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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-3 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 1 recites the limitation "the tab" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Line 14 recites the limitation “a plurality of tabs”, but it is unclear whether the limitation of line 15 refers to a singular tab of the plurality of tabs, the plurality of tabs, or a tab not included in the plurality of tabs. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted the limitation of line 15 to refer to the “a plurality of tabs” of line 14. Claims 2-3 are similarly rejected because they depend upon claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the exposed portion" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Line 10 recites the limitation “a plurality of exposed portions”, but it is unclear whether the limitation of line 16 refers to a singular exposed portion of the plurality of exposed portions, the plurality of exposed portion, or an exposed portion not included in the plurality of exposed portions. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted the limitation of line 16 to refer to the “a plurality of exposed portions” of line 10. Claims 2-3 are similarly rejected because they depend upon claim 1.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in paragraph 0041, line 1 of the specification, “covering portions” is duplicated.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. (US 2020/0321593 A1, cited by Applicant in IDS filed on May 20, 2024, and hereinafter “Yamashita”) in view of Kanbe et al. (JP 2000285898 A, machine translation relied upon herein, and hereinafter “Kanbe”) and Moriyama et al. (US 2019/0252667 A1, cited by Applicant in IDS filed on May 20, 2024, and hereinafter “Moriyama”).
Regarding claim 1, Yamashita discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery ([0016] and Figs. 1 and 2, nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery 10), comprising: an electrode assembly in which a band-shaped first electrode and a band-shaped second electrode having different polarities from each other are wound with a separator interposed therebetween ([0017] and Figs. 1 and 2, electrolyte body 14 formed by winding positive electrode 11 and negative electrode 12 with separator 13 interposed therebetween); an electrolyte liquid ([0018], nonaqueous electrolyte); and a cylindrical exterior housing can housing the electrode assembly and the electrolyte liquid ([0016] and Figs. 1 and 2, battery case 15), wherein the first electrode has a current collector and a mixture layer formed on at least a part of a surface of the current collector ([0025], [0043], and Fig. 3 and 5, positive electrode collector 30 and positive electrode mixture layers 51), on a surface of the first electrode, an exposed portion where the current collector is exposed is formed along a longitudinal direction ([0041] and Fig. 5, exposed portion 52), the exposed portion is contacted with only one end among both ends in a width direction of the first electrode ([0041] and Fig. 5), a tab is connected to the exposed portion and drawn out from the one end ([0041] and Fig. 5, positive electrode tab 50), a protective member covers the exposed portion, the tab, and a portion adjacent to the exposed portion in the mixture layer in the width direction ([0041] and Fig. 5, insulating tapes 45 and 46) and a covering portion where the mixture layer is covered with the protective member ([0043] and see Annotated Fig. 5 below, covering portion between lower ends 45c and 46c with a length of 0.5 mm or more).
Yamashita Annotated Fig. 5
PNG
media_image1.png
704
720
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yamashita does not disclose a plurality of exposed portions, a plurality of tabs, a plurality of protective members, and a plurality of covering portions that is not overlapped with each other in the width direction.
Kanbe discloses a positive electrode main conductive tab 3 welded to a current collector foil at a length of 20 mm, and a positive electrode conductive tab 2 welded to a current collector foil at a length of 10 mm ([0011]-[0012], [0021], and Fig. 1A).
Yamashita and Kanbe are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of nonaqueous secondary electrolyte batteries. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode of Yamashita with the teachings of Kanbe, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Doing so would reduce the internal resistance of the battery by shortening the connection distance between each conductive tab to the battery’s external terminals, improving battery volumetric efficiency and discharge characteristics (Kanbe [0011]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide each tab of modified Yamashita with an exposed portion, protective member, and covering portion as disclosed by Yamashita to accommodate each electrode tab and prevent internal short circuiting (Yamashita [0004]-[0005]). Providing a plurality of exposed portions, a plurality of tabs, a plurality of protective members, and a plurality of covering portions amounts to mere duplication of parts. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B)).
Modified Yamashita does not disclose a plurality of covering portions that is not overlapped with each other in the width direction.
Moriyama discloses exposed portions 33A and 33B with lengths L33A and L33B ranging from 1.05 to 1.5 times positive electrode lead length L19 ([0046] and Fig. 3). Moriyama further discloses non-exposed second regions 37A and 37B adjacent to exposed portions 33A and 33B that prevents spatters from entering the electrode assembly ([0045], [0082], and Fig. 3).
Moriyama is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of nonaqueous electrolyte secondary batteries. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the positive electrode of modified Yamashita with the teachings of Moriyama, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Doing so would prevent spattering from entering the electrode assembly, reducing internal short circuiting (Moriyama [0020], [0045], [0082], and Fig. 3).
The exposed portion surrounding the positive electrode conductive tab 2 of modified Yamashita would have a length of 10.5 mm to 15 mm, while the exposed portion surrounding the positive electrode main conductive tab 3 of would have a length of 21 mm to 30 mm (Kanbe [0012] and Fig. 1A). The covering portions of each tab, having a length of 0.5 mm or more, would not overlap in the width direction (Yamashita [0043] and see Annotated Fig. 5 above).
Regarding claim 2, modified Yamashita discloses the limitations of claim 1. Modified Yamashita further discloses wherein ends of the plurality of the tabs are not overlapped with each other in the width direction (Kanbe [0021] and Fig. 1, main conductive tab 3 welded at a length of 20 mm, and conductive tab 2 welded at a length of 10 mm).
Regarding claim 3, modified Yamashita discloses the limitations of claim 2. Yamashita further discloses wherein the first electrode is a positive electrode ([0041] and Fig. 5, positive electrode 11x).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jackie Liang whose telephone number is (571)-272-0880. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:45AM to 4:45PM.
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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached at (571)-272-1307. 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.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 20 August 2026
Prosecution Insights