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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 6-7, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN-213601987-U as provided in the IDS dated 05/28/2024, with citations from provided translation) in view of Lee et al. (US-20240204380-A1 relying on the foreign priority date of 06/24/2021).
Regarding Claim 1, Zhang with the following modification in view of Lee teaches:
A power battery, comprising (a battery cell assembly 100, see Pg1/L14 and Fig. 1-2):
an adapter (first and second adapter piece 112, 122, see Pg3/L43-45 ana Fig. 1-2);
an electrode assembly comprising a tab (the first battery cell 10 and the second battery 20 both have a pair of tabs, see Figs. 1-2 and Pg/L2-4),
wherein the tab is connected to the adapter through welding and forms a welding mark on a first side of the tab away from the adapter (the tabs are welded to the corresponding first and second adapter piece and form welding marks which are shown to be on the top faces of the first and second adapter pieces 112/122, see Pg1/31-33, Pg4/L27-29, and Figs. 1-2),
and an adhesive tape pasted on the first side and covering the welding mark (first and second insulating glue 101/102 which is shown to be sheets which cover the welding zones, see Pg3/56-59, Pg4/L37-39, and Fig. 1-2),
Zhang is silent toward and, therefore, does not teach:
wherein the adhesive tape includes a first gap is formed at a position of the adhesive tape corresponding to the welding mark
To solve the same problem of providing an adhesive tape attached to an electrode tab (see [0010]-[0011]), Lee teaches an electrode tab protection tape having a conductive adhesion layer and an insulating layer wherein the conductive adhesion layer is applied to the electrode tab, see [0021] and Fig. 2. Lee further teaches the electrode tab protection tape according to his invention prevents disconnection due to the cracks of the electrode tab from occurring and allows the current to flow continuously so as to prevent the secondary battery from being defective, see [0021].
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have replaced the insulating glue of Zhang with the layered electrode tab protection tape taught by Lee in order to prevents disconnection due to the cracks.
The two layered electrode tab protection tape is interpreted to have a “gap” between the adhesive and insulating layers. Note, the instant specification does not provide a special definition for gap, however, based on Fig. 3 and [0054] the interpretation of two abutting structures is consistent with the gap (first gap 510 and second gap 520) disclosed in the instant specification.
Therefore, because the modification of Zhang in view of Lee teaches a two layered tape with the gap corresponding to the abutment between layers and Zhang discusses that the glue covers the weld zones(see Zhang- Pg1/L37-60 and Figs. 1-2) the following limitation is met:
wherein a first gap is formed at a position of the adhesive tape corresponding to the welding mark
The modification of Zhang in view of Lee of having a two layer adhesive tape with the gap located between the two adhesive tap layers is found to teach the limitation below for the reasons below:
a first gap…and extending in a thickness direction of the adhesive tape.
A two layer adhesive tape with a gap between the two layers has a non-zero (at the very least on an Angstrom order of magnitude) extension into a defined as the vertical thickness direction of two-layered adhesive tape of Zhang in view of Lee.
In the alternative, the claim as written does provide an absolute orientation for a thickness for the adhesive layer. Therefore, the thickness direction can be interpreted to be the horizontal direction in reference to the adhesive layer. The interpreted gap between two layers of the adhesive tape extends in this interpreted direction.
PNG
media_image1.png
739
1193
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6, modified Zhang discloses:
wherein the power battery comprises two electrode assemblies (see Fig. 1 and 2),
and the tabs of the two electrode assemblies with the same polarity are connected to the same end of the adapter (the first pole is electrically connected to the first adapter piece 112 and the second pole is electrically connected to the second adapter sheet 122, see Pg1/L35 and Fig. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Zhang in view of Lee teaches:
wherein: the ends of the tabs of the two electrode assemblies with the same polarity are butt-jointed (see Fig. 2);
the adhesive tape covers the tabs of the two electrode assemblies with the same polarity (see Fig. 1; first and second insulating glue 101/102; the first pole is electrically connected to the first adapter piece 112 and the second pole is electrically connected to the second adapter sheet 122, see Pg1/L35),
and the adhesive tape is provided with a second gap at the butt joint corresponding to the tabs of the two electrode assemblies (The gap between the two layers of the tape occurs at the butt joint shown in Zhang-Fig. 2. Note, the claimed first and second gap are interpreted to be met by the art because the first and second gap correspond to different positions along the gap of the tape described in the modification of Zhang in view of Lee given above. As claimed, the first and second gap are not required to be structurally different.);
and a length of the second gap is equal to the width of the adhesive tape (because the interpreted gap extends conformally to the edges of the tape this limitation is met).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Zhang discloses:
An electric apparatus comprising the power battery according to claim 1 (a battery (i.e., an electric apparatus) with the battery cell assembly 100, see Pg5/L43-45).
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN-213601987-U as provided in the IDS dated 05/28/2024, with citations from provided translation) in view of Lee et al. (US-20240204380-A1 relying on the foreign priority date of 06/24/2021) as applied to Claim 1 above and in further view of Kurita et al. (US-20200144583-A1)
Regarding Claim 2, modified Zhang with the following additional modification of Kurita teaches:
wherein: the electrode assembly further comprises a body portion; the first gap is parallel to an axis of the body portion (see annotated Fig. 2 below, because the gap is a plane defined by the tape the indicated body portion below and the gap are show to have at least some direction that is parallel);
Zhang is silent toward the shape of the welding mark and does not teach:
and a shape of the welding mark is a rectangle,
It is noted, that there is no significance of the rectangular shape of the welding mark provided in the instant specification. Further, a rectangular welding marks on electrode tabs were well known in the art at the time the invention was made (as shown by Kurita, see Fig. 6; weld portions 61, 62). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the welding mark of Zhang to have a rectangular shape, as such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
two opposite sides of the rectangle are parallel to the first gap (the gap extends conformally throughout the tape at least a line though the interpreted gap is parallel to two opposite sides of the rectangle),
and a length of the first gap is greater than a length of the two opposite sides of the rectangle (because the gap extends conformally throughout the tape and Zhang teaches the tape covers and extends past the welding area, see Pg1/L37-60 and Figs. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 3, as rendered obvious above, modified Zhang in view of Lee teaches the gap exists between two layers that can suitably be conformally stacked, therefore, teaching:
wherein the length of the first gap is equal to a width of the adhesive tape.
Regarding Claim 4 and 5, as rendered obvious above, modified Zhang in view of Lee teaches the gap exists between two layers that can suitably be conformally stacked, therefore the distance between the interpreted gap and the sides of the rectangle are equidistant, thereby, teaching:
(per Claim 4) wherein: a distance between the first gap and either side of the rectangle parallel to the first gap is a first distance; a distance between the two sides of the rectangle parallel to the first gap is a second distance; and the first distance is greater than or equal to one-fifth of the second distance.
(per Claim 5) wherein the first distance is greater than or equal to two-fifths of the second distance.
Claim(s) 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN-213601987-U as provided in the IDS dated 05/28/2024, with citations from provided translation) in view of Lee et al. (US-20240204380-A1 relying on the foreign priority date of 06/24/2021) as applied to Claim 1 above and in further view of Jo et al. (US-20110081574-A1).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Zhang is silent toward the structure of the electrode tabs and does not teach the following:
wherein: the electrode assembly comprises a plurality of tabs that are arranged in a stack;
and at least one of the tabs comprises a tab body and a free end connected to the tab body,
the free end is bent at least once to form a bending portion,
the bending portion is arranged on one side of the tab body in a stacked manner,
and the welding mark is located on the bending portion.
To solve the same problem of welding a plurality of electrode tabs (see [0022]), Jo teaches “an uppermost or lowermost one of the first electrode tabs 713 of the stacked first electrode plates 710 is bent to surround the others of the first electrode tabs 713,” see [0110]. Jo further teaches “the first terminal 715 is formed by bending the first electrode tab 713 without an additional structure, a cost of the secondary battery is reduced, and improved coupling of the first terminal 715 is achieved,” see [0110]. Jo teaches the following:
wherein: the electrode assembly comprises a plurality of tabs that are arranged in a stack (see Jo-Fig. 7C);
and at least one of the tabs comprises a tab body and a free end connected to the tab body (see annotated Jo-Fig. 7C below),
the free end is bent at least once to form a bending portion (see annotated Jo-Fig. 7C below),
the bending portion is arranged on one side of the tab body in a stacked manner (see Jo-Fig. 7C),
and the welding mark is located on the bending portion (one of ordinary skill can envision the welding zone of Zhang being located on the indicated bending portion of Jo).
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use the structure of the electrode tabs taught by Jo for the tabs of Zhang to reduce battery cost and improve coupling.
PNG
media_image2.png
588
1017
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9, modified Zhang in view of Jo teaches:
wherein: the bending portion comprises a first bending portion and a second bending portion; the first bending portion is arranged on one side of the tab body in a stacked manner; the second bending portion is arranged on one side of the first bending portion away from the tab body in a stacked manner (see annotated Jo-Fig. 7C below);
and the welding mark passes through the first bending portion and the second bending portion (one of ordinary skill would readily acknowledge that in order to weld the electrode tabs of Jo to the first or second adapter piece 112/122 the weld would need to traverse the indicated first and second bending portion).
PNG
media_image3.png
707
1106
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 10, modified Zhang in view of Jo teaches:
wherein the tab provided with the bending portion is arranged in the plurality of tabs and is located between two of the tabs (optional limitation),
or the tab provided with the bending portion is arranged on one side of the plurality of tabs (Jo teaches “an uppermost or lowermost one of the first electrode tabs 713 of the stacked first electrode plates 710 is bent to surround the others of the first electrode tabs 713,” see [0110]).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Zhang in view of Jo teaches:
wherein the tab provided with the bending portion is arranged on one side of the plurality of tabs away from the adapter (as shown in the embodiment of Jo-Fig. 7C the lowermost one of the first electrode tabs 713 of the stacked first electrode plates 710 is bent to surround the others of the first electrode tabs 713, see also [0110]).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Liu et al. (US-20210083256-A1).
Response to Arguments
Rejections under § 112b
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, with respect to the claims rejected under 35 USC § 112b have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112b rejections of claims 1-12 has been withdrawn.
Rejections under § 103
Applicant argues on pages 7-8 of the response that Zhang and Lee do not teach the amendment to Claim 1 of “first gap… extending in a thickness direction of the adhesive tape.” This argument is fully considered but found unpersuasive.
A two layer adhesive tape with a gap between the two layers has a non-zero (at the very least on an Angstrom order of magnitude) extension into a defined as the vertical thickness direction of two-layered adhesive tape of Zhang in view of Lee.
In the alternative, the claim as written does provide an absolute orientation for a thickness for the adhesive layer. Therefore, the thickness direction can be interpreted to be the horizontal direction in reference to the adhesive layer. The interpreted gap between two layers of the adhesive tape extends in this interpreted direction.
The Examiner notes that the Applicant has not provided a persuasive showing of secondary considerations sufficient to overcome the prior art rejections of record.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kayla E Clary whose telephone number is (571)272-2854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00 (PT).
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/K.E.C./
Kayla E. ClaryExaminer, Art Unit 1721
/SADIE WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721