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
Applicant is advised that should Claim 7 be found allowable, Claim 8 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). In the instant case, both claims are drawn to the same fact pattern in that increasing height in an outward direction has the same meaning as previous heights being smaller with respect to the outward direction. The claims are treated as analogous and discussed concurrently in the Action.
Claims 9 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: the “plurality layers” is grammatically inaccurate and for clarity should be revised to either one of “plural layers” or “plurality of layers”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim is a run-on sentence without an appropriate coordinating conjunction and for clarity should include one such as “and” between the independent clauses “The cell according to claim 14, wherein the cell comprises a connection portion,” and “the connection portion is connected between the plurality of sub-tabs and the electrode plate”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim is a run-on sentence without an appropriate coordinating conjunction and for clarity should include one such as “and” or “or” between the independent clauses “The cell according to claim 15, wherein the connection portion is rectangular,” and “each of the plurality of sub-tabs is in a parallelogram shape”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: the incorrect indefinite article is used in the claim stating “An” battery when it should be “A” battery. Appropriate correction is required.
Analogous Language
The following term table is included for clarity of language between the instant application and the prior art references.
Instant application
Hegde et al.
(WO 2024/028887 A1)
Park et al.
(US 2022/0278431 A1)
Hisai et al.
(US 2002/0061435 A1)
group of tabs
interleaved/half-moon current collector region
-
-
tab
flag group
group
lug
sub-tab
flag
segment
-
slit
slit
separation
-
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 16 is 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. The claim is missing an appropriate coordinating conjunction between the independent clauses and it is unclear whether the limitation is drawn to a rectangular connection portion AND parallelogram-shaped tabs, or a rectangular connection portion OR parallelogram-shaped tabs, thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.
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.
Claims 1, 3-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hegde et al. (WO 2024/028887 A1) and Park et al. (US 2022/0278431 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 17, and 20, Hegde teaches a tabless cylindrical secondary battery cell that can be electrically recharged (Paragraph [0002]) wherein the jelly roll structure is formed such that the anode flags and the cathode flags are both on the bottom side or the top side of the structure (Paragraph [0024]). Hegde also teaches a rolled jelly roll structure (Paragraph [0020]) wherein the plurality of layers of tabs are arranged sequentially outward and surrounding the center of the cell by the layering of the rolled structure as in Fig. 3(a). Hegde also teaches a plurality of flags produced by forming slits on the uncoated portion of the current collector (Paragraph [0019]).
Hegde does not teach the offset alignment of sub-tab slits among adjacent rolled layers. Park teaches a separation pitch between adjacent segments may be optimized (Paragraph [0022]) wherein the slits separating each segment are visibly not aligned in Fig. 10b.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the separation pitch alignment optimization of Park with the tabless cylindrical secondary battery cell of Hegde in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as sufficiently increasing the number and thickness of overlapping layers in an area used as a welding target region for a current collector to improve physical properties as taught by Park (Paragraph [0245]). See Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 89 USPQ2d 1535 (Fed. Cir. 2008) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (A).
Regarding Claims 3 and 19, Hegde teaches tabs and sub-tabs that do not have edges along the same straight line among the tabs and sub-tabs of adjacent layers, wherein the sub-tabs of adjacent layers and thus all layers are of the same width (Fig. 3(a)).
Regarding Claim 4, Hegde does not teach a number of slits in two adjacent layers to be different. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it “obvious to try” to add more or fewer slits on each tab in view of the teachings regarding sub-tabs as the teaching represents a finite number of identified, predictable combinations. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Furthermore, in an example of adding more slits on each tab, this difference merely creates more sub-tabs which is a change in size or proportion of the sub-tabs, namely in the width dimension. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to resize the width of the sub-tabs since the Federal Circuit has 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. See Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984) and MPEP §2144.04(IV). In the instant case, the configurations would perform the same because sub-tabs slit into further narrower sub-tabs using the same area would achieve the same coverage and effect of the original sub-tabs when folded over into the intended configuration.
Regarding Claim 5, Hegde does not teach the width of each sub-tab as 2-8 mm. Park teaches that a width of a segment in the winding direction may satisfy a formula governed by the radius of winding turn based on a core center of the electrode assembly (Paragraphs [0056]-[0058]), and the widths of the segments are also essential to the number and thickness of overlapping layers in an area used as a welding target region for a current collector to improve physical properties as taught by Park (Paragraph [0245]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Park to optimize the width of each sub-tab based on winding radius from the core to arrive at the claimed configuration since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the segment width optimization of Park with the tabless cylindrical secondary battery cell of Hegde in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation as discussed in the accompanying paragraph above. See Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 89 USPQ2d 1535 (Fed. Cir. 2008) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (A).
Regarding Claim 6, Hegde does not teach the distance between the innermost tabs and the center of the cell as 1-3 mm. Park teaches the location of the segment may be shifted within 10% of the core radius (Paragraph [0375]). In another example, the core is not covered by the segment even if the segment is bent toward the core (Paragraph [0373]). Furthermore, Park teaches examples wherein the core radius is 4 mm or 2 mm (Fig. 10e). Combining the logic of an embodiment with an uncovered core and a core having a radius of 2-4 mm, the distance from the edge of the innermost sub-tabs to the center of the cell may be 2-4 mm.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to pick any part of the claimed range of the instant application, since a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. See re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the inner tab-to-core distance choice and optimization of Park with the tabless cylindrical secondary battery cell of Hegde in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as substantially shielding the core as taught by Park (Paragraph [0375]). See Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 89 USPQ2d 1535 (Fed. Cir. 2008) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (A).
Regarding Claims 7 and 8, Hegde does not teach increasing the sub-tab heights in the direction outward from the center of the cell wherein the cell is rolled in a length direction (Paragraph [0020]). Park teaches a height of the segment increases from the core to the outer circumference based on radius of the winding turn (Paragraphs [0368]-[0369]; Figs. 7g and 8a).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the increasing segment height of Park with the tabless cylindrical secondary battery cell of Hegde in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as substantially shielding the core as taught by Park (Paragraph [0375]). See Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 89 USPQ2d 1535 (Fed. Cir. 2008) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (A).
Regarding Claims 9-11, Hegde teaches the plurality layers of tabs divided into groups, wherein each group comprises at least two layers of tabs and the sub-tabs in each group of the tabs have the same height (Paragraph [0026]); Fig. 3a).
Regarding Claim 12, Hegde does not teach the height of sub-tabs to be sequentially increased. Park teaches sub-tabs that sequentially increase in height along the winding direction (Fig. 8a).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the increasing segment height of Park with the tabless cylindrical secondary battery cell of Hegde in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as substantially shielding the core as taught by Park (Paragraph [0375]). See Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 89 USPQ2d 1535 (Fed. Cir. 2008) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (A).
Regarding Claim 13, Hegde teaches rolling the electrode plate along with other components of an energy storage cell in a length direction to form a jelly roll structure (Paragraph [0020]) which inherently yields a 360-degree embodiment of tab-containing material. Furthermore, Park teaches tabs that are present along the entire 360-degree circumferential perimeter (Fig. 10b).
Regarding Claim 14, Hegde teaches rolling the electrode plate along with other components of an energy storage cell in a length direction to form a jelly roll structure (Paragraph [0020]) which includes an anode, a separator, and a cathode (Paragraph [0021]).
As in Claims 7 and 8 above, Hegde does not teach increasing the sub-tab heights in the direction outward from the center of the cell wherein the cell is rolled in a length direction (Paragraph [0020]). Park teaches a height of the segment increases from the core to the outer circumference based on radius of the winding turn (Paragraphs [0368]-[0369]; Figs. 7g and 8a).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the increasing segment height of Park with the tabless cylindrical secondary battery cell of Hegde in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as substantially shielding the core as taught by Park (Paragraph [0375]). See Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 89 USPQ2d 1535 (Fed. Cir. 2008) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (A).
Regarding Claim 15, Hegde teaches an uncoated portion of an electrode current collector which is modified in the form of a single or a group of flags (Paragraph [0017]) which appear attached by a connection portion of the current collector that is not made into a tab (Fig. 2(a)).
PNG
media_image1.png
390
431
media_image1.png
Greyscale
From Hegde et al. (WO 2024/028887 A1), Page 16/22.
The dotted line encloses the region discussed as the connection portion of the current collector.
Furthermore, Park also teaches a connection region attaching the tabs to the electrode (Fig. 7b).
PNG
media_image2.png
619
596
media_image2.png
Greyscale
From Park et al. (US 2022/0278431 A1), Page 10/102.
The dotted line encloses the region discussed as the connection portion of the current collector.
Regarding Claim 16, Hegde and Park teach connection portions as in Claim 15 above that appear to be rectangular in shape. Hegde also teaches an angle of slanting “a” for flag specification that can be varied (Paragraph [0019]) and Park further teaches specific embodiments of a parallelogram-shaped sub-tab (Fig. 9, Items (b) and (c) with angles of slanting Θ1 and Θ2).
Claims 2 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hegde et al. (WO 2024/028887 A1) and Park et al. (US 2022/0278431 A1) as in Claims 1 and 17 above, further in view of Hisai et al. (US 2002/0061435 A1).
Regarding Claims 2 and 18, Hegde does not teach tabs on a plurality of layers having edges on the same straight line with sub-tabs in adjacent layers having different widths. Hisai teaches lugs that increase in width L towards the outer periphery side (Paragraphs [0034]-[0035]; Fig. 1) which each have an edge along the same straight line among the plurality of layers (Fig. 2).
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to resize the different sized lugs having edges on the same straight line of Hisai to be individual sub-tabs at the same proportions since the Federal Circuit has 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. See Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984) and MPEP §2144.04(IV). In the instant case, the configurations would perform the same because each lug would achieve the same coverage and effect if each were slit into multiple sub-lugs having the same relative proportions to lugs of adjacent layers when folded over into the intended configuration.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vivian Cheng whose telephone number is (571)270-1930. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 7:30am-5pm ET, Fri 7:30am-12pm 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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571)270-1547. 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.
/V.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/FRANK J VINEIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights