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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/14/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 12/19/2025 does not put the application in condition for allowance.
Examiner withdraws all rejections in the prior office action due to the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 9, 11, 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US Pub No. 2017/0092943) in view of Zhang (US Pub No. 2019/0267612) and Iwayasu (US Pub No. 2021/0336289)
Regarding Claim 1, Li et al. teaches a positive electrode plate, wherein the positive electrode plate comprises a positive electrode current collector [Aluminum foil with a thickness of 12 um, 0058], a first positive electrode membrane [First positive electrode active material, 0051
L
i
M
n
0.75
F
e
0.25
P
O
4
], and a second positive electrode membrane [second positive electrode active material, 0052,
L
i
N
i
0.80
A
l
0.05
C
o
0.15
O
2
]; wherein the first positive electrode membrane is arranged on the positive electrode current collector and comprises a first positive electrode active material, and the first positive electrode active material is selected from one or more of phosphate materials [see rejection above]
the second positive electrode membrane is arranged on the first positive electrode membrane and comprises a second positive electrode active material [see rejection above, the first and second positive electrode material, and electrode current collector are all part of the same structure and would be arranged on each other],
a gram capacity of the second positive electrode active material is greater than gram capacity of the first positive electrode active material [0019, 0026, the first positive electrode active material has a thickness of 0.5 to 100 um, and the second positive electrode active material has a thickness of 0.1-250 um] and the second positive electrode active material is different from the first positive electrode active material [see rejection above]; and thickness DO of the positive electrode current collector is less than to the thickness D1 of the first positive electrode membrane [0058, 0019, 0026].
Li et al. is silent on the second positive electrode membrane is arranged directly on the first positive electrode membrane, and D0 of the positive electrode current collector satisfies
6
u
m
≤
D
o
≤
10
u
m
Zhang et al. teaches a positive electrode for a lithium-ion battery [Abstract] which comprises a first and second active membrane directly arranged each other [Fig. 1, See 2 and 3 in figure 1, 0020]. The configuration of Zhang et al. is used to provide improved thermal stability [Abstract].
Since Li et al. teaches a battery comprising a current collector and a first and second positive electrode membrane, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the first and second positive electrode membranes of Li et al. to be directly arranged on each other as taught by Zhang et al. in order to provide a battery with improved thermal stability [Abstract].
In addition, the combination would have been merely the selection of a conventional engineering design for positive electrode plates in the art and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Within the combination above, modified Li et al. teaches a second positive electrode membrane [second positive electrode active material, 0052,
L
i
N
0.80
A
l
0.05
C
o
0.15
O
2
];
Iwayasu et al. teaches a positive electrode current collector made of aluminum with a thickness of 10 um to 100 um overlapping the claimed
6
u
m
≤
D
o
≤
10
u
m
Since modified Li et al. teaches the use of positive electrode current collector made of aluminum, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the thickness of the aluminum positive electrode current collector of modified Liu et al. with the thickness as taught by Iwayasu et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
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 reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976);
Within the combination above, modified Li et al. teaches a first positive electrode material has a thickness of 0.5 to 100 um, and the second positive electrode active material has a thickness of 0.1-250 um, and the electrode current collector has a thickness of 10-100 um.
Modified Li et al. provides a range for the thickness of the first and second positive electrode layer which overlaps the limitation of gram capacity of the second positive electrode active material is greater than gram capacity of the first positive electrode active material, and thickness DO of the positive electrode current collector is less than or equal to thickness D1 of the first positive electrode membrane.
Modified Li et al. teaches a thickness of D0 of the positive electrode current collector of 10-100 um [See rejection above].
Modified Li et al. teaches a thickness of D1 of the first electrode membrane with a thickness of 0.5 to 100 um [0019] overlapping the claimed 11 um to 21 um, and a thickness D2 of the second electrode membrane with a thickness of 0.1 um to 250 um [0026] overlapping the claimed 100 um to 200 um.
Li et al. teaches all the structural limitations of the claim; therefore, it is the view of the examiner, based on the teaching of modified Li et al., has a reasonable basis to believe that the claimed properties are inherently possessed by the structure of Li et al. meeting the limitation of “wherein elongation at break
δ
of the positive electrode current collector satisfies
0.8
%
≤
δ
≤
4
%
”
Since the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to applicants to show otherwise. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
Within the combination above, modified Li et al. teaches wherein the thickness of D0 as 10-100 um and a thickness D1 of 0.5 to 100 um [See rejection above].
Li et al. teaches all the structural limitations of the claim; therefore, it is the view of the examiner, based on the teaching of Li et al., has a reasonable basis to believe that the claimed properties are inherently possessed by the structure of Li et al. meeting the limitation of “
D
1
≥
1
+
δ
*
D
0
”
Since the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to applicants to show otherwise. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 3, within the combination above, modified Li et al. teaches D2-D1 is within the range of 70 to 170 um [See rejection of claim 2].
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 reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)
Regarding Claim 9, within the combination above, modified Li et al. teaches a thickness of D1 of the first electrode membrane with a thickness of 0.5 to 100 um [0019], and a thickness D2 of the second electrode membrane with a thickness of 0.1 um to 250 um [0026].
As the reactor cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the mass of the first positive electrode active material, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the mass of the first positive electrode active material is changed, the precise the mass of the first positive electrode active material would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein mass of the first positive electrode active material is 5% of total mass of the first positive electrode membrane.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the mass of the first positive electrode active material in the structure of Li et al. to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (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).
Regarding Claim 11, within the combination above, modified Li et al. teaches wherein the first positive electrode membrane further comprises a first conductive agent and a first binder, wherein mass of the first binder is 0.5 to 20% overlapping the claimed above 1% of total mass of the first positive electrode membrane [0029, 0.5 to 20%], and mass of the first conductive agent is 0.5 to 18% overlapping the claimed above 2% of the total mass of the first positive electrode membrane [0030, 0.5 to 18%]
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 reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976);
Regarding Claim 13, within the combination above, modified Li et al. teaches wherein the first positive electrode membrane is arranged on one or two surfaces of the positive electrode current collector [0051, 0058, the first and second positive electrode material, and electrode current collector are all part of the same structure and would be arranged on each other].
Regarding Claim 14, within the combination above, modified Li et al. teaches wherein the first positive electrode membrane is arranged on two surfaces of the positive electrode current collector [0051, 0058, the first and second positive electrode material, and electrode current collector are all part of the same structure and would be arranged on each other].
Regarding Claim 15, within the combination above, modified Li et al. teaches wherein mass of the second positive electrode active material is 97% of total mass of the second positive electrode membrane [Table 3 shows the second active layer comprises conductive agent and binder, the conductive agent can be 2 to 15% of the material layer, 0031, and the bind can be 1 to 5% of the material layer, 0029].
Regarding Claim 16, within the combination above, modified Li et al. teaches wherein the first positive electrode membrane further comprises a first conductive agent and a first binder, wherein mass of the first binder is 0.5 to 20% overlapping the claimed above 1% of total mass of the first positive electrode membrane [0029, 0.5 to 20%], and mass of the first conductive agent is 0.5 to 18% overlapping the claimed above 2% of the total mass of the first positive electrode membrane [0030, 0.5 to 18%]
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 reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976);
Regarding Claim 19, within the combination above, modified Li et al. teaches a lithium ion battery, wherein the lithium ion battery comprises the positive electrode plate according to claim 1 [Abstract].
Regarding Claim 20, within the combination above, modified Li et al. teaches an apparatus, wherein a power source or storage source of the apparatus is the lithium battery according to claim 19 [Abstract].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3, 9, 11, 13-16, and 19-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL Y SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-0557. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-7PM.
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 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.
/MICHAEL Y SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728