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 .
ELECTRODE PLATE, ELECTRODE ASSEMBLY, BATTERY CELL AND ELECTRIC DEVICE
Examiner: Adam Arciero S.N. 18/674,947 Art Unit: 1727 September 1, 2026
DETAILED ACTION
The Application filed on May 27, 2024 have been received. Claims 1-17 are currently pending and fully considered.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 13 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.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the plurality of tab portions" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 9-11 and 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being Tanaka (JP 2014-022116; as found in IDS dated 01/02/2026 and using machine translation for citation purposes).
As to Claims 1, 9-10 and 14-17, Tanaka discloses an electric device (battery), comprising: a battery cell having an electrode assembly, comprising: first and second electrode plates 30,40 and a separator 50 arranged therebetween (paragraphs [0001 and 0027]). Tanaka discloses wherein the electrode plates comprise: a body 33,43 having a surface partially coated with an active material; and a tab portion 35,45 extending from a side of the body portion; wherein the tab comprises an opening (slit/cutout/notch) S penetrating in a thickness direction; the opening S having a first end and a second end sequentially arranged away from the body along a predetermined path (Fig. 3-4 and 7 and paragraphs [0028-0029]).
As to Claim 2, Tanaka discloses wherein the opening S extends to an edge of the tab portion away from the body along a path (Fig. 3-4).
As to Claim 3, Tanaka discloses wherein the opening S has a first spacing formed between the opening and the body portion (Fig. 3-4 and 7).
As to Claims 5-6, Tanaka discloses wherein the tab portion is arranged on a side of the body portion in a first direction and the first and second ends of the hole are sequentially arranged in a direction perpendicular to the first direction along the predetermined path (Fig.3-4 and 7).
As to Claim 11, Tanaka discloses wherein the first and second ends have an arc-shaped wall surface (Fig. 7).
As to Claim 13, Tanaka discloses wherein the tab portions comprise a plurality of openings S arranged at intervals in the first direction (Fig. 7).
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) 4, 7-8 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP 2014-022116; as found in IDS dated 01/02/2026 and using machine translation for citation purposes).
As to Claim 4, Tanaka discloses a second spacing formed between the edge of the tab portion away from the body portion and the body portion (Fig. 3-4). Tanaka does not specifically disclose the claimed spacing relationship. However, the courts have 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 MPEP 2144.04, IV, A. In addition, there are a known finite number of options for the claimed spacing relationship (either they are equal, or one is greater than the other). The courts have held that a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense, see KSR, MPEP 2143, I, E. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the spacing relationship of Tanaka to read on the claims because Tanaka teaches that an electrode plate capable of suppressing deformation of the tab is provided (Abstract).
As to Claim 7, Tanaka discloses the claimed first and second side edges and the claimed third and fourth spacings (Fig. 3-4 and 7). Tanaka does not specifically disclose the claimed spacing relationships. However, the courts have 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 MPEP 2144.04, IV, A. In addition, there are a known finite number of options for the claimed spacing relationship (either they are equal, or one is greater than the other). The courts have held that a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense, see KSR, MPEP 2143, I, E. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the spacing relationships of Tanaka to read on the claims because Tanaka teaches that an electrode plate capable of suppressing deformation of the tab is provided (Abstract).
As to Claim 8, Tanaka discloses the claimed plurality of tab portions having the claimed first and second side edges in the first direction and the claimed seventh spacings (Fig. 3-4 and 7). Tanaka does not specifically disclose the claimed different seventh spacings among the tabs. However, the courts have 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 MPEP 2144.04, IV, A. In addition, there are a known finite number of options for the claimed spacing relationship (either they are equal, or one is greater than the other). The courts have held that a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense, see KSR, MPEP 2143, I, E. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the spacing relationships of Tanaka to read on the claims because Tanaka teaches that an electrode plate capable of suppressing deformation of the tab is provided (Abstract).
As to Claim 12, Tanaka does not specifically disclose the claimed width of the notch at any position along the path. However, the courts have held that the mere scaling up of the prior art capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148, see MPEP 2144.04, IV, A. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the size of the cutout to read on the claim because Tanaka teaches that an electrode plate capable of suppressing deformation of the tab is provided (Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM ARCIERO whose telephone number is (571)270-5116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5 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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)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.
/ADAM A ARCIERO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights