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
Claims 1, 7, 14-16, and 18 are presently amended. Claims 2-6, 8, 10-13, and 19-20 are as previously presented. Claim 9 is cancelled. Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are presently examined.
Status of objections and rejections
The rejection below has been modified as necessitated by the applicant’s amendments.
Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
Claim 1 line 9-10 recites “an area of the negative active material layer is larger than an area of the positive active material layer”. The examiner notes that the breath of “an area” is lacking in noting which area should be compared. As such, one may pick any area on the negative electrode and any area smaller than that on the positive electrode to read on this limitation.
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) 1-3 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2020313171 A1) and in view of Minagata (US 20180277816 A1).
Regarding claim 1 and 18, Wang discloses an electrode assembly [abstract, Wang], comprising a positive electrode plate [abstract, fig. 1-2, Wang, the examiner is considering the substrate (3) to be equivalent to an electrode plate] and a negative electrode plate [abstract, fig. 1-2, Wang] which are stacked [0111, Wang].
In regards to the claim limitation “which are stacked in a stacking direction and wound around for a plurality of turns in a winding direction to form a wound structure, wherein the stacking direction is perpendicular to the winding direction”, the examiner notes that Wang teaches that “electrodes used in lithium ion batteries have various structural categories, such as the multi-tab wound structure (MTW), full-ear wound structure (FTW), stack structure (Stack) and the like” [0043, Wang]. The examiner notes that this teaching reads on the above limitation as Wang teaches that stacked and wound structures are art-recognized equivalents (see MPEP 2144.06) and that in order to have a lithium ion battery with a wound structure one would be required to first stack the positive and negative electrode and then wind them around such that the winding direction is perpendicular to the stacking direction. See the conclusion section for art made of record but not relied upon for an example.
As such, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Wang such that it was a wound electrode as an art-recognized equivalent simple stacked structure, see MPEP 2144.06.
Wang further teaches wherein a positive active material layer is disposed on the positive electrode plate [0107, Wang], and a negative active material layer is disposed on the negative electrode plate [0108, Wang]; the positive active material layer of the positive electrode plate and the negative active material layer of the negative electrode plate are arranged facing each other [0111, Wang]; the negative active material layer comprises a negative body portion (1) and a negative edge portion (4, 5) arrange around the negative body portion[0042-0049, fig. 1-2, Wang], and the negative active material layer is configured in such a way that a capacity per unit area of the negative edge portion is greater than that of the negative body portion [abstract, 0006-0010, Wang]: and the positive active material layer comprises a positive body portion and a positive edge portion connected thereto [0014-0015, fig. 1-2, Wang], and the positive active material layer is configured in such a way that a capacity per unit area of the positive edge portion is smaller than that of the positive body portion [abstract, 0014, Wang].
However, Wang is silent to 1) an area of the negative active material layer being larger than an area of the positive active material layer, 2) the negative body portion being surrounded by the negative edge portion, 3) the positive body portion is surrounded by the positive edge portion, and 4) at least part of the positive edge portion overlaps with the negative body portion.
In regards to 1), Minagata discloses a lithium-ion secondary battery comprising a positive electrode plate (30) and a negative electrode plate (40) [0041-0043, fig. 2, Minagata]. Wherein the area of the negative electrode (40) is larger than the area of the positive electrode (30) [0012, fig. 6, Minagata]. In regards to 2) and 3) Minagata teaches that the body of the positive (32a) and negative (42a) electrode are surrounded by an positive (34a/36a) and negative (44a/46a) tapered (“edge”) portion [0046-0048, 0090 fig. 4-5, Minagata]. In regards to 4) Minagata depicts at least part of the positive edge portion (36a) overlapping with the negative body portion [fig. 6, Minagata].
PNG
media_image1.png
377
1119
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 6, Minagata depicting the overlapping region between the positive electrode edge and negative electrode body
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Wang such that:
The area of the negative electrode was larger than that of the positive electrode. Doing so would retain the built-up electrolyte formed around the outer edge of the positive electrode plate allowing for electrolyte impregnation to the inner surface of the positive electrode and accelerated impregnation to the negative electrode [001-0016, Minagata].
The body of the negative and positive electrode was surrounded by an edge portion doing so allows for built-up electrolyte formed along the positive electrode tapered (“edge”) portion to be directed towards the interior of the electrode plate [0053-0054, Minagata].
At least a portion of the edge of the positive electrode edge portion overlapped with the body of the negative electrode as this is a known method for constructing a lithium-ion battery [fig. 6, Minagata].
In regards to claim 18, Wang is silent to the use of a battery case.
However, Minagata discloses a battery cell comprising a case and at least one electrode assembly being accommodated in the case [0041-0042, fig. 1, Minagata].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill with the arts would find it obvious to modify Wang such that the electrodes were places in a case. Doing so would allow one to house the electrodes and electrolyte of the battery [0042, fig. 1, Minagata].
Regarding claim 2, Wang as modified above discloses the electrode assembly, wherein a weight ratio of an active material (SiC-20000) in the negative edge portion (comprises 5 wt% of active material SiC-2000) to the negative edge portion is greater than that of an active material in the negative body portion (comprises 0 wt% of active material SiC-2000) to the negative body portion, such that the capacity per unit area of the negative edge portion is greater than that of the negative body portion (table 4 example 6, Wang, discloses the active material in the body region that is 100% graphite/0% SiC-2000 and the active material in the edge region is 95% graphite/5% SiC-2000. The increase of an active material, SiC-2000, resulted in an increase in the capacity per unit area as evidence by Wang’s other work). While the primary reference does not specifically mention the difference in capacity per unit area, in a separate patent (CN 111916844 A) Wang does mention that this specific embodiment does increase the capacity per unit area ([0162], table 4 example 6, Wang, CN 111916844 A)
Regarding claim 3, Wang discloses the electrode assembly, wherein a per gram capacity of the active material in the negative edge portion is greater than that of the active material in the negative body portion (Table 4, Wang), such that the capacity per unit area of the negative edge portion is greater than that of the negative body portion (Table 4, Wang).
Regarding claim 19, Wang as modified above is silent to the use of a battery, comprising: a box; and at least one battery cell according to claim 18. the battery cell being accommodated in the box.
However, prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would “obvious to try” to use a box to house one or more battery cells (see MPEP 2143.I.E.). There are multiple applications that require large amounts of electrical energy to operate, for instance, electric motorcycles or cars. As such, the use of a box to house at least one battery cell would lead to a finite number of identifiable and predictable solutions, namely protection of the battery cell from external damage and if needed an increase in stored electricity.
Regarding claim 20, Wang as modified above discloses An electric apparatus. comprising the battery according to claim 19 [0103-0104].
Claim(s) 4-8 and 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang (US 2020313186 A1; herein referred to as Wang ‘186).
Regarding claim 4, modified Wang is silent to a negative edge portion comprising a first and second coating region.
However, Wang ‘186 discloses the electrode assembly; wherein the negative edge portion comprises a first negative coating [0076, Wang ‘186, undercoat layer] and a second negative coating [0076, Wang 1, on top of undercoat layer is active material layer] which are stacked in the stacking direction; a weight ratio of an active material in the second negative coating to the second negative coating is greater than that of an active material in the first negative coating to the first negative coating: or a per gram capacity of the active material in the second negative coating is greater than that of the active material in the first negative coating (table 2, embodiment 14 and comparative example 15. Wang ‘186 discloses the second coat is graphite (per gram capacity = 372 mAh/g; DOI: 10.1021/acsami.0c12376 [abstract]) the first coat is a either carbon black (per gram capacity <250 mAh/g; DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2021.129242 [fig. 1 a]) and/or LiFePO4 (per gram capacity < 160 mAh/g; DOI: 10.1038/ncomms2705 [abstract])).
Prior to the effective filing date, on of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to include a coating layer under the active material of the edge region of the negative electrode as it can improve the kinetics of the electrode [0075-0076].
Regarding claim 5, Wang as modified above discloses the electrode assembly according to claim 4, wherein a particle size of the active material in the negative edge portion is smaller than that of the active material in the negative body portion [0064-0066, Wang ‘186].
Regarding claim 6, Wang as modified above discloses the electrode assembly, wherein the negative electrode plate comprises a negative current collector [0051, Wang], and the negative current collector comprises a negative coating region [0051, Wang] and a negative tab [0044, Wang], the negative coating region being coated with at least part of the negative active material layer [fig. 1 (1, 4), Wang], the negative tab being connected to an end in a first direction [fig. 1 (2), Wang] of the negative coating region, and the first direction being perpendicular to the stacking direction [fig. 1, Wang]: and the number of the negative edge portions is at least two [fig. 2, Wang, upper and lower edge from the perspective of the bottom half of fig. 1].
Regarding claim 7, Wang as modified above discloses the electrode assembly, wherein a thickness of at least part of the negative edge portion close to the negative tab is smaller than that of the negative body portion [fig. 1, bottom part of fig. 1 shows the edge (or thin) region has a tapered edge getting smaller as it approaches the tab], and a thickness of the negative edge portion far away from the negative tab is equal to that of the negative body portion [fig. 1, bottom part of fig. 1 shows the edge (or thin) region has a tapered edge getting larger as it approaches the body].
Regarding claim 8, Wang as modified above discloses the electrode assemble, wherein a size of a portion, overlapping the positive active material layer in the stacking direction [0159, Aoshima]. But is silent to the negative edge portion is greater than 0.5 mm in the first direction.
However, prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to have a negative electrode overlap the positive electrode by greater that 0.5 mm as a mere change in size or shape (see MPEP 2144.04). Formation of lithium dendrites is a common problem in lithium-ion batteries. By having a negative electrode with a larger overlap than that of the positive electrode the precipitation lithium dendrites can be suppressed. As such, having a having a negative electrode with a larger overlap than the positive electrode would lead to a finite number of identifiable and predictable solutions, namely a decrease in lithium dendrite formation.
Regarding claim 10, Wang as modified above discloses the electrode assembly wherein, a weight ratio of an active material (NCM811) in the positive edge portion to the positive edge (comprises 50 wt% of active material NCM811) portion is smaller than that of an active material in the positive body portion (comprises 100 wt% of active material NCM811) to the positive body portion, such that the capacity per unit area of the positive edge portion is smaller than that of the positive body portion (table 3 example 4, Wang discloses the active material in the edge region that is 50% NCM811/50% NCM523 and is smaller than the active material in the body region 100% NCM811/0% NCM523. The decrease in an active material, NCM811, resulted in a decrease in capacity per unit area as evidence by Wang’s other work). While the primary reference does not specifically mention the difference in capacity per unit area, in a separate patent (CN 111916844 A) Wang does mention that this specific embodiment does increase the capacity per unit area ([0135], table 3 example 4, Wang, CN 111916844 A).
Regarding claim 11, Wang as modified above discloses the electrode assembly according to claim 9. herein a per gram capacity of the active material in the positive edge portion is smaller than that of the active material in the positive body portion [table 2, embodiment 1-4, Wang], such that the capacity per unit area of the positive edge portion is smaller than that of the positive body portion [abstract, Wang].
Regarding claim 12, Wang as modified above discloses the electrode assembly, wherein the positive edge portion comprises a first positive coating and a second positive coating which are stacked in the stacking direction [0094, Wang ‘186],
Wang as modified above is silent to a weight ratio of an active material in the second positive coating to the second positive coating is smaller than that of an active material in the first positive coating to the first positive coating: or a per gram capacity of the active material in the second positive coating is smaller than that of the active material in the first positive coating.
However, Wang as modified above does disclose a list of active and conductive materials that can be used as an active material and undercoating layer. As such, prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill with in the arts could perform routine optimization to find an active material layer with a positive coating that has a smaller per gram capacity than that of the first (undercoating) layer. For instance, Wang ‘186 uses LiCoO2 as an active material which can be paired with graphite in the undercoating layer to satisfy the claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, Wang as modified above discloses the electrode assembly, wherein a particle size of the active material in the positive edge portion is greater than that of the active material in the positive body portion [0084, Wang ‘186].
Regarding claim 14, Wang as modified above discloses the electrode assembly, wherein the positive electrode plate comprises a positive current collector [0067, Wang] comprising a positive coating region [0067, Wang] and a positive tab [0044, Wang], the positive coating region being coated with at least part of the positive active material layer [fig. 1 (1, 4), Wang], the positive tab being connected to an end [fig. 1 (2), Wang], in the first direction of the positive coating region [fig. 1, Wang], and the first direction being perpendicular to the stacking direction [fig. 1, Wang].
Regarding claim 15, Wang as modified above discloses the electrode assembly, wherein in the two positive edge portions a thickness of at least part of the positive edge portion close to the positive tab is smaller than that of the positive body portion [fig. 1, bottom part of fig. 1 shows the edge (or thin) region has a tapered edge getting smaller as it approaches the tab], and a thickness of the positive edge portion far away from the positive tab is equal to that of the positive body portion [fig. 1, bottom part of fig. 1 shows the edge (or thin) region has a tapered edge getting larger as it approaches the body].
Regarding claim 16, Wang as modified above discloses the electrode assembly, wherein a width of the positive edge portion is greater than 0.5 mm in the first direction [0042, Wang discloses that the edge region can range from 3-40 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).
Regarding claim 17, Wang as modified above discloses the electrode assembly, wherein the positive edge portion is arranged around the positive body portion [fig. 1, Wang discloses the electrode edge portion (4) is arranged around the body portion (1)].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See below for further detail.
Applicant argues that there invention is characterized by (1) the negative electrode plate is wider and longer than the positive electrode. The examiner notes that this limitation does not exist in the independent claim. As such, the argument is moot
(2) the positive and negative electrodes are stacked and wound structure. The examiner notes that 1) the Wang teaches that wound and stacked structures are art-recognized equivalents (see rejection of claim 1). 2) a wound electrode assembly must both be stacked and wound. One would initially stack at least one positive electrode, separator, and negative electrode then wind the stacked structure in order to accomplish the formation of a wound structure (see below for art made of record but not relied upon for an example).
(3) the examiner has introduces Minagata which teaches that the positive and negative electrodes are surrounded by an edge portion
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Aoshima and Shi in claim(s) 1 and 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on these reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The examiner maintains their rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CN105958124A Zhao teaches of an electrode assembly that is stacked and wound.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
/QUINTIN D. ELLIOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/BRIAN R OHARA/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights