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. Claims 1-2 and 18-20 are currently examined.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/05/2026 has been entered.
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).
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 a thickness of the extension area is substantially unchanged in the direction from the functional area to the edge of the electrode plate [0125, fig. 9, Tanaka]; wherein 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.
Given a ratio of D1/D2 = 0.4 then D1/130 µm = 0.4 provides a D1 of 52 µm which provides a “T2” = 130 µm - 52 µm = 78 µm. The examiner notes that 78/130 = T2/T1 = 0.6.
Furthermore, a ratio of D1/D2 = 0.3 then D1/130 µm = 0.3 provides a D1 = 39 µm which provides a “T2” = 130 µm - 39 µm = 91 µm. The examiner notes that 91/130 = T2/T1 = 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].
Regarding claim 18, Tanaka discloses an electrochemical apparatus comprising the electrode plate of claim 1 [0131, 0172, Tanaka].
Regarding claim 19, 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 Tanaka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dai (CN 105742565 A).
Regarding claim 2, 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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang (US20190002283A1).
Regarding claim 20, Applicant claims an electrode plate is 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.
Tanaka discloses a specific example wherein T1 = 130 µm and provides and overlapping range where the thickness ratio is 0.6≤T2/T1≤0.99 and the W ranges from 0.01 mm to 1 mm.
Tanaka is explicitly silent to 1) CW is a surface density of the functional area and 2) a formula equating T1 x CW=A x W x T2/T1 or T1 x CW=B x W x T2/T1.
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/cm2 [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]
In regards to 1), prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to further modify Dudley such that the electrode functional area is the 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].
Response to arguments
Applicants arguments filed on 02/04/26 and 01/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons listed below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
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.
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