BATTERY CELL, BATTERY, AND ELECTRIC APPARATUS
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 5/22/2024 and 10/14/2025 are is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 2 and 3 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.
Claim 2 discloses a portion of the plurality of tab layers being stacked in the channel; and size W1 of the channel in a width direction of the channel and total thickness T1 of the plurality of tab layers satisfy 0.5 mm ≤ W1 – T1 ≤ 4 mm, optionally W1 and T1 satisfy 1 mm ≤ W1 – T1 ≤ 3 mm. However, mathematically, these inequalities show that T1 can equal zero and satisfy the relation as long as W1 equals 0.5 or 1. In other words, these inequalities suggest a total thickness of zero which makes no structural sense.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for its dependence on claim 2.
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, 4, 5, 7-9, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (CN 215451570 U).
Regarding claims 1 and 26, Chen et al. teach a battery cell and battery module (Abstract), comprising:
a housing provided (Figs. 1 and 2, element 100) with an electrode lead-out member (Figs. 1 and 5, element 211 discloses a terminal);
an electrode assembly accommodated in the housing (Figs. 1-3, element 300), wherein the electrode assembly comprises a body portion and a tab led out of an end face of the body portion (Fig. 5 discloses the electrode assembly comprises a body portion which spans the length of the cell and is connected to a tab, element 311.); and
an isolation member with at least a portion disposed between the electrode lead-out member and the end face of the body portion (Fig. 5 discloses a bracket, element 410, which isolates the end of the body portion of the electrode assembly, element 300, from the electrode lead, element 211.), wherein the isolation member is provided with a channel (Fig. 5, element 411 discloses a through-hole.), and the tab passes through the channel and is electrically connected to the electrode lead-out member (Fig. 5 shows the tab, element 311, passing through the through-hole, element 411, and is electrically connected to the lead, element 211.).
Regarding claim 4, Chen et al. teach the battery cell according to claim 1, wherein the tab comprises: a first tab portion connected to the body portion, at least a portion of the first tab portion being located between the isolation member and the body portion; a second tab portion connected to an end of the first tab portion facing away from the body portion, the second tab portion being accommodated in the channel; and a third tab portion connected to an end of the second tab portion facing away from the first tab portion and configured to connect the electrode lead-out member, at least a portion of the isolation member being located between the third tab portion and the body portion (See annotated Fig. 5 of Chen below.).
PNG
media_image1.png
1406
2500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5 of Chen
Regarding claim 5, Chen et al. teach the battery cell according to claim 4, further comprising: an adapter, wherein the adapter comprises: a tab connecting portion connected to the third tab portion; an electrode connecting portion located on a side of the tab connecting portion facing away from the body portion and connected to the electrode lead-out member; and a second bending segment configured to connect the tab connecting portion and the electrode connecting portion (See annotated Fig. 5 of Chen below.).
PNG
image3.png
100
100
image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5 of Chen.
Regarding claim 7, Chen et al. teach the battery cell according to claim 5, wherein the adapter is provided with a second fusion region and a third fusion region, the second fusion region is disposed only on the tab connecting portion and configured to be connected to the third tab portion, and the third fusion region is disposed only on the electrode connecting portion and configured to be connected to the electrode lead-out member (See annotated Fig. 5 of Chen including Fig. 6 inset below.).
PNG
image5.png
100
100
image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5 and Fig. 6(inset) of Chen.
Regarding claim 8, Chen et al. teach the battery cell according to claim 4, wherein the isolation member comprises an isolation plate, the isolation plate is provided with the channel, and at least a portion of the isolation plate is located between the third tab portion and the body portion (See annotated Fig. 5 of Chen below.).
PNG
image7.png
100
100
image7.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5 of Chen
Regarding claim 9, Chen et al. teach the battery cell according to claim 8, wherein: the isolation member further comprises a connecting plate, the connecting plate surrounds an outer side of the isolation plate, and the connecting plate protrudes out of a side of the isolation plate facing away from the body portion to define an accommodating recess together with the isolation plate; and at least a portion of the third tab portion is accommodated in the accommodating recess (See annotated Fig. 5 of Chen below.).
PNG
image9.png
100
100
image9.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5 of Chen
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 3, 15-20, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 215451570 U).
Regarding claim 2, Chen et al. teach the battery cell according to claim 1. However, they do not teach wherein: the tab comprises a plurality of tab layers, a portion of the plurality of tab layers being stacked in the channel; and size W1 of the channel in a width direction of the channel and total thickness T1 of the plurality of tab layers satisfy 0.5 mm ≤ W1 – T1 ≤ 4 mm, optionally W1 and T1 satisfy 1 mm ≤ W1 – T1 ≤ 3 mm.
However, a plurality of tab layers is simply an example of Duplication of Parts. MPEP 2144.04 VI C: In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Further, in regards to thickness and width limitations, this is merely an example of Changes in Size/Proportion. MPEP 2144.04 IV A: In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held 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.
Regarding claim 3, Chen et al. teach the battery cell according to claim 2, wherein an axial direction of the channel is perpendicular to the end face of the body portion (See annotated Fig. 5 of Chen below.).
PNG
image11.png
100
100
image11.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5 of Chen.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Chen et al. teach the battery cell according to claim 8, wherein: the isolation plate comprises a first isolation plate and a second isolation plate that are spaced apart, the channel being formed between the first isolation plate and the second isolation plate (See annotated Fig. 5 of Chen below.).
PNG
image13.png
100
100
image13.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5 of Chen.
However, they do not teach wherein at least one of minimum thickness of the first isolation plate or minimum thickness of the second isolation plate is greater than or equal to 0.5 mm; and minimum thickness of an end portion of the first isolation plate farther away from the channel is greater than minimum thickness of an end portion of the first isolation plate closer to the channel.
This is merely an example of Changes in Size/Proportion. MPEP 2144.04 IV A: In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held 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.
Regarding claim 17, Chen et al. teach the battery cell according to claim 8, wherein: the isolation plate comprises a first isolation plate and a second isolation plate that are spaced apart, the channel being formed between the first isolation plate and the second isolation plate; and the third tab portion comprises: a first segment connected to the second tab portion; a second segment located on a side of the first segment facing away from the body portion and connected to the electrode lead-out member; and a first bending segment configured to connect the first segment and the second segment, at least a portion of the first isolation plate being located between the first bending segment and the body portion (See annotated Fig. 5 below.).
PNG
image15.png
100
100
image15.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5 of Chem
Regarding claim 18, Chen et al. teach the battery cell according to claim 17, wherein: the first isolation plate is provided with a third inclined surface on a side facing away from the end face of the body portion; in a first direction perpendicular to the end face, minimum distance between an end of the third inclined surface closer to the channel and the electrode lead-out member is less than minimum distance between an end of the third inclined surface farther away from the channel and the electrode lead-out member; and in the first direction, at least a portion of the first segment and at least a portion of the second segment are located between the third inclined surface and the electrode lead-out member (See annotated Fig. 5 below.).
PNG
image17.png
100
100
image17.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5 of Chen
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Chen et al. teach the battery cell according to claim 18. However, they do not teach wherein: the tab comprises a plurality of tab layers; and total thickness T1 of the plurality of tab layers and the minimum distance H1 between the end of the third inclined surface closer to the channel and the electrode lead-out member in the first direction satisfy H1 > 2T1; wherein the minimum distance H2 between the end of the third inclined surface farther away from the channel and the electrode lead-out member in the first direction satisfies H2 > 3T1.
However, a plurality of tab layers is simply an example of Duplication of Parts. MPEP 2144.04 VI C: In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Further, in regards to thickness and height limitations, this is merely an example of Changes in Size/Proportion. MPEP 2144.04 IV A: In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held 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.
Regarding claim 25, Chen et al. teach the battery cell according to claim 1. However, they do not teach the battery comprises a plurality of battery cells.
However, a plurality of battery cells is simply an example of Duplication of Parts. MPEP 2144.04 VI C: In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 215451570 U) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsumoto et al. (JP 2017-157576 A).
Regarding claims 23 and 24, Chen et al. teach the battery cell according to claim 1. However, they do not teach wherein the tab comprises a plurality of tab layers that are stacked, the plurality of tab layers are gathered toward a middle region or side region of the end face of the body portion, and the channel is located in a middle region of the isolation member; or a battery comprising a plurality of battery cells.
Matsumoto et al. teach a tab comprising a plurality of tab layers that are stacked (Fig. 5, element 150) which are gather toward a middle region of the end face of the body portion (Fig. 5, element 112) and a channel is located in a middle region of the isolation member (Figs. 5 and 6 disclose an insulation member, element 170, having inclined portions, elements 171 and 173, surrounding a through-hole, element 177, which is located in the center.).
However, Matsumoto et al. do not teach the plurality of tab layers are gathered toward a side region of the end face of the body portion, and the channel is located in a side region of the isolation member.
However, this is merely an example of Rearrangement of Parts. MPEP 2144.04 VI C: In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Chen with Matsumoto in order to suppress damage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 10-14, 21, and 22 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: the subject matter of the claims is not disclosed in the prior art of record. Further, any modification to the current prior art would teach away from the intended use of the inventions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S GATEWOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-7958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
Daniel S. Gatewood, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1729
/DANIEL S GATEWOOD, Ph. D/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729 August 20th, 2026
Prosecution Insights