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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 16, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: recites “(21)” when referring to the oblique slot. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-3, 6, 8-9, 12, 15, and 18-19 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation of the same angle of inclination, “which is 35-85 degrees,” and the claim also recites “preferably 40 - 80 degrees” and “further preferably 50 - 70 degrees” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation of “the ratio of the depth of the oblique slot to the width of the bare foil zone is 0.2 – 1,” and the claim also recites “preferably 0.3 – 0.8” and “further preferably 0.4 – 0.6” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation of “the ratio of the width of the oblique protrusion to the width of an adjacent oblique slot is 1:1 - 5:1,” and the claim also recites “preferably 1:1 - 3:1” and “more preferably 2:1” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 8 recites the broad recitation of “D1 is 0.2 - 2 mm,” and the claim also recites “preferably 0.5 – 1.5 mm” and “further preferably 1 mm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 9 recites the broad recitation of “the width W of the oblique protrusion is 1 - 5 mm,” and the claim also recites “preferably 1.5 - 3.5 mm” and “further preferably 2 mm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "it" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 15 recites the broad recitation of “an area of 1 - 10 mm2,” and the claim also recites “preferably 2 - 5 mm2” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "it" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the welded cell" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1, 12-14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 20250030036 A1 with an effective filing date of 07/18/2023), hereinafter referred to as Kim.
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches an electrode assembly including first and second electrodes (“a battery electrode sheet”) (see e.g., Abstract). Kim teaches the first electrode includes a conductive substrate having a first electrode active portion including a first active material layer (“wherein it comprises a coated zone coated with an electrode material in a longitudinal direction of the electrode sheet”) and a first electrode uncoated portion without the first active material layer (“a bare foil zone not coated with electrode material”) (see e.g., paragraph [0008]). Kim teaches at least one of the first electrode uncoated portion has a plurality of inclined cutout portions inclined with respect to a length direction of the electrode assembly, and an interval between adjacent ones of the inclined cutout portions at a frontal end of the electrode assembly (“the bare foil zone being provided with multiple oblique slots and multiple oblique protrusions in an alternating manner”) (see e.g., paragraph [0008] and Figure 3).
Regarding claim 12, Kim teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Kim teaches a battery including the electrode assembly described in claim 1 and a cylindrical case accommodating the electrode assembly (“a cylindrical battery”) (see e.g., paragraph [0027]). Kim teaches the electrode assembly includes a first electrode including a conductive substrate and having a first electrode active portion including a first active material layer and a first electrode uncoated portion without the first active material layer; a separator; and a second electrode including a conductive substrate and having a second electrode active portion including a second active material layer and a second electrode uncoated portion without the second active material layer (“wherein it comprises a positive electrode sheet, a negative electrode sheet and a separator”), wherein at least one of the first electrode uncoated portion and the second electrode uncoated portion has a plurality of inclined cutout portions inclined with respect to a length direction of the electrode assembly (“the positive electrode sheet and/or the negative electrode sheet being the battery electrode sheet as claimed in claim 1”) (see e.g., paragraph [0008]). Kim teaches the first electrode 11 may be a positive electrode having a first electrode active portion 11a with an active material (e.g., a transition metal oxide, such as LiCoO2, LiNiO2, LiMn2O4, or the like) and the second electrode may be a negative electrode having a second electrode active portion 13a with an active material (e.g., graphite, carbon, or the like) (“an electrode material of the positive electrode sheet being a positive electrode material, and an electrode material of the negative electrode sheet being a negative electrode material”) (see e.g., paragraph [0045] and [0046]).
Regarding claim 13, Kim teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 12, as previously described.
Kim teaches electrode assembly 100 may be a cylindrical jelly roll formed by stacking the first electrode 11, the separator 12 and the second electrode 13 and then winding them around the center pin 60 (“wherein the positive electrode sheet, the negative electrode sheet and the separator are rolled up to form a cell, which is flattened such that ends substantially form a flat surface”) (see e.g., paragraph [0044] and Figure 2).
Regarding claim 14, Kim teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 13, as previously described.
Kim teaches a flat surface on the top or bottom of the cylindrical jelly roll comprises multiple sheet-like pieces formed by the remaining uncoated portions formed by the inclined cutout portions (“wherein the flat surface comprises multiple sheet-like pieces formed by the oblique protrusions”) (see e.g., Figure 2).
Regarding claim 19, Kim teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Kim teaches a rechargeable battery (“a method for manufacturing a cylindrical battery”) includes an electrode assembly that includes a first electrode including a conductive substrate and having a first electrode active portion including a first active material layer and a first electrode uncoated portion without the first active material layer; a separator; and a second electrode including a conductive substrate and having a second electrode active portion including a second active material layer and a second electrode uncoated portion without the second active material layer (see e.g., paragraph [0008]). Kim teaches the first electrode, the separator, and the second electrode are stacked on each other and wound (“step 1: rolling up a positive electrode sheet, a negative electrode sheet and a separator to form a cell, wherein the positive electrode sheet and negative electrode sheet are both battery electrode sheets as claimed in claim 1, an electrode material of the positive electrode sheet being a positive electrode material, and an electrode material of the negative electrode sheet being a negative electrode material”) (see e.g., paragraph [0008]). Kim teaches the first electrode uncoated portion and the second electrode uncoated portion are flattened (“step 2: flattening positive/negative electrode end faces of the cell”) (see e.g., Figure 2) and welded to a first electrode current collector and a second electrode current collector, respectively (“step 3: welding collector plates to the flattened positive/negative electrode end faces”) (see e.g., paragraph [0064]). Kim teaches the electrode assembly is inserted into the cylindrical case, and then, the electrolyte solution is injected into the cylindrical case (“step 4: assembling the welded cell and other battery elements, then performing liquid injection and initial charging”) (see e.g., paragraph [0080]).
Regarding claim 20, Kim teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 19, as previously described.
Kim teaches the direction of flattening of the uncoated electrode regions is in the same direction of inclination of the uncoated regions formed after a plurality of inclined cutout portions are formed (“wherein in step 2, the direction of flattening is the same as the direction of inclination of an oblique protrusion”) (see e.g., Figure 7).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 2-3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 20250030036 A1 with an effective filing date of 07/18/2023).
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Kim teaches an inclination angles of the inclined cutout portions may be greater than or equal to 45 and smaller than 90 degrees (“wherein the oblique slot and the oblique protrusion have the same angle of inclination, which is 35 – 85 degrees”) (see e.g., paragraph [0011] and Figure 3).
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because the angle of inclination overlaps with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Kim teaches the inclined cutout portions may have a depth in a range of 40% to 80% of a height of the corresponding first electrode uncoated portion or second electrode uncoated portion (see e.g., paragraph [0014]), wherein the depth is defined as the distance in which the inclined cutout portions extend into the uncoated portions and the height H of the electrode uncoated portions 11b and 13b is defined as the distance from the edge of the coated portions to the edge of the electrode (see e.g., Figure 3) (“wherein the ratio of the depth of the oblique slot to the width of the bare foil zone is 0.2 – 1”).
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because the depth of the inclined cutout portions overlaps with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Regarding claim 15, Kim teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 14, as previously described.
Kim teaches the intervals between the inclined cutout portions (“protrusions”) is 1 mm at the frontal end to about 4 mm at the rear end (see e.g., paragraph [0053]). Kim teaches the height of the uncoated region is 1 mm or less (see e.g., paragraph [0022]). Therefore, the area of the intervals between the inclined cutout portions ranges from 1 to 4 mm2 (“wherein the sheet-like small pieces have an area of 1 – 10 mm2”).
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because the area overlaps with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Claims 4-11 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 20250030036 A1 with an effective filing date of 07/18/2023) in view of Park et al. (WO 2023090573 A1, citations from corresponding Published U.S. Patent Application US 20240266583 A1), hereinafter referred to as Park.
Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Kim does not explicitly teach wherein the widths of the oblique slots gradually increase from one end to the other end of the electrode sheet.
However, Park teaches an electrode assembly (see e.g., Abstract). Park teaches the electrode assembly comprises an electrode 40 comprising an uncoated portion 43 and a coated region with an active material layer 42 (see e.g., paragraph [0253]). Park teaches the uncoated portion 42 includes a plurality of segments 61 that form a plurality of segments groups from the core toward the outer circumference, wherein each segment has a width, height, and separation pitch that are substantially the same in the same segment group (see e.g., paragraphs [0306]-[0307]). Park teaches the separation pitch in the winding direction gradually increases from the core toward the outer circumference (“wherein the widths of the oblique slots gradually increase from one end to the other end of the electrode sheet”) (see e.g., paragraph [0096]) in order to prevent abnormal deformation of the uncoated portion while sufficiently increasing the number of overlapping layers of the uncoated portion to secure sufficient welding strength (see e.g., paragraph [0323]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify inclined cutout portions of Kim to have an increasing width from the core toward the outer circumference, as taught by Park, in order to prevent abnormal deformation of the uncoated portion while sufficiently increasing the number of overlapping layers of the uncoated portion to secure sufficient welding strength (see e.g., paragraph [0323]).
Regarding claim 5, Kim, as modified by Park, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 4, as previously described.
Kim, as modified by Park, does not explicitly teach wherein the ratio of the maximum width to the minimum width of the oblique slots is 5:1 – 9:1.
However, Park teaches the separation pitch may be determined in relation to the magnitude of the width of neighboring segments measured in the winding direction (see e.g., paragraph [0149]), and for example, as the width of the segments in the winding direction increases, the separation pitch between the segments increases in order to have the impregnation property of the electrolyte be uniform (see e.g., paragraph [0150]). Park teaches the width of Group 1 may be 35% to 40% of the width of the first portion B1, the width of Group 2 may be 130% to 150% of the width of Group 1, the width of Group 3 may be 120% to 135% of the width of Group 2, the width of Group 4 may be 85% to 90% of the width of Group 3, the width of Group 5 may be 120% to 130% of the width of Group 4, the width of Group 6 may be 100% to 120% of the width of Group 5, the width of Group 7 may be 90% to 120% of the width of Group 6, and the width of Group 8 may be 115% to 130% of the width of Group 7 (see e.g., paragraph [0390]). Therefore, the ratio of the maximum width of the separation pitch in Group 8 (maximum width) to the minimum width of the separation pitch in Group 1 (minimum width) ranges from approximately 1.65:1 to 4.44:1 (“wherein the ratio of the maximum width to the minimum width of the oblique slots is 5:1 – 9:1”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify inclined cutout portions of Kim, as modified by Park, to have an increasing width from the core toward the outer circumference, wherein the ratio of the maximum width to the minimum width ranges from approximately 1.65:1 to 4.44:1, as taught by Park, in order to have the impregnation property of the electrolyte be uniform (see e.g., paragraph [0150]).
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because the ratio of the minimum width to the maximum width of the separation pitch overlaps with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Regarding claim 6, Kim, as modified by Park, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 4, as previously described.
Kim, as modified by Park, does not explicitly teach wherein the ratio of the width of the oblique protrusion to the width of an adjacent oblique slot is 1:1 – 5:1.
However, Park teaches the separation pitch ranges from 0.05 mm to 1 mm in the winding direction (see e.g., paragraph [0165]). Park teaches the width (D) of the segment 61 as shown in Figure 7b is 1 mm or more in order to allow for sufficient welding to occur (see e.g., paragraph [0326]). Therefore, when the width (D) is 1 mm, a ratio between the width of the oblique protrusion ranges from 1:1 to 1:0.05 (20:1) (“wherein the ratio of the width of the oblique protrusion to the width of an adjacent oblique slot is 1:1 – 5:1”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify inclined cutout portions of Kim, as modified by Park, to have such a width to produce a 1:1 to 20:1 ratio with the width of the uncoated segments, as taught by Park, in order to have the impregnation property of the electrolyte be uniform (see e.g., paragraph [0150]).
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because the ratio of the segment width to the separation pitch overlaps with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Kim, as modified by Park, does not explicitly teach wherein the widths Dn of the oblique slots increase as the number of winding turns of the electrode sheet increases, wherein Dn = D1 + n × Da, where D1 is the width of an oblique slot in the innermost turn of a core, Dn is the width of an oblique slot in the nth turn of the core, and Da is a predetermined value.
However, Park teaches the separation pitch may be determined in relation to the magnitude of the width of neighboring segments measured in the winding direction (see e.g., paragraph [0149]), and for example, as the width of the segments in the winding direction increases, the separation pitch between the segments increases in order to have the impregnation property of the electrolyte be uniform (see e.g., paragraph [0150]). Park teaches the width of the segment D(r) is determined by a relationship based on the radius r based on the center O of the electrode assembly by Formula 1 (see e.g., paragraph [0337]). Park teaches the widths D(r) (thus, separation pitch) of the plurality of segments 61 in the winding direction gradually or stepwise increase as the radius r of the winding turn where the segment 61 is located increases based on the core center of the electrode assembly, or vice versa (see e.g., paragraph [0338]) (“wherein the widths Dn of the oblique slots increase as the number of winding turns of the electrode sheet increases, wherein Dn = D1 + n × Da, where D1 is the width of an oblique slot in the innermost turn of a core, Dn is the width of an oblique slot in the nth turn of the core, and Da is a predetermined value”) in order to improve bending uniformity and prevent cracking (see e.g., paragraph [0332]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify inclined cutout portions of Kim, to increase in width gradually or stepwise increase as the radius r of the winding turn where the segment is located increases based on the core center of the electrode assembly, as taught by Park, in order to improve bending uniformity and prevent cracking (see e.g., paragraph [0332]).
Regarding claim 8, Kim, as modified by Park, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 7, as previously described.
Kim, as modified by Park, does not explicitly teach wherein D1 is 0.2 – 2 mm.
However, Park teaches the separation pitch is 0.5 mm or more (“wherein D1 is 0.2 – 2 mm”), because when the separation pitch is smaller than this, stress concentration appears so that cracks may occur at the bottom of the corresponding cut groove during processing, winding, or bending (see e.g., paragraph [0143]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify inclined cutout portions of Kim, as modified by Park, to have a width of 0.5 mm or more, as taught by Park, in order to prevent stress concentration that produces cracks during processing, winding, or bending (see e.g., paragraph [0143]).
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because the width of the separation pitch overlaps with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Regarding claim 9, Kim, as modified by Park, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 7, as previously described.
Kim teaches intervals P1, P2, P3, P4, . . . between the inclined cutout portions 7 may sequentially increase from about 1 mm at the frontal end to about 4 mm at the rear end (“wherein the width W of the oblique protrusion is 1 – 5 mm”) (see e.g., paragraph [0053]).
Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Kim does not explicitly teach wherein the oblique slot comprises an oblique slot bottom, the oblique slot bottom comprising a rounded corner structure or a circular arc structure.
However, Park teaches the separation pitch includes a round portion 63c that connects the bottom portion 63a and the side 63b of the segment 61 (“wherein the oblique slot comprises an oblique slot bottom, the oblique slot bottom comprising a rounded corner structure or a circular arc structure”) (see e.g., paragraph [0367] and Figure 7b) in order to prevent cracks from occurring in the lower portion of the cut groove while the electrode is traveling in the winding process or the like (see e.g., paragraph [0368]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify inclined cutout portions of Kim, to have a round portion, as taught by Park, in order to prevent cracks from occurring in the lower portion of the cut groove while the electrode is traveling in the winding process or the like (see e.g., paragraph [0368]).
Regarding claim 11, Kim teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Kim does not explicitly teach wherein the oblique protrusion comprises an oblique protrusion top, the oblique protrusion top comprising a rounded corner structure or a circular arc structure
However, Park teaches the segment has various geometric shapes in which a dotted line connecting the bottom portions of both cut grooves is as a base (“wherein the oblique protrusion comprises an oblique protrusion top, the oblique protrusion top comprising a rounded corner structure or a circular arc structure”) (see e.g., paragraph [0453] and Figure 9) in order to apply stress distribution advantageously (see e.g., paragraph [0465]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify uncoated portions form by inclined cutout portions of Kim, to have a round portion, as taught by Park, in order to apply stress distribution advantageously (see e.g., paragraph [0465]).
Regarding claim 16, Kim teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 14, as previously described.
Kim does not explicitly teach wherein the area of a single one of the sheet-like small pieces accounts for 2 – 8 % of the area of the flat surface.
However, Park teaches the width of segment ranges from 1 mm to 11 mm and a height condition of 2 mm to 10 mm (see e.g., paragraph [0092]), thus, the area of the segment ranges from 2 to 110 mm2 in order to relieve stress as well as not block the electrolyte injection passage (see e.g., paragraph [0019]). Park teaches the electrode assemblies have a radius of 22 mm and core radius of 2 mm (see e.g., paragraph [0480] and Table 4), so the flat surface of the electrode assembly is π(20)2. Therefore, the area of a single segment to total area of the flat surface of the electrode assembly would be 0.15% to 8.75% (“wherein the area of a single one of the sheet-like small pieces accounts for 2 – 8 % of the area of the flat surface”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the area of uncoated portions form by inclined cutout portions of Kim, to account for 0.15% to 8.75% of the total area of the electrode assembly, as taught by Park, in order to relieve stress as well as not block the electrolyte injection passage (see e.g., paragraph [0019]).
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because area of the segments overlaps with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Regarding claim 17, Kim teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 14, as previously described.
Kim does not explicitly teach wherein the total area of the multiple sheet-like small pieces accounts for 40 – 90% of the area of the flat surface.
However, Park teaches a bending surface region F has a structure in which the segments 6 are overlapped in a plurality for layers in the winding axis direction (see e.g., paragraph [0475] and Figure 10b). Park teaches region 1 is a segment skip region with no segments and regions 2 and 3 are regions where winding turns containing the segments 6 are located (see e.g., paragraph [0475] and 10a) in order to improve bending uniformity and prevent cracking (see e.g., paragraph [0332]). Park teaches the electrode assemblies have a radius of 22 mm (b), a core radius of 2 mm (a), and a segment skip region of 3 mm (c) (see e.g., paragraph [0480] and Table 4); therefore, the total area of the segments is π(17)2 as compared to the area of the electrode assembly not including the core is π(20)2, thus, the total area of the segments would account for approximately 72.25% of the total area of the flat surface of the electrode assembly (“wherein the total area of the multiple sheet-like small pieces accounts for 40 – 90% of the area of the flat surface”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the area of uncoated portions form by inclined cutout portions on the surface formed by the area of the uncoated portions of Kim, to account for approximately 72.25% of the total area of the flat surface, as taught by Park, in order to improve bending uniformity and prevent cracking (see e.g., paragraph [0332]).
Regarding claim 18, Kim, as modified by Park, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 16, as previously described.
Kim teaches the battery comprises a first current collector 61 and a second current collector 62 are welded to the first uncoated regions and the second uncoated regions (“wherein it further comprises a collector plate at least partially welded to the sheet-like small piece”) (see e.g., paragraph [0109] and [0113]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chung et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 20250079530 A1) teaches an electrode assembly, wherein the electrode assembly includes an electrode with an uncoated portion and a winding turn region, wherein the winding turn region includes a cut portion and a bent portion alternately disposed along a circumferential direction of the electrode assembly (see e.g., Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Katherine N Higgins whose telephone number is (703)756-1196. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays - Thursdays 7:30-4:30 EST, Fridays 7:30 - 11:30 EST.
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, Matthew T Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/KATHERINE N HIGGINS/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights