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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 1, 2026, has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 4-20 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 1 recites the broad recitation (L-L1)/L ≤ 0.35 (i.e. L ≤ 1.53 L1), and the claim also recites 1.05 L1 ≤ L ≤ 1.2 L1, 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.
Claims 4-20 depend from claim 1 and therefore include the same indefinite limitation.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ge (CN 114024102 A; all citations refer to the English translation attached to the office action mailed October 14, 2025).
Regarding claim 1, Ge teaches a battery cell comprising an electrode body and tabs connected to the electrode body at a first side edge (first end) and the connectors (outer tab 2) at a second side edge (second end), with a bending portion between the ends of the tabs (Fig. 6 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
357
1000
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Each of the tabs has a single arc (bending portion) outside of the electrode body.
Ge does not teach that the arcs of the outermost tabs bend in opposite directions. However, changes in size and shape are not patently distinct over the prior art absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention is significant. See MPEP 2144.04 IVA-B, citing In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976), Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), and In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to bend the arcs in any direction, including opposite directions.
Ge does not disclose any particular tab length. However, the tabs of Ge are angled to reach the connection point (see Fig. 3). L is therefore greater than L1, which overlaps the ranges of the instant claims. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 19, Ge teaches that this cell is used in a battery ([0002]).
Regarding claim 20, Ge teaches that these batteries are used to power electronic devices ([0002]).
Claim(s) 4, 5, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ge as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (WO 2021/208093 A1, with reference to US 2022/0209226 A1 as a direct English translation).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Ge does not teach any particular expansion coefficient in the thickness direction. Ge teaches that the cell comprises silicon-based active material (Ge [0037]). Li teaches a silicon-based anode that avoids the deterioration problem typical of such electrodes (Li [0005]-[0008]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use the anode of Li in the battery of Ge to avoid the deterioration problem.
Li teaches that the silicon material has a volume expansion coefficient of about 3 (400% volume at full charge; Li [0005]), and that the silicon material is 0.5-50 wt% of the anode (Li [0008]). The volume expansion coefficient of the anode is therefore about 0.02 to 1.5, assuming the density of the additional components is comparable to silicon and expansion during charging is negligible. For roughly equal volume fractions of anode, cathode, and separator, the volume expansion coefficient of the electrode assembly will be about 0.01 to 0.5. The expansion coefficient in the thickness direction is therefore about 0.002 to 0.17 if expansion is uniform in every direction, or about 0.01 to 0.5 if expansion is primarily restricted to the thickness direction. So 0.002≤Ky≤0.5, which overlaps the range of the instant claim. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Ge does not teach any particular content of high expansion material. Ge teaches that the cell comprises silicon-based active material (Ge [0037]), which is a high expansion material. Li teaches a silicon-based anode that avoids the deterioration problem typical of such electrodes (Li [0005]-[0008]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use the anode of Li in the battery of Ge to avoid the deterioration problem.
Li teaches that the anode should include 0.5-50 wt% Si-based material (Li [0008]), which overlaps the range of the instant claim. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 6-11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ge in view of Li as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, as evidenced by Schmidt et al. ("Volume expansion of amorphous silicon electrodes during potentiostatic lithiation of Li-ion batteries", Electrochemistry Communications 115, 106738, June 2020).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, modified Ge does not teach any particular expansion coefficient in the length direction. Schmidt teaches that the volume expansion of silicon electrodes is primarily restricted to the thickness direction (Schmidt p. 3, first full paragraph). Expansion in the length direction will therefore necessarily be significantly smaller than the uniform expansion coefficient limit 0.17, which overlaps the ranges of the instant claims. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 8, the distance from the ends of the electrode body to the connector will necessarily decrease by some fraction of the expansion of the electrode body in the length direction, so at least one end of the battery will necessarily satisfy this equation for an appropriate value of a.
Regarding claim 9, changes in size are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over prior art (see MPEP 2144.04 IV A; In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)). A sufficiently large battery will necessarily have a length L2 within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 10, any tabs that do not break during expansion will necessarily have an elongation less than the elongation at break (K2<K1), which overlaps the range of the instant claim. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 11, the elongation of the uppermost tab will necessarily be described by this equation for b=1, since there is no slack in the prior art battery described by Ge (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 14, modified Ge does not teach any particular expansion coefficient in the length direction. Schmidt teaches that the volume expansion of silicon electrodes is primarily restricted to the thickness direction (Schmidt p. 3, first full paragraph). Expansion in the length direction will therefore necessarily be significantly smaller than the uniform expansion coefficient limit 0.17, which overlaps the ranges of the instant claims. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ge in view of Li and Schmidt as applied to claim 10 above, as evidenced by Chen et al. ("Ultralight Ionic and Electronic Conducting Current Collector with Durable Interface for High-Performance Thick Gradient Electrodes", Advanced Functional Materials 2025, e11188, June 2025).
Regarding claims 12, modified Ge does not teach any particular elongation at break. Modified Ge teaches that the tabs are copper foil (Ge [0003]). Chen teaches that typical breaking elongation of copper foil is about 1.5%, which falls within the range of the instant claim. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use a typical copper foil for the battery of modified Ge, including one with a typical breaking elongation.
Regarding claim 13, modified Ge does not teach any particular elongation. Modified Ge teaches that the tabs are copper foil (Ge [0003]). Chen teaches that typical breaking elongation of copper foil is about 1.5%, which falls within the range of the instant claim. Any tabs that do not break during expansion will necessarily have an elongation less than the elongation at break (K2<1.5), which overlaps the range of the instant claim. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ge in view of Li and Schmidt et al. as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Kapelushnik (US 2020/0066462 A1).
Regarding claim 15, modified Ge does not teach any particular relation between the anode width and separator width. Kapelushnik teaches that the separator should be wider than the electrodes to prevent short circuiting (Kapelushnik [0117]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select a separator larger than the maximum width of the anode to prevent short circuiting, or H1-(1+K3)H2>0, which overlaps the range of the instant claim. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 16, it can be seen from Fig. 3 of Ge above that the separator overhang is significantly less than the distance to the connection point (longer overhangs than those depicted would result in the tabs deflecting the separators). Since expansion is largely limited to the thickness direction, L2 is approximately equal to L1, so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select a separator overhang significantly less than L2, including values within the range of the instant claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A CORNO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-0745. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.A.C/ Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights