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 papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 6/18/2024, 5/9/2025 and 8/26/2025 has/have been received and complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner, and a copy with initials is attached herewith.
Drawings
4. The drawings were received on 6/18/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
7. Claim(s) 11-12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Taniuchi et al (US 20210305620 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Taniuchi discloses an electrode assembly comprising a plurality of electrodes (10) stacked with a separator (30, solid electrolyte) therebetween; and a plurality of electrode tabs (12a, 12b, 12c, 12d) which are connected to the plurality of electrodes (10), respectively, and welded to each other so as to form a welded portion (300), wherein each outermost electrode tabs of the plurality of electrode tabs is convexly bent outward, wherein the outermost electrode tabs comprises a first section (121) extending from the electrode, and a second section extending (122) from
PNG
media_image1.png
390
778
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the first section (121) and having a steeper slope than the first section, wherein the first
section (121) comprises a flat portion (121a) connected to the electrode, and a bending
portion (121b) which connects the flat portion and the second section (122) to each other [Annotated Fig. 1, 2; paragraph 0043-0047].
Regarding claim 12, Taniuchi teaches that in plurality of electrode tabs, electrode tabs disposed further outward are more bent than those electrode tabs disposed further inward [Annotated Fig. 1].
Regarding claim 14, Taniuchi teaches that the outermost electrode tabs further comprises a third section (123) extending from the second section to the welded portion and having a less steep slope than the second section [Annotated Fig. 1].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pil et al (KR 20190054617 A) in view of Jin et al (KR 20200105272 A).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Pil discloses an electrode tab welding method and an electrode tab welding device for a secondary battery wherein a plurality of electrode tabs are pressed and joined by a pressing part (20); and the plurality of electrode tabs are welded and thereby bonded to each other. Pil teaches forming a stepped portion on an end of an electrode tab part (130) by pressing the electrode tab part by means of a pair of pressing blocks (21, 22) having rounded edges [Fig. 8-12; paragraph 0088, 0099-0100, 0105; claim 14]. Pil remains silent about a pair of alignment rollers that press a plurality of electrode tabs joined by a pair of tab guides and rotate in the direction in which the outermost electrode is pushed toward an electrode assembly. However, Jin teaches an electrode tab welding method and an electrode tab welding device for a secondary battery wherein a first rotation roll (214) and a second rotation roll (224) are rotatably provided on ends of a first rod (210) and a second rod (220) that press electrode tabs (15) so that the first rotation roll (214) and the second rotation roll (224) rotate and press the electrode tabs (15) when pressing the electrode tabs (15) [Fig. 7-9; paragraph 0061]. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Jin teaches that a point at which the pair of aligning rollers press the plurality of electrode tabs is farther away from the electrode assembly than a point at which the pair of tab guides press the plurality of electrode tabs-is relative to the electrode assembly [Fig. 9].
Regarding claims 3-4 and 8-9, Pil teaches a stepped portion is formed on an end of an electrode tab part (130) by pressing the electrode tab part by means of a pair of pressing blocks (21, 22) having rounded edges [Fig. 9-12; paragraphs 0088, 0099] and Jin teaches a first rotation roll (214) and a second rotation roll (224) are rotatably provided on ends of a first rod (210) and a second rod (220) that press electrode tabs (15) so that the first rotation roll (214) and the second rotation roll (224) rotate and press the electrode tabs (15) when pressing the electrode tabs (15) [Fig. 7-8; paragraph 0061]. Therefore, the additional features of claims 3-4 and 8-9 could be easily derived through a design modification of Pil and Jin and would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 6, Jin teaches a first rod (210) and a second rod (220) that press electrode tabs (15) move toward each other with the electrode tab therebetween [Fig. 2-4, 8; paragraph 0033]. Therefore, the additional features of claim 6 could be easily derived through a design modification of Pil and Jin and would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 10, It is within the technical grasp of a skilled artisan to keep the pair of aligning rollers are spaced apart from the plurality of electrode tabs when the welding part welds the plurality of electrode tabs and would have been obvious.
12. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pil et al (KR 20190054617 A) in view of Jin et al (KR 20200105272 A) as applied in claim 1 and further in view of Naoi et al (US 20190074143 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Pil/Jin remains silent about the material of the rollers; however, it is known in the art to utilize elastomer as roller material as taught by Naoi [paragraph 0155, 0160, 0186]. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
13. Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniuchi et al (US 20210305620 A1) as applied in claim 11 and further in view of Park et al (US 20190148705 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Taniuchi remains silent about how the arrangement of the electrodes tabs is claimed. However, Park teaches a battery electrode arrangement wherein the outermost electrode tabs have an outer end that is stepped inward from an outer end of another electrode tab [Fig. 8-9]. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD S SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3719. 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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571) 272-3066. 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.
/MUHAMMAD S SIDDIQUEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights