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 .
Status of claims
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 09/17/2025 have been fully considered.
Claim 1 has been amended; claims 2, 8, 13-16 and 18-20 remain as originally or previously presented. Claims 3-7, 9-12, and 17 remain withdrawn.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection set forth in the office action dated 06/17/2025 has been withdrawn. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 13-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US20200144595A1 cited in IDS filed 01/22/2025) in view of Su et al. (US20200144605A1 cited in IDS filed 01/22/2025)
PNG
media_image1.png
623
1560
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Lin FIG. 4B
Regarding claim 1, Lin discloses a positive electrode plate (“cathode”), wherein the positive electrode plate comprises a positive-electrode current collector 11 ([0044], FIG. 4B), a functional layer 12, 13 (“first, second cathode active material layer” [0046]), and a first safety coating 24 (“insulating layer”, FIG. 4B, [0047]),
wherein both an upper surface and a lower surface of the positive-electrode current collector comprise a first coating area 41, 42, 43 and a second coating area (“cathode active material layer covering region”, see Annotated Lin FIG. 4B above [0046]), and the first coating area 41, 42, 43 is provided with the first safety coating 24 ([0047]), the second coating area is provided with the functional layer 12, 13, and the functional layer sequentially comprises a second safety coating 12 (“first cathode active material layer”, [0046]) and a positive-electrode active layer 13 (“second cathode active material layer”) in a direction away from the positive-electrode current collector (FIG. 4B).
While Lin does not necessarily require complete coverage of the positive electrode current collector surface by the first safety coating to improve safety performance of the battery during a nail piercing test ([0054], [0142]), and discloses considerations of preventing damage to the functional layer during a cold pressing step of the electrode ([0051]), Lin fails to disclose the use of a spacing set between the functional layer and the first safety coating to do so.
Su, directed to a similar positive electrode plate comprising a functional layer 12, 13 (“cathode active material layer”) and an analogous first safety coating 14 (“insulating layer”) to improve safety performance during a penetration test ([0034], [0041], FIG. 2), teaches providing a spacing 15, 16 (“first, second distance”) set between the functional layer 12, 13 and the first safety coating 14 to prevent rupture of an active material in the functional layer during cold pressing, improving reliability of the positive electrode ([0041])
Thus, in seeking to improve the reliability of Lin’s positive electrode plate and to prevent damage to active materials in the functional layer during cold pressing, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to provide a spacing set between the functional layer and safety coating as taught by Su. Such a modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as Su teaches performing this modification in a substantially similar positive electrode plate configuration without any change to a respective function of the functional layer or the first safety coating.
Regarding claim 15, modified Lin discloses a lithium-ion battery, wherein the lithium-ion battery comprises the positive electrode plate according to claim 1 (Lin FIG. 3B, [0044]).
Regarding claims 2 and 16, modified Lin discloses the positive electrode plate and lithium-ion battery according to claims 1 and 15, wherein the first safety coating 24 comprises an inorganic particle. Lin provides experimental examples of the particles using Al2O3 (Lin pp. 12-13, Table 1).
Furthermore, Lin discloses a finite list of suitable inorganic particles including Al2O3, NiO, SiO2, TiO2, ZnO, ZrO2, Y2O3, SiC, CeP2, SnO2, Al(OH3), Mg(OH)2, Ca(OH)2, Ba2(SO4), and γ-AlOOH (“boehmite”) and combinations thereof (i.e., Al2O3.MgO, Al2O3/ZnO) inter alia (Lin [0055]). The skilled artisan would necessarily select at least some form of inorganic particle to suitably form the first safety coating, Lin’s finite set of suitable inorganic particles recognized as predictable solutions such that it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to routinely explore selection of at least one of these materials as the inorganic particle with a reasonable expectation of successfully forming the first safety coating (MPEP 2143 I. E).
Regarding claim 13 and 18, modified Lin discloses the positive electrode plate and lithium-ion battery according to claims 1 and 16, wherein a thickness of the first safety coating 24 (“insulating layer”) is equal to a thickness of the second safety coating 12 (“first cathode active material layer”) in the positive electrode plate prepared in Example 30 (Lin [0128], [0098]). Lin further discloses examples of the positive electrode plate wherein a thickness of the first safety coating is less than a thickness of the second safety coating (Lin, Examples 2-4, [0100-0102]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Lin discloses the positive electrode plate according to claim 13. Lin Example 30 comprises a 5 µm thick second safety coating 12 (“first cathode active material layer”) and a first safety coating 24 (“insulating layer”) having an equal thickness (pp. 13 Table 1, Example 30, [0128], [0096]); thus a thickness of the first safety coating in this working embodiment is 5 µm thick.
Regarding claim 19, modified Lin discloses the lithium-ion battery according to claim 15. Lin discloses a positive electrode plate comprising a first safety coating 24 covering an inner surface 43 of an outermost positive-electrode current collector 11 (Lin FIG. 4B), this portion of the first safety coating corresponding with a second uncovered foil region 42, 43 located outside the functional layer 12, 13 (“cathode electrode assembly”) ([0046]).
While Lin does not explicitly indicate a length of the second uncovered foil region comprising the first safety covering on the inner surface, Lin’s figures depict this region (dotted line) as being noticeably less than half a length of the outermost positive-electrode current collector (dashed line) (see Annotated Lin FIG. 3A below), such that a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude a length of Lin’s first safety coating covering an inner surface of an outermost positive-electrode current collector close to a winding center to be less than or equal to 1/2 of a length of the outermost positive-electrode current collector.
PNG
media_image2.png
794
1420
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Lin FIG. 3A
Assuming arguendo that Applicant proves Lin’s first safety coating covering an inner surface is not necessarily or inherently less than 1/2 a length of the outermost positive-electrode current collector, Lin discloses that the second uncovered foil region 42, 43 comprising the first safety coating covering an inner surface does contain any cathode active material (Lin [0046]) and would thus be recognized as detrimental to the battery’s energy density. In the interest of maintaining suitable battery energy density, a person having ordinary skill in the art would seek to avoid an excessive length of this portion of the first safety coating, and would reasonably have utilized at least a portion of the claimed range of less than ½ a length of the outermost positive-electrode current collector through optimizing a length of the first safety coating covering an inner surface according to these considerations.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Su as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Shimada US20200365908A1.
Regarding claim 8, modified Lin discloses the positive electrode plate according to claim 2. While Lin discloses a desirability to prevent the temperature of the lithium-ion battery from locally reaching a critical point of combustion in a piercing event (Lin [0053]), Lin fails to explicitly disclose that the first safety coating 24 comprises a conductive agent to prevent this local temperature accumulation.
Shimada is directed to a similar safety coating 32 (“intermediate layer”) disposed on a surface of a positive electrode current collector 30 (Shimada FIG. 2, [0018]) comprising similar inorganic particles to Lin’s first safety coating (Shimada [0025-0026], see also rejection of claim 2 under Lin above), and teaches further providing the first safety coating with a conductive agent (“highly thermal conductive particles”) to improve heat diffusion at a short circuit point and prevent combustion (Shimada [0011], [0028]).
As such, in seeking to provide these effects to modified Lin’s first safety coating, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the first safety coating with a conductive agent, i.e., Shimada’s thermal conductive particles. Such a modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success, as Shimada’s first safety coating is similar in composition to Lin’s first safety coating and is provided for similar overall effects of improving performance during a nail penetration test (Shimada [0058]).
Furthermore, although modified Lin fails to explicitly specify a total volume resistance of the first safety coating and the positive electrode current collector as being within the range of 10-3500 mΩ, Lin discloses a necessity of balancing a resistance of the first safety coating 24 relative to that of the functional layer 12, 13 to allow energy to be evenly distributed through the layers in a piercing event; if the first safety coating has too little resistance, the first safety coating is at risk of combustion, while if the first safety coating has too much resistance, the functional layer will combust instead (Lin [0053]).
As such, in seeking to evenly distribute energy released in a piercing event in modified Lin’s positive electrode plate and prevent the first safety coating or the functional layer from reaching a combustion temperature, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the resistance of the first safety coating according to considerations disclosed by Lin to achieve a desired balance of resistance between the first safety coating and the functional layer (MPEP 2144.05 II), and in doing so, a skilled artisan would reasonably have utilized at least a portion of the claimed range of volume resistance between 10-3500 mΩ.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Su as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Lee et al. KR-20180025542-A (cited with machine translation in office action filed 06/17/2025)
Regarding claim 20, modified Lin discloses the lithium-ion battery according to claim 15, wherein a length of a negative electrode plate 21, 22 is greater than a length of the positive electrode plate 11, 12, 13 (see Annotated Lin FIG. 3A showing negative electrode plate length, below), but does not explicitly specify that a length of an overlapping region of a portion of the negative electrode plate beyond the positive electrode plate and a vertical projection of the first safety coating on an outermost positive electrode plate is greater than or equal to 0.5 µm.
PNG
media_image3.png
898
1778
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Lin FIG. 3A showing negative electrode plate length
Lee, directed to an analogous rolled electrode assembly comprising a positive and negative electrode plate (Lee [0015]), teaches a desirability that the negative electrode plate 120 comprises a larger amount of active material than the amount comprised by the positive electrode plate 110 to prevent lithium precipitation from occurring on the negative electrode ([0024], FIG. 4). To utilize these effects, Lee teaches that the negative electrode plate should be at least 105% the length of the positive electrode plate ([0024-0025]), while less than 150% of the positive electrode plate length to avoid unnecessary increases in battery size and manufacturing cost ([0025]). Lee further depicts this extra length of negative electrode plate 120 as extending beyond the end of positive electrode plate 110 (FIG. 4).
As such, in seeking to balance preventing lithium precipitation from occurring in modified Lin’s battery without unnecessarily increasing the battery size and manufacturing cost, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the length of the negative electrode plate within a range of 105 to 150% of positive electrode plate’s length in order to achieve these effects as taught by Lee; see MPEP 2144.05 II.
Furthermore, as Lee depicts this extra negative electrode plate 120 length as extending beyond the end of the positive electrode plate 110 (Lee FIG. 4), modified Lin’s negative electrode plate 22 (“anode”, [0044]) optimized with respect to Lee’s teachings would thereby extend beyond the end of the positive electrode plate 12, 13 (see Annotated Lin FIG. 3A showing negative electrode plate length) and overlap with a portion of the first safety coating 24 on an outermost positive electrode plate. While modified Lin in view of Lee does not recite an explicit length of this portion as being 0.5 µm or greater, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize at least the claimed minimum length in an effort to arrive at a desired balance between lithium precipitation prevention and battery size and manufacturing constraints.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim 1 (Remarks pp. 6-9) 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, specifically the newly recited technical feature of a spacing set between the functional layer and the first safety coating.
Conclusion
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 EVERETT T CHOI whose telephone number is (703)756-1331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:00-8:00.
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, Jonathan G Leong can be reached on (571) 270 1292. 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.
/E.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 12/18/2025
Prosecution Insights