (14 – cathode terminal) and a second connecting member (13 – anode terminal) disposed outside the housing (11 – case) (Fig. 1);
wherein the first connecting member (14) comprises a fifth connecting zone (17 – mounting-fixing portion) connected to the first electrode (not shown; disposed in top cover 12) (Figs 1 and 2B; [0038]), and a sixth connecting zone (16 – external connection) is provided at an end portion of the first connecting member (14) away from the first electrode (inside top cover 12) (Figs 1 and 2B; [0038]);
the second connecting member (13) comprises a seventh connecting zone (underside of 13 contacting 11, Fig. 2B) connected to the housing (11) (Figs. 1 and 2B; [0039]), and an eighth connecting zone (15 – external connection) is provided at an end portion of the second connecting member (13) away from the seventh connecting zone (underside of 13 contacting 11, Fig. 2B) (Fig. 1 and 2B); and
when viewed in the direction perpendicular to the top wall (looking down at battery 18), a connecting line between a center of the fifth connecting zone (17) and a center of the sixth connecting zone (16) is denoted as W1 (center of 18 to 16; Fig. 2A - above), a connecting line between a center of the seventh connecting zone (where underside of 13 contacts 11) and a center of the eighth connecting zone (15) is denoted as W2 (center of 18 to 16) (Fig. 2A – above),
an angle between W1 and W2 is denoted as β , and 0° ≤ β ≤ 30° (Fig. 2A - above). Morikawa further teaches that this arrangement allows for easy connections in multiple places of the electrochemical apparatus to electrical components such as wiring boards ([0042]), and
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to include the first and second connecting members in the configuration taught by Morikawa to the electrochemical apparatus disclosed by Kageyama in order to allow or easy connections in multiple places of the electrochemical apparatus to electrical components such as wiring boards.
Applicant is reminded that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
PNG
media_image3.png
325
446
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 6 and 15, modified Kageyama discloses fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth landing zones of first and second connecting members (see above rejection of claims 5 and 14), but does not explicitly disclose the distance between the center of the fifth connecting zone and the center of the sixth connecting zone is denoted as L3, and a distance between the center of the seventh connecting zone and the center of the eighth connecting zone is denoted as L4,and 0.45 ≤ L3/L4 ≤ 2.2.
Morikawa discloses a center be fifth (17), sixth (16), seventh (underside of 13 contacting 11), and eighth (15) landing zones of first (14) and second (13) connecting members (Figs. 1 and 2B) and teaches the distance between the center of the fifth connecting zone (17) and the center of the sixth connecting zone (16) is denoted as L3 (Fig. 2A – above), and a distance between the center of the seventh connecting zone and the center of the eighth connecting zone is denoted as L4 (Fig. 2A – above), and 0.45 ≤ L3/L4 ≤ 2.2, as L3 is smaller than L4, but over half of the length of L4. Morikawa further teaches that this arrangement allows for easy connections in multiple places of the electrochemical apparatus to electrical components such as wiring boards ([0042]), and
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to include the first and second connecting members in the configuration taught by Morikawa to the electrochemical apparatus disclosed by Kageyama in order to allow or easy connections in multiple places of the electrochemical apparatus to electrical components such as wiring boards.
Applicant is reminded that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN E BERRESFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-0641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (572)272-1330. 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.
/J.E.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights