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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/22/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 16 recites “wherein during the forming an interface between the electrode active material layer and the resistance layer includes a slope based on a discharge order of the electrode slurry and the resistance layer, wherein the slope is perpendicular to the current collector, defines a shape of the resistance layer extending into a bottom of the electrode active material layer, or defines a shape of the electrode active material layer extending into a bottom of the resistance layer.” The instant specification states the following:
“In addition, in Fig. 13, the interface between the electrode active material layer(120) and the resistance layer(130) is illustrated perpendicular to the current collector. Said interface may have a slope as per the discharge order of the electrode slurry and the resistance layer composition. For example, if the resistance layer composition is discharged earlier than the electrode slurry, one end of the electrode active material layer covers one end of the resistance layer as the resistance layer forms relatively earlier on the current collector. In this case, a slope may be formed in a shape of the resistance layer cutting into the bottom of the electrode active material layer. If the electrode slurry is discharged earlier than the resistance layer composition, a slope may be formed in a shape of the electrode active material layer cutting into the bottom of the resistance layer as the electrode active material layer forms relatively earlier on the current collector,” see Pg17/4th paragraph.
From the passage above, having a perpendicular slope to the current appears to be a distinct embodiment from having a cutting into type slope based on if the electrode slurry or resistance layer is discharged earlier. It is the Examiners position that the scope of the limitations of amended Claim 16 is not supported by the instant specification.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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.
Claim 6 and 16 is 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 6 recites the broad recitation “the width of one of the resistance layers ranges from 1% to 20% of a width of the electrode active material layer”, and the claim (because it depends on Claim 1) also recites “the width of one of the resistance layers ranges from 1% to 5% of a width of the electrode active material layer” 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 16 recites “wherein during the forming an interface between the electrode active material layer and the resistance layer includes a slope based on a discharge order of the electrode slurry and the resistance layer, wherein the slope is perpendicular to the current collector, defines a shape of the resistance layer extending into a bottom of the electrode active material layer, or defines a shape of the electrode active material layer extending into a bottom of the resistance layer.” It is unclear what the metes and bounds of Claim 16 are because it is not clear what is required to meet the claim. The 4th paragraph on page 17 (see above) of the instant specification discusses the slope based on discharge order, however, it does not provide a standard for ascertaining the method steps and recited structure required by the claim, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is also unclear how the slope which is perpendicular to the current collector defines a shape that extends into the bottom of the electro active material layer/ resistance layer.
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) 1-8, 10-12, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (KR-20170094920-A with citations from provided translation) in view of Mimura (US-20210210761-A1), Yamada et al. (US-20200328424-A1), Haga et al. (US-20200313229-A1), and Li (US-20220416246-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kang teaches:
A manufacturing method for an electrode comprising (manufacturing an electrode, see Kang, [0015]):
forming an electrode active material layer and a resistance layer (the first electrode component 141 and a second electrode component 142, which is an insulating material, see Kang, [0118]),
Kang teaches the insulation layer that is made with a resin, see [0061]. Kang is does not teach:
by applying a resistance layer composition including inorganic additives,
To solve the same problem of providing an insulating layer 36 at a boundary position of an active electrode material layer (see Abstract and Fig. 2), Yamada teaches the insulation layer comprises a mixture of a resin binder and inorganic filler, see [0030]-[0032]. Yamada further teaches inclusion of the inorganic filler provides heat resistance, insulating properties, and increase penetration strength, see [0031].
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have included inorganic fillers in the insulation layer of Kang in order to provide heat resistance, insulating properties, and increase penetration strength.
Kang further teaches:
and an electrode slurry; including an electrode active material, on a current collector (a first electrode component 141 is an electrode active material slurry on one surface of a current collector, see [0118]);
Kang teaches noting the electrode tabs prior to applying the insulating material, see [0126]. Therefore, Kang does not teach:
drying the current collector on which the electrode active material layer and the resistance layer are formed; and forming the electrode, including forming an electrode tab at one end of the electrode by notching the dried current collector,
To solve the same problem of applying an insulating layer at a boundary between the active material layer and the active material layer non-formation portion (see Abstract and Fig. 2), Mimura teaches coating the active material layer and insulating layer, drying the slurries, then cutting the electrode pieces including electrode tabs, see [0110]-[0113] and Fig. 8a. The disclosure of Mimura teaches that the method of his invention is a conventional and successful method of cutting electrode tabs after drying the active material and insulating material, which is the goal of the cutting step of Kang.
Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed would have had a reasonable expectation of success in preparing the cut electrodes of modified Kang via the method of Mimura.
Kang further teaches:
wherein the forming the electrode active material layer and the resistance layer is performed by one slot die in which two discharge ports are formed, (the electrode coating apparatus includes a slot die structure with a first coating portion and the second coating portion and is shown in Figs. 5 and 6 to have at least two discharge ports, see also [0022]).
Kang does not teach:
and wherein a first solvent used in the resistance layer composition is different than a second solvent used in the electrode slurry.
To solve the same problem of providing a method for producing an electrode body which can be done with a die coater (see Abstract and [0046]), Haga teaches providing a slurry for an electrode layer with a butyl butyrate solvent and the slurry for the insulating layer with a mesitylene solvent, see [0108] and [0111]. Haga further teaches these solvents are suitable to act as a dispersion mediums for slurries of the electrode layer and insulating layers, see [0108] and [0111].
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have used a slurry for an electrode layer with a butyl butyrate solvent and the slurry for the insulating layer with a mesitylene solvent for the solvents of Kang because Haga teaches these are suitable dispersion mediums.
Kang is silent toward:
and wherein the width of one of the resistance layers ranges from 1% to 5% of a width of the electrode active material layer.
To solve the same problem of providing an electrode plate which includes a insulation layer (see Abstract), Li teaches balancing the considerations of having a large enough width of the insulation layer to be effective at preventing voltage drop failure while keeping the width small enough to not have a significant reduction in the energy density of the electrode assembly, see [0090]. This disclosure teaches that the width of the applied insultation material is a result effective variable that controls preventing voltage drop failure and the energy density of the electrode assembly.
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have optimized the width of the applied insultation material to balance the considerations of having a large enough width of the insulation layer to be effective at preventing voltage drop failure while keeping the width small enough to not have a significant reduction in the energy density of the electrode assembly.
It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at the claimed “and wherein the width of one of the resistance layers ranges from 1% to 5% of a width of the electrode active material layer,” without undue experimentation.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Kang in view of Yamada teaches an insulation layer comprises a mixture of a resin binder and inorganic filler, see Yamada [0030]-[0032]. Yamada further teaches the providing the binder constituent in an amount of 1-30 mass % and, thereby, an amount of 70-99% inorganic filler which overlaps with the claimed ranges, see [0032]. Yamada further teaches this composition aids in the suppression of short circuits, see [0033].
Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I). Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping ranges for the composition because Yamada teaches this a suitable composition to aid the suppression of short circuits.
Regarding Claim 3, Figs. 7 and 8 of Kang teach:
wherein during the forming the electrode active material layer and the resistance layer, the resistance layer is formed in two rows adjacent to opposite ends of the electrode active material layer based on a width direction of the current collector.
Regarding Claim 4, Fig. 8 of Kang teaches:
wherein a thickness of the resistance layer is the same with a thickness of the electrode active material layer.
It is the Examiner's position that it would have been obvious to have the thicknesses be the same because that is because that appears to be the desired configuration shown in the Figs. 7 and 8.
Alternatively, assuming arguendo that Kang is silent toward the thickness of the deposited insulating layer, it is the Examiner's position that it would have been obvious to have the thicknesses the insulating layers relative to the electrode active layer of modified Kang be (1) the same or (2) different because this represents a finite number of predictable solutions for the relative thicknesses the insulating layers.
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date would have selected any of these thicknesses with the reasonable expectation of success, including having the widths be the same, because the relative thicknesses represent a finite list of options.
Regarding Claim 5, Kang is silent toward:
wherein a width of one of the resistance layers formed adjacent to opposite ends of the electrode active material layer is shorter than a width of another one of the resistance layers.
To solve the same problem of providing insulation layers to prevent short circuits (see [0013]), Haga teaches insulation layers that have differing widths with respect to each other, see [0100]. The disclosure of Haga teaches that providing insulation layers with differing widths is a conventional and successful method, see [0100].
Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed would have had a reasonable expectation of success in preparing the cut electrodes of modified Kang via the method of Haga.
Regarding Claim 6, Kang is silent toward:
wherein the width of one of the resistance layers is 1 to 20wt% of the width of the electrode active material layer.
To solve the same problem of providing an electrode plate which includes a insulation layer (see Abstract), Li teaches balancing the considerations of having a large enough width of the insulation layer to be effective at preventing voltage drop failure while keeping the width small enough to not have a significant reduction in the energy density of the electrode assembly, see [0090]. This disclosure teaches that the width of the applied insultation material is a result effective variable that controls preventing voltage drop failure and the energy density of the electrode assembly.
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have optimized the width of the applied insultation material to balance the considerations of having a large enough width of the insulation layer to be effective at preventing voltage drop failure while keeping the width small enough to not have a significant reduction in the energy density of the electrode assembly.
It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at the claimed “wherein the width of one of the resistance layers is 1 to 20wt% of the width of the electrode active material layer,” without undue experimentation.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Kang shows that the electrode tab is formed of at least a non-coated part of the current collector, see Fig. 11.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Kang in view of Haga is silent toward:
wherein the electrode tab is formed at the non-coated part adjacent to the resistance layer with the shorter width direction length among resistance layers.
The teachings of Haga indicate it is convention and successful to have insulation layers that have differing widths with respect to each other, see [0100]. The placement of the wider and shorter insulating layers of modified Kang represents a problem with a finite number of predictable potential solutions, namely, to have 1) the wider insulation layer adjacent to the current collector section where the electrode tabs are notched or 2) the wider section not on the adjacent side of the current collector section where the electrode tabs are notched. It is the Examiners position that either of the presented predictable solution are obvious.
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention have pursued the presented known potential solution of having the wider insulation layer adjacent to the current collector section where the electrode tabs are notched with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 10, Kang teaches:
wherein the width of one of the resistance layers formed adjacent to opposite ends of the electrode active material layer is the same as the width of another one of the resistance layers (all examples of the Kang show the insulating layers as being the same width, see Figs. 7 ang 8).
It is the Examiner's position that it would have been obvious to have the widths be the same because that appears to be the desired configuration shown in the Figs. 7 and 8.
Alternatively, assuming arguendo that Kang is silent toward the width of the deposited insulating layer, it is the Examiner's position that it would have been obvious to have the widths the insulating layers of modified Kang be (1) the same or (2) different because this represents a finite number of predictable solutions for the widths the insulating layers.
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date would have selected any of these widths with the reasonable expectation of success, including having the widths be the same, because the relative widths represent a finite list of options.
Regarding Claim 12, Kang teaches in Fig. 11:
wherein non-coated parts are formed on the exterior of the resistance layer based on the width direction of the current collector and the electrode tab is formed at one of the non-coated parts.
Regarding Claim 17, Kang in view of Yamada does necessarily teach that the inorganic filler comprises any of the following:
wherein the inorganic additives include magnesium oxide, calcium carbonate, or any combination thereof.
However, Yamada teaches the inorganic filler can suitably be magnesium oxide (i.e. magnesia), see [0031].
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have used magnesia as the inorganic filler, because Yamada teaches this is a suitable material for the inorganic filler.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (KR-20170094920-A with citations from provided translation) in view of Mimura (US-20210210761-A1), Yamada et al. (US-20200328424-A1), and Haga et al. (US-20200313229-A1), as applied to claim 5 above and in further view of Wang et al. (WO2018099168A1 with citation from the provided translation).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Kang is silent toward:
wherein during the forming the electrode, the current collector is notched in a way that the resistance layer with a longer width direction length among resistance layers has the same width direction length with another resistance layer.
To solve the same problem of providing an insulating layer on the edge of an active material layer to prevent short circuits (see Pg3/L19-25), Wang teaches applying an insulator layer at the edge of an active material layer that extends some amount onto the tab/lug, see Fig. 8 and Pg5/L53-60-Pg6L1-4. As rendered obvious above, Mimura teaches drying then cutting the insulator layer. Wang further teaches that having some amount extent onto the tab/lug aides in preventing short circuits from burrs produced during the cutting process, see Pg5/L53-60-Pg6L1-4.
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have extended the insulator layer onto the tab of Kang as taught Wang prior to cutting as rendered obvious by Mimura in order to preventing short circuits from burrs produced during the cutting process.
Modified Kang above is silent toward “is notched in a way that the resistance layer with a longer width direction length among resistance layers has the same width direction length with another resistance layer.”
However, end width of the insulating layers of modified Kang post cutting/notching represents a problem with a finite number of predictable potential solutions, namely, to have 1) the resulting insulating layer are the same widths or 2) the insulating layers are different width. It is the Examiners position that either of the presented predictable solution are obvious.
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention have pursued the presented known potential solution of having the cut/notched insulating layer have the same width with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (KR-20170094920-A with citations from provided translation) in view of Mimura (US-20210210761-A1), Yamada et al. (US-20200328424-A1), and Haga et al. (US-20200313229-A1), as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Lee et al. (US-20140023921-A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Kang does not teach:
wherein the slot die has a structure of a first block, a second block, and a third block, which are consecutively fastened, a first discharge port is formed at an interface between the first block and the second block through which the electrode slurry is discharged, a second discharge port is formed at an interface between the second block and the third block through which the resistance layer composition is discharged.
To solve the same problem of using a slot die to apply two slurry coatings in order to prepare an electrode (see [0061]), Lee teaches a slot die that has three blocks as shown in the annotated Fig. 2 below is a convention a successful structure for applying two slurries from a slot die.
Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed would have had a reasonable expectation of success in using a slot die structure toward the application of slurry coatings using the slot die of Lee.
PNG
media_image1.png
775
1510
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (KR-20170094920-A with citations from provided translation) in view of Mimura (US-20210210761-A1) and Yamada et al. (US-20200328424-A1), as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Otohata (JP-2016186945-A with citations from provided translation)
Regarding Claim 16, Kang does not teach:
wherein during the forming an interface between the electrode active material layer and the resistance layer includes a slope based on a discharge order of the electrode slurry and the resistance layer.
wherein the slope is perpendicular to the current collector, defines a shape of the resistance layer extending into a bottom of the electrode active material layer, or defines a shape of the electrode active material layer extending into a bottom of the resistance layer.
To solve the same problem of manufacturing an electrode sheet using a die coater (see [0019]), Otohata teaches depositing the insulating material slurry 7A before the active material slurry 6A with some overlap between the insulating material slurry 7A before the active material slurry 6A, see [0036]. This teaches and is show in Fig. 3B to have at least have a slope that is perpendicular to the current collector 5 and is “the resistance layer extending into a bottom of the electrode active material layer”.
The disclosure of Otohata teaches that the method of his invention is a conventional and successful method of depositing an insulating material slurry 7A and the active material slurry 6A via a die coater, which is the goal of modified Kang.
Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed would have had a reasonable expectation of success in preparing the insulating material layer and electrode active material layer of modified Kang via the method of Otohata.
The modification of Kang in view of Otohata results in an interface of the electrode active material layer and the resistance layer that has at least a slope perpendicular to the current collector.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered and are addressed below:
Claim rejections under 35 USC § 112b
The attempt to clarify Claim 16 is appreciated. After review of the amendments to Claim 16, it is respectfully maintained that independent Claim 1 remains indefinite for the reasons given above.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments in light of the amendments of independent Claim 1, see with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-13 and 16-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Li (US 20220416246 A1) as given above.
The Examiner indicated in the interview mailed 05/27/2025 that the included subject matter in the amendment to new Claim 17 appears to overcome the prior art of record. However, after further consideration the cited art of Yamada, which was relied upon to reject as a secondary reference for Claims 1-10, 13 and 16, discuses using magnesia (i.e., magnesium oxide) as in inorganic filler as given above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kayla E Clary whose telephone number is (571)272-2854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00 (PT).
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, Allison Bourke can be reached on 303-297-4684. 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.
/K.E.C./
Kayla E. ClaryExaminer, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721