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 .
Remarks
Claim 1 has been amended, claims 7-9 have been canceled, claims 2 and 18-20 are as previously presented. Claim 21 is newly added. Claims 1-2 and 18-21 are currently examined.
Status of objections and rejections
The rejection below has been necessitated by the applicant’s amendments.
Claim Analysis
In the interview granted on 02/25/25 and on pages 6-7 of the applicant’s remarks filed on 02/28/2025 the applicant clarified that the variables CW, T1, T2, and W used in the equations claimed by the applicant are to be “…defined as numerical values. The specific units serve only to establish numerical values and do not affect the equation themselves.” (page 7 lines 1-3). The equation parameters are clear.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (US20050214647A1) and Zhang (US20190002283A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka discloses an electrode sheet (“plate”) [0008, Tanaka], comprising: a current collector (16) [0066, fig. 1, Tanaka], wherein a functional coating area (18) is provided on at least one surface of the current collector [0066-0069, fig. 1, 6-7, and 9-10, Tanaka], the functional coating comprises a functional area (18) and an extension area (18a) [0079-0081, fig. 1, 6-7, and 9-10, Tanaka], the extension area extends from the functional area to the edge of the electrode [0079-0080, fig. 1, 6-7, and 9-10, Tanaka], a minimum thickness of the extension area is greater than 0 and a maximum thickness of the extension area is less than a thickness D2 ("T1”) µm of the functional area [fig. 1, 6-7, and 9-10, Tanaka]; wherein the extension area is adjacent to the functional area and the edge of the electrode plate [fig. 1, 6-7, and 9-10, Tanaka], wherein a width W mm of the extension area [0084, fig. 1 and 6, Tanaka], measured from a boundary between the extension area and the functional area to a boundary between the extension area and the edge of the electrode plate [0084, fig. 1 and 6, Tanaka], ranges from 0.01 mm to 1 mm [0084, Tanaka’s disclosed range overlaps with the applicant’s claimed range of 0.1-0.5 mm].
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 (see MPEP 2144.05).
PNG
media_image1.png
345
997
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 1 of Tanaka depicting “T1” and “T2” and the extension area.
Tanaka further teaches the thickness T1 µm of the functional area is an even thickness [fig. 1, 6-7, and 9-10, Tanaka]; wherein at least one of the following conditions is satisfied: the thickness T1 µm of the functional area ranges from 50 µm to 150 µm [0078, 0189, Tanaka].
The examiner notes the following in regards to the following claim limitation regarding the thickness ratio of T2 and T1 being between 0.6≤T2/T1≤0.7. Tanaka discloses the maximum thickness (D2, “T1”) of the active material layer (18) ranging from 80-150 µm and provides an explicit example where D2 is 130 µm [0078, 0189, Tanaka’s disclosed range anticipates the applicant’s claimed range of 50-150 µm].
Tanaka further teaches that a ratio of the of D1/D2 is 0.01-0.4 [0034-0035, Tanaka]. While Tanaka does not explicitly disclose a “T2” height they do provide enough information to determine “T2” which would simply be D2-D1. One of ordinary skill within the arts would understand that if D2 (“T1”) is 130 µm as disclosed in example 1 [0189, Tanaka], then a T2 exists such that a ratio of T2/T1 ranges from 0.6-0.7.
For clarity of the record, considering the applicant’s lexicography and with the above discussion in mind, the examiner notes that Tanaka’s range would equate to a ratio of 0.6≤T2/T1≤0.99.
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 (see MPEP 2144.05).
In regards to the non-coating area that is adjacent to the extension area such that the electrode plate forms a functional coating area -> an extension area -> a non-coating area. Tanaka discloses that one may form an electrode in which an external output terminal/lead part may be formed in a one-piece construction of the electrode [0122, Tanaka]. Tanaka notes that this may be accomplished by having an edge part of the surface of the collector which is exposed (“non-coating area”) [0122, Tanaka]. Such that only the center of the current collector is coated with a coating solution allowing for an exposed edge portion (“non-coating area”) that may function as a lead [0122, Tanaka].
Finally, Tanaka discloses that the active material layer (“functional coating layer”) of the negative electrode may be graphite, conductive carbons, and silicon [0072, Tanaka], while the positive active material layer may be LCO, NMC, or LFP [0073, Tanaka].
Tanaka is explicitly silent to an electrode plate being a negative electrode plate that satisfies T1 x CW=A x W x T2/T1; or the electrode plate is a positive electrode plate that satisfies T1 x CW=B x W x T2/T1; wherein T1 is the thickness of the functional area, measured in µm; T2 is the minimum thickness of the extension area, measured in µm; W is a width of the extension area in a direction from the functional area to the non-coating area, measured in mm; CW is a surface density of the functional area, measured in mg/1540.25 mm2; A is a numerical value greater than or equal to 10 and less than or equal to 35; and B is a numerical value greater than or equal to 20 and less than or equal to 60.
However, Zhang discloses an electrically conductive carbon nanotube sheet capable of being stretched to be meters long and self-supporting during drawing (without breaking). The areal density of 2.7 µg/cm2, 2.7*10-5 mg/mm2 [0725-0726, Zhang]. When converted into the units presented by the applicant, the carbon nanotube sheet has an areal density of 0.04 mg/1540.25 mm2.
The work of Tanaka and Zhang are analogous as both present work that may be beneficial for the construction of electrodes used for energy storage applications [0008-0018, Tanaka and 0060, Zhang]. Tanaka teaches that electrically-conductive material, such as electrically-conductive carbon, may be used in electrode manufacturing [0070-0072, Tanaka]. Zhang teaches that electrically-conductive carbon-tubes, a genus of electrically-conductive carbon, may be used in the manufacturing of electrodes [0725-0726, Zhang].
Furthermore, the examiner notes that carbon-tubes of Zhang are wrapped graphite sheets [0292, Zhang].
In regards to 1), prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to further modify Tanaka such that the electrode functional area comprises the highly oriented carbon nanotubes disclosed by Zhang [0725-0726, Zhang]. Doing so would provide an electrically-conductive electrode capable of expanding without breaking [0725-0726, Zhang].
The examiner notes that Tanaka as presently modified teaches an overlapping ranges of the claimed equation. For clarity and simplicity the examiner will be considering examples where constants A and B overlap, specifically between points 20 and 35; for T2/T1 = 0.6 and 0.7 (end points of claim 1); and T1 = 130 (used by Tanaka).
The applicants claimed equation of T1 x CW=A x W x T2/T1 is satisfied when
T1 = 130; T2 = 78; W = 0.43; CW = 0.04; A or B = 20.16 then the claimed equation becomes 130(0.04) = 20.16(0.43)(0.6) = 5.2
T1 = 130; T2 = 78; W = 0.25; CW = 0.04; A or B = 34.67 then the claimed equation becomes 130(0.04) = 34.67(0.25)(0.6) = 5.2
T1 = 130; T2 = 91; W = 0.37; CW = 0.04; A or B = 20.07 then the claimed equation becomes 130(0.04) = 20.07(0.37)(0.7) = 5.2
T1 = 130; T2 = 91; W = 0.22; CW = 0.04; A or B = 33.77 then the claimed equation becomes 130(0.04) = 33.77(0.22)(0.7) = 5.2
The examiner notes that additional examples between these endpoints exists that also satisfy the applicant’s claimed equation.
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 (see MPEP 2144.05).
In regards to 2), prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to further modify Tanaka such that T1 = 130 µm, T2 ranged between 78-91 µm, and W ranged from 0.22-0.43 mm. When an edge region of the active material region is within the listed regions one may obtain an electrode with improved mechanical strength resistant to chipping and peeling along with sufficient volumetric capacity [0031, 0033, 0035, 0110-0111, Tanaka].
Regarding claim 18, modified Tanaka discloses an electrochemical apparatus comprising the electrode plate of claim 1 [0131, 0172, Tanaka].
Regarding claim 19, modified Tanaka discloses an electronic apparatus comprising an electrochemical apparatus [0004, Tanaka].
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Tanaka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dai (CN 105742565 A).
Regarding claim 2, modified Tanaka discloses the electrode plate, wherein the non-coating area comprises at least one of a naked foil area located on a side of the functional coating [0067, 0122, Tanaka discloses a metal foil which may comprise an exposed surface area at the edge portion].
Tanaka is silent on the use of grooves provided in the functional coating that exposes the surface of the current collector and where at least two side faces of the groves are the functional coating.
However, Dai discloses the electrode plate where a groove provided in the functional coating [0013, 0024, 0029-0030, 0048-0049, fig. 1-5, Dai] and the groove exposes a surface of the current collector [0013, 0024, 0029-0030, 0048-0049, fig. 1-5, Dai], wherein a bottom face of the groove is the current collector, and at least two side faces of the groove are the functional coating [0013, 0024, 0029-0030, 0048-0049, fig. 1-5, Dai].
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add grooves in the electrode plate to expose the surface of the current collector as this provides a reserved position for embedding a pole lug, pole ear, or pole tab [abstract, 0012, 0024, 0048, 0049].
Claim 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Tanaka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Han (CN101662011A, previously cited 08/29/2024).
Regarding claim 21, modified Tanaka is silent to T2 ranging from 10-20 µm.
However, Han discloses an electrode plate with an electrode active material containing a first thickness region (“T1”) and a second thickness region (“T2”) [abstract, Han], wherein the first thickness region is thicker than the second thickness region [abstract, Han]. Han notes that the thickness range of the first thickness region has a lower endpoint of 20 µm while the thickness range of the second thickness region has a lower endpoint of 10 µm [0027, Han].
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 (see MPEP 2144.05).
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Tanaka such that T2 was between 10-20 µm. This is a known lower endpoint for a minimum thickness of an electrode active material [0027, Han].
For clarity of the record, the examiner notes that the equation (T1 x CW=A x W x T2/T1) of claim 1 is still satisfied when T2 is within the above range. For instance, T1 = 20; T2 = 13; W = 0.1; CW = 0.04; A = 12.3 then the claimed equation becomes 20(0.04) = 12.3(0.1)(0.65) = 0.8.
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 (see MPEP 2144.05).
Response to arguments
Applicants arguments filed on 05/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons listed below.
Applicant argues the following:
PNG
media_image2.png
128
722
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The arguments of “not electrode active materials” is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Claim 1 does not require that the functional coating be an “active material” the only material requirements are that the functional coating be one of graphite, MCMB, hard/soft carbon, silicon, or silicon-carbon compound. The examiner notes that the carbon nanotubes are wrapped graphite sheets [0292, Zhang]. As such the teachings of Zhang read on the applicant’s claimed limitations
Next applicant argues that Zhang does not define CW as surface density nor do they teach the explicit equation of claim 1. The examiner notes that:
1) surface density (CW) is the measure of mass/area (e.g. mg/mm2), this variable is taught be Zhang as noted in the rejection of claim 1.
2) The prior art is not required to explicitly disclose the equation of the instant invention
"[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999), see MPEP 2112.I.
There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003), see MPEP 2112.II.
Next applicant argues there is no motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The applicant’s arguments have not addressed the motivation outlined by the examiner.
Applicant then argues the criticality of their data presented in Table 1 and 2. The examiner notes that the applicant’s arguments and data are not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Claim 1 requires that the ratio of T2/T1 range form 0.6-0.7. The examiner notes that none of the data present in Tables 1 or T2 feature this relationship. Additionally, claim 1 requires the width of the extension area to be 0.1-0.5 mm. None of the data in Table 1 or 2 feature these widths. As such, the data presented and argued by the applicant is not persuasive in demonstrating the alleged improve features of the invention outlined in claim 1.
As such the examiner maintains their rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tanaka (US20150132659A1) teaches of an electrode plate with a first thickness tapered down to a second thickness, wherein the width of the tapered region is 0.1-0.5 mm. Matsui (US20200112064A1, previously cited but still relevant) teaches of an electrode with a first and second thickness and a tapered region connecting to the two wherein the shape of the tapered region is a preference of the manufacturer.
Sheng (US20220085361A1), Zhao (US20200091558A1) and Wang (US20210050617A1) teach of common positive and negative electrode active materials with CW that can satisfy applicant’s equation.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUINTIN DALE ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-5423. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6pm (MST).
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached on 5712705256. 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.
/Q.D.E./
Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights