DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the June 25th, 2026 arguments and remarks (“Remarks”). The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office 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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendments received on June 25th, 2026, Claims 1-21 are pending in the present application. Claims 2-10 and 16 have been amended. Claims 20-21 are newly added.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claim 21 recites “wherein a top edge of the first portion is spaced from a top edge of the third portion in a first direction by a first distance, and wherein a length of the plurality cut grooves in the first direction is less than the first distance.” There’s a lack of antecedent basis for the claim terms in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejection of Claims 16-17 under 35 USC § 112 are withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Claims 1-21 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.
The term “relatively lower” in Claims 1, 6, and 21 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively lower” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The (pg. 7). It is noted that the specification discloses preferential embodiments in which the height measurement criterion point may be the end of active material layer or an end of the insulating coating layer (pg. 8). However, the claim language and specification suggests that other reference points can be used, rendering the scope of the term “relatively lower” indefinite.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the uncoated portion" in Line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that correction should be made to recite “the first uncoated portion” as presented in amended Claims 2-10 and 16.
Further, Claims 2 and 4 are inconsistent with dependent Claim 1. Claim 1 requires a height of the first portion to be relatively lower than a height of the first uncoated portion at a bottom of one of the cut grooves. However, Claims 2 and 4 specify that the height of the first portion can be 0% to 95% of the height of the first uncoated portion at the bottom of the one of the cut grooves; a value of 0% means that said heights can be substantially the same, contradicting the limitations of Claim 1.
Further, Claims 7 and 9 are inconsistent with dependent Claim 6. Claim 6 requires a height of the second portion to be relatively lower than a height of the first uncoated portion at a bottom of one of the cut grooves. However, Claims 7 and 9 specify that the height of the second portion can be 0% to 95% of the height of the first uncoated portion at the bottom of the one of the cut grooves; a value of 0% means that said heights can be substantially the same, contradicting the limitations of Claim 6.
Examiner recommends amending the lower limit of the recited ranges to be greater than 0% considering no new matter is added.
Claim 21 recites “wherein a top edge of the first portion is spaced from a top edge of the third portion in a first direction by a first distance, and wherein a length of the plurality cut grooves in the first direction is less than the first distance.” There’s a lack of support for the claim terms in the specification. “The specification should ideally serve as a glossary to the claim terms so that the examiner and the public can clearly ascertain the meaning of the claim terms. Correspondence between the specification and claims is required by 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), which provides that claim terms must find clear support or antecedent basis in the specification so that the meaning of the terms may be ascertainable by reference to the specification” (see MPEP 2173.03). The meaning of a top edge of the first portion is unclear; for example, a top edge can mean a rightmost edge, leftmost edge, or any point there between. Further, the meaning of a first direction and first distance cannot be ascertained by one of ordinary skill in the art without support from the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3, 5, 8, and 10-20 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 25th, 2026 have been fully considered as further described below:
Regarding Claim 1, applicant argues that the limitation describing that the height of the first portion is relatively lower than a height of the first uncoated portion at a bottom of one of the cut grooves is not disclosed by the applied prior art. Applicant argues that the teachings of Cheon suggest adjusting the height of the first portion and a height at a bottom of one of the cut grooves equally; and that cut grooves are not disclosed by Lee (see pgs. 8-10 of the “Remarks”).
“Obviousness can be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006)” (see MPEP 2143.01).
"A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ" Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. (see MPEP 2141.03.I).
Eggleston modified by Cheon and Lee et al. discloses all structural limitations of Claim 1 except for a height of the first portion being relatively lower than a height of the first uncoated portion at a bottom of one of the cut grooves. However, the prior art recognizes that capacity density, burrs leading to short circuiting, and tab bendability are variables that can be modified by adjusting the size of the first uncoated portion, with the capacity density increasing as the first uncoated portion is minimized and the presence of burrs and short circuiting reduced at the winding start/ends by minimizing the height of the uncoated portions (Morishima et al., para. 124, 130, 142). Further, Lee et al. recognizes that an incremental increase in height of an uncoated region can provide improved heat transfer (para. 40); a skilled artisan may reasonably correspond the top of the uncoated region of Lee et al. to a bottom surface of the cut grooves of Eggleston and form said grooves on a surface thereof. Therefore, the precise height of the first portion relative to the height of the first uncoated portion at a bottom of one of the cut grooves would have been considered a known result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed height of the first portion relative to the height of the first uncoated portion at a bottom of one of the cut grooves cannot be considered critical.
Arguments and evidence of unexpected results/criticality must also be commensurate with the scope of the claims. If the claimed height relationship is deemed to provide unexpected results, it is recommended that applicant further incorporates the specific height relationships (e.g., Claim 3) and conditions in which criticality can be established (e.g., further defining the first portion such as presented in amended Claim 20).
Therefore, applicant's arguments are deemed unpersuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejection of Claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained.
PNG
media_image1.png
515
827
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Eggleston et al. (Fig. 4))]Claims 1-3, 6-8, 13, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eggleston et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20230402722 A1 equivalent to CA 3191830 A1) in view of Cheon et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20050287428 A1) and Lee et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20050287432 A1), as further evidenced by Morishima et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20100081052 A1) and Miao et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 114759317 A).
[AltContent: textbox (Eggleston et al. (Fig. 2))]
PNG
media_image2.png
871
586
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 1 and 21, Eggleston et al. teaches an electrode assembly (jellyroll 200) comprising:
a first electrode (first substrate 202 having a first coating 210 in which can include an electrode active material with different electrical conductivity from the second coating 220, para. 46, Fig. 2);
a second electrode (second substrate 206 having a second coating 220 in which can comprise an electrode active material (para. 45, Fig. 2).
(The electrode roll has one end with cathode flags and the other end with anode flags in which the anode and cathode are alternately arranged (para. 52, 69, Fig. 4))
a separator (inner separator 204) interposed between the first electrode (first substrate 202) and the second electrode (second substrate 206) (para. 44-55, Fig. 2), the first electrode, the second electrode and the separator wound about a winding axis (AA’) in a winding direction to define a core and an outer circumference of the electrode assembly (para. 43, Fig. 2),
[AltContent: textbox (Eggleston et al. (Fig. 8))][AltContent: textbox (Eggleston et al. (Fig. 10))]
PNG
media_image3.png
311
477
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
311
490
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein the first electrode includes a first active material portion coated with an active material layer along the winding direction (first coating 210 in which can include an electrode active material with different electrical conductivity from the second coating 220, para. 46, Fig. 2) and a first uncoated portion not coated with an active material layer and exposed beyond the separator (foil portion 212 forming an exposed region of the first substrate 202, para. 43, Fig. 2)
as shown in Figures 8 and 10, the first uncoated portion can extend to both ends of the electrode from a center core of the electrode assembly to an outer circumference of the electrode assembly; therefore, a skilled artisan can consider a portion adjacent to the core a first portion, an end portion adjacent to the outer circumference as a second portion, and a third portion as between the first portion and second portion.
the third portion (between the core and outer circumference of the electrode) includes a plurality of segments (flags) spaced apart along the winding direction (para. 36), the plurality of segments being defined by a plurality of cut grooves along a direction of the winding axis (the flags are formed by cutting the foil to form slits, para. 56).
[AltContent: textbox (Cheon et al. (Fig. 3))][AltContent: textbox (Cheon et al. (Fig. 6))]
PNG
media_image5.png
221
432
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
256
411
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Eggleston et al. does not teach wherein a height of the first portion is relatively lower than a height of the first uncoated portion at a bottom of one of the cut grooves.
In the same field of endeavor, Cheon et al. teaches analogous art of a positive and negative electrode comprising uncoated regions (22b, 23b) in which are cut by slits 22c to have an arbitrary length forming a plurality of segments (para. 49, Fig. 3). A bottom surface of the slits or cut grooves does not extend to the active material layers (22a, 23a) providing a visibly distinct bottom surface of the cut grooves (see annotated Fig. 6). It is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for said configuration to prevent damage to the active material layer that may be caused by cutting the current collector too low; cutting the active material layer can reduce the capacity density while also causing burrs and short circuiting as further evident by Morishima et al.
Morishima et al. teaches an electrode body comprising a large number of current collection tabs provided by punching/cutting out uncoated parts of a current collector forming tabs integral with the current collector (para. 10-11). Morishima et al. teaches that cutting the current collector and active material below can cause burrs and failures due to short circuiting (para. 124). Further, Morishima et al. teaches that minimizing the first uncoated portion can provide increased capacity density (para. 130). Further, Morishima et al. teaches adjusting the width of the first uncoated portion to provide sufficient bendability (para. 142).
Further, Lee et al. teaches an uncoated region increasing in height from a central (core region) corresponding to a first portion to a periphery of an electrode assembly corresponding to an outer circumference of the electrode assembly to provide improved heat transfer (para. 40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode assembly of Eggleston et al. to include a height or distance of a first uncoated portion at a bottom of one of the cut grooves as taught by Cheon et al. Cheon et al. teaches that said configuration provides improved current collecting efficiency (para. 56). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the electrode assembly of Eggleston et al. to optimize the height of the first portion at a core of the electrode assembly with respect to the cut grooves as taught by Lee et al. to provide improved heat transfer.
As Eggleston discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above, but the references does not explicitly disclose that a height of the first portion is relatively lower than a height of the first uncoated portion at a bottom of one of the cut grooves. As the capacity density and presence of burrs causing short circuiting, and tab bendability are variables that can be modified by adjusting the size of the first uncoated portion, with the capacity density increasing as the first uncoated portion is minimized and the presence of burrs and short circuiting reduced at the winding start/ends by minimizing the height of the uncoated portions (Morishima et al., para. 124, 130, 142); the precise height of the first portion relative to the height of the first uncoated portion at a bottom of one of the cut grooves would have been considered a known result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed height of the first portion relative to the height of the first uncoated portion at a bottom of one of the cut grooves cannot be considered critical.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the precise height of the first portion relative to the height of the first uncoated portion at a bottom of one of the cut grooves to provide the desired balance between the capacity density, presence of burrs leading to short circuiting, and tab bendability (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223) (see MPEP 2144.05.II.A). It is within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the height and dimensions of the first uncoated portion with respect to the first uncoated portion at a bottom of one of the cut grooves as adjusting the width and height thereof are known methods. As further evidence, prior art Miao et al. teaches that adjusting electrode tabs to increase in width and height from a winding core to an outer circumference of a battery cell can improve the electrical connection, enhance the passing ability, and improve the battery power (para. 55).
Regarding Claim 2, Eggleston et al. is modified by Cheon et al. and Lee et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As applied to Claim 1, adjusting the height of the first portion with respect to the bottom of the one of the cut grooves is deemed a result effect variable absent unexpected results in which is recited below for clarity.
As Eggleston discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above, but the references does not explicitly disclose that a height of the first portion is relatively lower than a height of the first uncoated portion at a bottom of one of the cut grooves. As the capacity density and presence of burrs causing short circuiting, and tab bendability are variables that can be modified by adjusting the size of the first uncoated portion, with the capacity density increasing as the first uncoated portion is minimized and the presence of burrs and short circuiting reduced at the winding start/ends by minimizing the height of the uncoated portions (Morishima et al., para. 124, 130, 142); the precise height of the first portion relative to the height of the first uncoated portion at a bottom of one of the cut grooves would have been considered a known result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed height of the first portion relative to the height of the first uncoated portion at a bottom of one of the cut grooves cannot be considered critical.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the precise height of the first portion relative to the height of the first uncoated portion at a bottom of one of the cut grooves to provide the desired balance between the capacity density, presence of burrs leading to short circuiting, and tab bendability (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223) (see MPEP 2144.05.II.A).
Regarding Claim 3, Eggleston et al. is modified by Cheon et al. and Lee et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 2 above. As applied to Claim 2, adjusting the height of the first portion with respect to the bottom of the one of the cut grooves is deemed a result effect variable absent unexpected results in which is recited below for clarity.
As Eggleston discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above, but the references does not explicitly disclose that a height of the first portion is relatively lower than a height of the first uncoated portion at a bottom of one of the cut grooves. As the capacity density and presence of burrs causing short circuiting, and tab bendability are variables that can be modified by adjusting the size of the first uncoated portion, with the capacity density increasing as the first uncoated portion is minimized and the presence of burrs and short circuiting reduced at the winding start/ends by minimizing the height of the uncoated portions (Morishima et al., para. 124, 130, 142); the precise height of the first portion relative to the height of the first uncoated portion at a bottom of one of the cut grooves would have been considered a known result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed height of the first portion relative to the height of the first uncoated portion at a bottom of one of the cut grooves cannot be considered critical.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the precise height of the first portion relative to the height of the first uncoated portion at a bottom of one of the cut grooves to provide the desired balance between the capacity density, presence of burrs leading to short circuiting, and tab bendability (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223) (see MPEP 2144.05.II.A).
Regarding Claim 6, Eggleston et al. is modified by Cheon et al. and Lee et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As similarly applied to Claim 1, adjusting the height of the second portion with respect to the bottom of the one of the cut grooves is deemed a result effect variable absent unexpected results.
As Eggleston discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above, but the references does not explicitly disclose that a height of the second portion is relatively lower than a height of the first uncoated portion at a bottom of one of the cut grooves. As the capacity density and presence of burrs causing short circuiting, and tab bendability are variables that can be modified by adjusting the size of the first uncoated portion, with the capacity density increasing as the first uncoated portion is minimized and the presence of burrs and short circuiting reduced at the winding start/ends by minimizing the height of the uncoated portions (Morishima et al., para. 124, 130, 142); the precise height of the second portion relative to the height of the first uncoated portion at a bottom of one of the cut grooves would have been considered a known result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed height of the second portion relative to the height of the first uncoated portion at a bottom of one of the cut grooves cannot be considered critical.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the precise height of the second portion relative to the height of the first uncoated portion at a bottom of one of the cut grooves to provide the desired balance between the capacity density, presence of burrs leading to short circuiting, and tab bendability (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223) (see MPEP 2144.05.II.A).
Regarding Claim 7, Eggleston et al. is modified by Cheon et al. and Lee et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 6 above. As applied to Claim 6, adjusting the height of the second portion with respect to the bottom of the one of the cut grooves is deemed a result effect variable absent unexpected results in which is recited below for clarity.
As Eggleston discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above, but the references does not explicitly disclose that a height of the second portion is relatively lower than a height of the first uncoated portion at a bottom of one of the cut grooves. As the capacity density and presence of burrs causing short circuiting, and tab bendability are variables that can be modified by adjusting the size of the first uncoated portion, with the capacity density increasing as the first uncoated portion is minimized and the presence of burrs and short circuiting reduced at the winding start/ends by minimizing the height of the uncoated portions (Morishima et al., para. 124, 130, 142); the precise height of the second portion relative to the height of the first uncoated portion at a bottom of one of the cut grooves would have been considered a known result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed height of the second portion relative to the height of the first uncoated portion at a bottom of one of the cut grooves cannot be considered critical.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the precise height of the second portion relative to the height of the first uncoated portion at a bottom of one of the cut grooves to provide the desired balance between the capacity density, presence of burrs leading to short circuiting, and tab bendability (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223) (see MPEP 2144.05.II.A).
Regarding Claim 8, Eggleston et al. is modified by Cheon et al. and Lee et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 7 above. As applied to Claim 7, adjusting the height of the second portion with respect to the bottom of the one of the cut grooves is deemed a result effect variable absent unexpected results in which is recited below for clarity.
As Eggleston discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above, but the references does not explicitly disclose that a height of the second portion is relatively lower than a height of the first uncoated portion at a bottom of one of the cut grooves. As the capacity density and presence of burrs causing short circuiting, and tab bendability are variables that can be modified by adjusting the size of the first uncoated portion, with the capacity density increasing as the first uncoated portion is minimized and the presence of burrs and short circuiting reduced at the winding start/ends by minimizing the height of the uncoated portions (Morishima et al., para. 124, 130, 142); the precise height of the second portion relative to the height of the first uncoated portion at a bottom of one of the cut grooves would have been considered a known result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed height of the second portion relative to the height of the first uncoated portion at a bottom of one of the cut grooves cannot be considered critical.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the precise height of the second portion relative to the height of the first uncoated portion at a bottom of one of the cut grooves to provide the desired balance between the capacity density, presence of burrs leading to short circuiting, and tab bendability (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223) (see MPEP 2144.05.II.A).
Regarding Claim 13, Eggleston et al. is modified by Cheon et al. and Lee et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Eggleston teaches an anode (negative electrode) in which can be alternatively considered a first electrode (para. 52). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Claims 14 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eggleston et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20230402722 A1 equivalent to CA 3191830 A1) in view of Cheon et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20050287428 A1) and Lee et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20050287432 A1), and further in view of Monismith et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200028134 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Eggleston et al. is modified by Cheon et al. and Lee et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Eggleston teaches that the electrode assembly can be placed in a battery housing (para. 71).
Eggleston et al. does not teach a battery housing having an open end and a bottom opposing thereto, the battery housing being configured to accommodate the electrode assembly in a space between the open end and the bottom, the battery housing being electrically connected to one of the first electrode and the second electrode to have a first polarity;
a sealing body configured to seal the open end of the battery housing; and
PNG
media_image7.png
433
541
media_image7.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Monismith et al. (Fig. 6))]a terminal having a surface exposed to outside the battery housing, the terminal being electrically connected to another of the first electrode and the second electrode to have a second polarity.
In the same field of endeavor, Monismith et al. teaches analogous art of a battery housing 105 having an open end and a bottom opposing thereto ([0023] teaches the battery cell including a head portion 130 and a body portion 135). Although not shown in Fig. 6, it is obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) that the body portion also surrounds a bottom portion of the battery cell in which the battery housing is configured to accommodate the electrode assembly in a space between the open end and the bottom. The battery housing is electrically connected to one of the first electrode and the second electrode to have a first polarity ([0057] teaches that the perimeter edge of the housing 105 is crimped and serves as a second polarity terminal, Fig. 6)
Moreover, Monismith et al. teaches a sealing body configured to seal the open end of the battery housing (para. 57, Fig. 6); and
a terminal (a first polarity terminal 115 having a surface exposed to outside the battery housing), the terminal being electrically connected to another of the first electrode and the second electrode to have a second polarity (terminal 115 and housing 105 have opposite polarity in which can be referred to as having a first/second polarity correspondingly, para. 57, Fig. 6). One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Monismith et al. useful in providing a battery cell that is capable of responding to pressure, temperature, and current that coincide with thermal runaway events (para. 58).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the battery of Eggleston et al. by Monismith et al. to include a battery housing having an open end and a bottom opposing thereto, the battery housing being configured to accommodate the electrode assembly in a space between the open end and the bottom, the battery housing being electrically connected to one of the first electrode and the second electrode to have a first polarity; a sealing body configured to seal the open end of the battery housing; and a terminal having a surface exposed to outside the battery housing, the terminal being electrically connected to another of the first electrode and the second electrode to have a second polarity. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide a battery cell that is capable of responding to pressure, temperature, and current that coincide with thermal runaway events (para. 58).
Regarding Claim 18, Eggleston et al. is modified by Cheon et al., Lee et al., and Monismith et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 14 above.
Eggleston et al. does not teach a battery pack comprising a plurality of batteries.
In the same field of endeavor, Monismith et al. teaches analogous art of a battery pack comprising a plurality of battery cells for use in an electric vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to generate power for a large electric vehicle (para. 2) and provide high energy density.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the battery of Eggleston et al. to include a battery pack comprising a plurality of batteries to provide high energy density and power for an electric vehicle as taught by Monismith et al. "Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007)” (see MPEP § 2143, D).
Regarding Claim 19, Eggleston et al. is modified by Cheon et al., Lee et al., and Monismith et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 18 above. As applied to Claim 18, the battery of Eggleston et al. is modified to include a battery pack comprising a plurality of batteries to provide high energy density and power for an electric vehicle as taught by Monismith et al. Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Claims 4-5 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eggleston et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20230402722 A1 equivalent to CA 3191830 A1) in view of Cheon et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20050287428 A1) and Lee et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20050287432 A1), and further in view of Tsuruta et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200144676 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Eggleston et al. is modified by Cheon et al. and Lee et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above.
Eggleston et al. does not teach the electrode assembly further comprising an insulating coating layer configured to cover a boundary between the first uncoated portion and the active material layer, wherein, based on an end of the insulating coating layer, the height of the first portion is 0% to 95% of the height of the first uncoated portion at the bottom of the one of the cut grooves.
In the same field of endeavor, Tsuruta et al. teaches analogous art of an insulating coating layer (electrically insulative layer 114, para. 38) configured to cover a boundary between a first uncoated portion (conductive portion 118, para. 38) and the active material layer (first coating 102, para. 38). (The conductive portion can be absent of the first coating and insulative material, para. 39). The electrically insulative material may aid to reduce or prevent electrical contact between the active material layer and first uncoated portion (para. 38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the electrode assembly of Eggleston et al. to include an insulating coating layer configured to cover a boundary between the first uncoated portion and the active material layer as taught by Tsuruta et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide protection of the active material layer and reduce or prevent electrical contact between the active material layer and first uncoated portion.
Further, as applied to Claim 1, adjusting the height of the first portion with respect to the bottom of the one of the cut grooves is deemed a result effect variable absent unexpected results in which is recited below for clarity.
As Eggleston discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above, but the references does not explicitly disclose that a height of the first portion is relatively lower than a height of the first uncoated portion at a bottom of one of the cut grooves. As the capacity density and presence of burrs causing short circuiting, and tab bendability are variables that can be modified by adjusting the size of the first uncoated portion, with the capacity density increasing as the first uncoated portion is minimized and the presence of burrs and short circuiting reduced at the winding start/ends by minimizing the height of the uncoated portions (Morishima et al., para. 124, 130, 142); the precise height of the first portion relative to the height of the first uncoated portion at a bottom of one of the cut grooves would have been considered a known result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed height of the first portion relative to the height of the first uncoated portion at a bottom of one of the cut grooves cannot be considered critical.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the precise height of the first portion relative to the height of the first uncoated portion at a bottom of one of the cut grooves to provide the desired balance between the capacity density, presence of burrs leading to short circuiting, and tab bendability (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223) (see MPEP 2144.05.II.A).
Regarding Claim 5, Eggleston et al. is modified by Cheon et al., Lee et al., and Tsuruta et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 4 above. As applied to Claim 4, adjusting the height of the first portion with respect to the bottom of the one of the cut grooves is deemed a result effect variable absent unexpected results in which is recited below for clarity.
As Eggleston discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above, but the references does not explicitly disclose that a height of the first portion is relatively lower than a height of the first uncoated portion at a bottom of one of the cut grooves. As the capacity density and presence of burrs causing short circuiting, and tab bendability are variables that can be modified by adjusting the size of the first uncoated portion, with the capacity density increasing as the first uncoated portion is minimized and the presence of burrs and short circuiting reduced at the winding start/ends by minimizing the height of the uncoated portions (Morishima et al., para. 124, 130, 142); the precise height of the first portion relative to the height of the first uncoated portion at a bottom of one of the cut grooves would have been considered a known result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed height of the first portion relative to the height of the first uncoated portion at a bottom of one of the cut grooves cannot be considered critical.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the precise height of the first portion relative to the height of the first uncoated portion at a bottom of one of the cut grooves to provide the desired balance between the capacity density, presence of burrs leading to short circuiting, and tab bendability (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223) (see MPEP 2144.05.II.A).
Regarding Claim 9, Eggleston et al. is modified by Cheon et al., Lee et al., and Tsuruta et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 6 above.
Eggleston et al. does not teach the electrode assembly further comprising an insulating coating layer configured to cover a boundary between the first uncoated portion and the active material layer, wherein, based on an end of the insulating coating layer, the height of the first portion is 0% to 95% of the height of the first uncoated portion at the bottom of the one of the cut grooves.
In the same field of endeavor, Tsuruta et al. teaches analogous art of an insulating coating layer (electrically insulative layer 114, para. 38) configured to cover a boundary between a first uncoated portion (conductive portion 118, para. 38) and the active material layer (first coating 102, para. 38). (The conductive portion can be absent of the first coating and insulative material, para. 39). The electrically insulative material may aid to reduce or prevent electrical contact between the active material layer and first uncoated portion (para. 38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the electrode assembly of Eggleston et al. to include an insulating coating layer configured to cover a boundary between the first uncoated portion and the active material layer as taught by Tsuruta et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide protection of the active material layer and reduce or prevent electrical contact between the active material layer and first uncoated portion.
As applied to Claim 6, adjusting the height of the second portion with respect to the bottom of the one of the cut grooves is deemed a result effect variable absent unexpected results. As Eggleston discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above, but the references does not explicitly disclose that a height of the second portion is relatively lower than a height of the first uncoated portion at a bottom of one of the cut grooves. As the capacity density and presence of burrs causing short circuiting, and tab bendability are variables that can be modified by adjusting the size of the first uncoated portion, with the capacity density increasing as the first uncoated portion is minimized and the presence of burrs and short circuiting reduced at the winding start/ends by minimizing the height of the uncoated portions (Morishima et al., para. 124, 130, 142); the precise height of the second portion relative to the height of the first uncoated portion at a bottom of one of the cut grooves would have been considered a known result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed height of the second portion relative to the height of the first uncoated portion at a bottom of one of the cut grooves cannot be considered critical.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the precise height of the second portion relative to the height of the first uncoated portion at a bottom of one of the cut grooves to provide the desired balance between the capacity density, presence of burrs leading to short circuiting, and tab bendability (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223) (see MPEP 2144.05.II.A).
Regarding Claim 10, Eggleston et al. is modified by Cheon et al., Lee et al., and Tsuruta et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 9 above.
As applied to Claim 9, adjusting the height of the second portion with respect to the bottom of the one of the cut grooves is deemed a result effect variable absent unexpected results. As Eggleston discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above, but the references does not explicitly disclose that a height of the second portion is relatively lower than a height of the first uncoated portion at a bottom of one of the cut grooves. As the capacity density and presence of burrs causing short circuiting, and tab bendability are variables that can be modified by adjusting the size of the first uncoated portion, with the capacity density increasing as the first uncoated portion is minimized and the presence of burrs and short circuiting reduced at the winding start/ends by minimizing the height of the uncoated portions (Morishima et al., para. 124, 130, 142); the precise height of the second portion relative to the height of the first uncoated portion at a bottom of one of the cut grooves would have been considered a known result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed height of the second portion relative to the height of the first uncoated portion at a bottom of one of the cut grooves cannot be considered critical.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the precise height of the second portion relative to the height of the first uncoated portion at a bottom of one of the cut grooves to provide the desired balance between the capacity density, presence of burrs leading to short circuiting, and tab bendability (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223) (see MPEP 2144.05.II.A).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eggleston et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20230402722 A1 equivalent to CA 3191830 A1) in view of Cheon et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20050287428 A1) and Lee et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20050287432 A1), and further in view of Fukui et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190140249 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Eggleston et al. is modified by Cheon et al. and Lee et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above.
Eggleston et al. does not teach that a current collector of the first electrode is thinner than a current collector of the second electrode.
In the same field of endeavor, Fukui et al. teaches analogous art of current collectors for electrodes in which can include a thickness of 18 μm for copper or about 20 μm for aluminum (para. 68) providing a current collector for a first electrode in which is thinner than a current collector of the second electrode.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the copper and aluminum current collectors serving as a first electrode (anode) and second electrode (cathode), respectively, of Eggleston et al. to include an 18 μm copper foil and a 15 μm aluminum foil as described by Fukui et al., providing a current collector for a first electrode in which is thinner than a current collector of the second electrode. One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Fukui et al. useful in providing a suitable size for the current collectors with a motivation to provide a battery that suppresses the occurrence of internal short-circuits after pressure molding and achieves high performance (Fukui et al., para. 6).
Regarding Claim 12, Eggleston et al. is modified by Cheon et al., Lee et al., and Fukui et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 11 above. Eggleston teaches that the current collector of the anode is a copper foil (para. 52, 56 in which the anode can alternatively be considered the first electrode). Eggleston teaches that the current collector of the cathode is an aluminum foil (para. 52, 56 in which the cathode can alternatively be considered the second electrode). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eggleston et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20230402722 A1 equivalent to CA 3191830 A1) in view of Cheon et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20050287428 A1) and Lee et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20050287432 A1), and further in view of Monismith et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200028134 A1) as further evidenced by Kim et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190319295 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Eggleston et al. is modified by Cheon et al., Lee et al., and Monismith et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 14 above.
Eggleston et al. does not teach that the sealing body includes: a cap plate configured to seal the open end of the battery housing; and a gasket configured to surround an edge of the cap plate, the gasket being crimped to the open end of the battery housing, and wherein the terminal with the second polarity is the cap plate.
In the same field of endeavor, Monismith et al. teaches analogous art of a sealing body including a cap plate configured to seal open end of the battery housing (positive terminal 115 functions as a cap (para. 24, 54), a buckling plate 200 can wrap around the lower surface of the positive terminal to seal the electrolyte material). The cap plate can directly function to seal the open end of the battery housing without the use of a buckling plate as further evident by Kim et al. in which teaches a cap plate (40) function to seal and close the opening of a battery case (housing) (para. 45). Monismith et al. teaches that a gasket 605 is configured to surround an edge of the cap plate 115 (para. 57), the gasket being crimped to the open end of the battery housing (Fig. 6), wherein the terminal with the second polarity is the cap plate (positive terminal 115 functions as a cap (para. 24, 54).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the battery of Eggleston et al. by Monismith et al. to include a cap plate configured to seal the open end of the battery housing (as further evidenced by Kim et al.); and a gasket configured to surround an edge of the cap plate, the gasket being crimped to the open end of the battery housing, and wherein the terminal with the second polarity is the cap plate. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide a battery cell and housing thereof that is capable of responding to pressure, temperature, and current that coincide with thermal runaway events (para. 58).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eggleston et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20230402722 A1 equivalent to CA 3191830 A1) in view of Cheon et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20050287428 A1), Lee et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20050287432 A1), and Monismith et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200028134 A1), and further in view of Tsutsumi et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 10714715 B2) and Postler et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200127244 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Eggleston et al. is modified by Cheon et al., Lee et al., and Monismith et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 14 above. Eggleston et al. teaches a current collector electrically connected to the first uncoated portion (copper/aluminum flags) of the first/second electrode having the first/second polarity (anode/cathode) (para. 53).
Eggleston et al. does not teach the current collector having an edge at least partially coupled to a sidewall of the battery housing.
In the same field of endeavor, Postler et al. teaches analogous art of integrally bonding an electrode current collector made from aluminum with an aluminum housing for a battery cell (para. 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the current collector of Eggleston et al. to current collector to have a portion or edge coupled to a sidewall of the battery housing as taught by Postler et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to effectively secure the current collector within the housing. "Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007)” (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
Eggleston et al. does not teach wherein the sealing body includes: a cap plate; and a gasket configured to surround an edge of the cap plate, the gasket being crimped to the open end of the battery housing, and wherein the battery housing includes a rivet terminal located in a perforation hole in a center of the bottom of the battery housing, the rivet terminal being electrically connected to the second electrode to have the second polarity.
In the same field of endeavor, Monismith et al. teaches analogous art of a sealing body configured to seal the open end of the battery housing (para. 57, Fig. 6) comprising a cap plate (positive terminal 115 functions as a cap (para. 24, 54), a buckling plate 200 can wrap around the lower surface of the positive terminal to seal the electrolyte material) and a gasket 605 is configured to surround an edge of the cap plate 115 (para. 57), the gasket being crimped to the open end of the battery housing (Fig. 6). Monismith et al. teaches that the terminal is located in a perforation hole (opening) at a center of an inner surface of a top portion of the battery housing (see 112(b) rejection above) in which is electrically connected to the second electrode to have the second polarity (positive terminal 115 functions as a cap (para. 24, 54).
In the same field of endeavor, Tsutsumi et al. teaches analogous art of a battery housing including a rivet terminal in which improves the sealing effect (para. 43 of the “Description”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the battery of Eggleston et al. to include a cap plate; and a gasket configured to surround an edge of the cap plate, the gasket being crimped to the open end of the battery housing, and wherein the battery housing includes a terminal located in a perforation hole in a center of the bottom of the battery housing, the terminal being electrically connected to the second electrode to have the second polarity as taught by Monismith et al.; and further in which the terminal is a rivet terminal as taught by Tsutsumi et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide a battery cell and housing thereof that is capable of responding to pressure, temperature, and current that coincide with thermal runaway events (Monismith et al., para. 58); and to improve sealing as taught by Tsutsumi et al. as described above.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eggleston et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20230402722 A1 equivalent to CA 3191830 A1) in view of Cheon et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20050287428 A1), Lee et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20050287432 A1), Monismith et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200028134 A1), Tsutsumi et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 10714715 B2) and Postler et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200127244 A1) as applied to Claim 16, and further in view of Kohira et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20220123395 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, Eggleston et al. is modified by Cheon et al., Lee et al., Monismith et al., Tsutsumi et al., and Postler et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 16 above.
Eggleston et al. does not teach that the cap plate has no polarity.
In the same field of endeavor, Kohira et al. teaches analogous art of a cap plate for a battery housing in which is electrically insulated (para. 6) and therefore, has no polarity. The configuration provides a high energy density in which electric current can be collected on the upper part of the battery (para. 90).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the battery of Eggleston et al. to include a cap plate with no polarity as described by Kohira et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide a cap assembly for a battery cell providing high energy density in which electric current can be collected on the upper part of the battery (para. 90).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eggleston et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20230402722 A1 equivalent to CA 3191830 A1) in view of Cheon et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20050287428 A1) and Lee et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20050287432 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Ryu et al. (KR Pat. No. 20160009406A).
Regarding Claim 20, Eggleston et al. does not teach wherein the first portion does not have segments.
PNG
media_image8.png
324
512
media_image8.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Ryu et al. (Fig. 1A))]In the same field of endeavor, Ryu et al. teaches analogous art of a secondary battery comprising an electrode current collector (2) comprising a first uncoated portion comprising a first portion and second portion provided at both ends in the longitudinal direction in which are not coated with the positive electrode active material and are exposed; a third portion comprising electrode leads (segments) is formed between the first portion and second portion ([0021], Fig. 1A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the battery of Eggleston et al. wherein the electrode comprises a first portion in which does not comprise segments as taught by Ryu et al. "Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.)." One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification as it is a known technique in electrode manufacturing in which can provide improve electrical contact and mechanical integrity (i.e., exposed ends can be secured or welded preventing separation during handling and cycling without damage the active material layer).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA RENEE DAULTON whose telephone number is (703)756-5413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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 RUDDOCK 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.
/C.R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights