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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05 February 2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The examiner notes that in the specification there does not appear to be any special definition of a “resistive coating” and the examiner is interpreting it, in view of the Instant specification, as one or more of carbon, PVDF, PTFE, as set forth in Instant [0027] and [0037].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 4 and 9 are 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.
Claim 4 line 2 recites the limitation “use carbon”, which renders the meaning of the claim indefinite. The Instant application does not provide a definition and appears to employ interchangeably “use carbon” with “carbon” (cf., e.g., Instant [0027], “the coating material may comprise one or more of carbon, PVDF, PTFE”, and [0037], “ the resistive coating comprises one or more of use carbon, PVDF, and PTFE”). In order to advance prosecution, the examiner will be interpreting the claim limitation as “carbon”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the resistance of one or both of the first current collector" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In order to advance prosecution the examiner is interpreting the limitation as “a resistance of one or both of the first current collector”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Turi US5478676A.
Regarding claim 17, Turi discloses an electrochemical cell (Turi, col. 2 lines 51-52, Fig. 1, cell 10) comprising:
a positive electrode (Turi, col. 2 lines 50-60, Fig. 1, cathode 22, collector 16, support 17) comprising a first current collector (Turi, Fig. 1, collector 16), and a first active material (Turi, col. 3 lines 5-7, Figs. 1-2, layer 20 and cathode 22),
a negative electrode (Turi, col. 2 lines 50-60, Fig. 1, anode 21, collector 16, support 17) comprising a second current collector (Turi, Fig. 1, collector 16), and a second active material (Turi, col. 3 lines 5-7, Figs. 1-2, layer 20 and anode 21),
a separator (Turi, col. 2 line 60, Fig. 1, separator 15) disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (Turi, Fig. 1)
and a resistive coating (Turi, col. 4 lines 21-27 and 33-35, Fig. 1, primer layers 18; see claim interpretation above) configured to at least partially coat the first current collector and the second current collector (Turi, col. 3 lines 2-15, Fig. 1, collectors 16, primer layers 18).
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.
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, 10-11 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turi US5478676A in view of Stadler US20140162116A1.
Regarding claim 1, Turi discloses an electrochemical cell (Turi, col. 2 lines 51-52, Fig. 1, cell 10) comprising:
a positive electrode (Turi, col. 2 lines 50-60, Fig. 1, cathode 22, collector 16, support 17) comprising a first current collector (Turi, Fig. 1, collector 16), and a first active material (Turi, col. 3 lines 5-7, Figs. 1-2, layer 20 and cathode 22),
a negative electrode (Turi, col. 2 lines 50-60, Fig. 1, anode 21, collector 16, support 17) comprising a second current collector (Turi, Fig. 1, collector 16), and a second active material (Turi, col. 3 lines 5-7, Figs. 1-2, layer 20 and anode 21),
a separator (Turi, col. 2 line 60, Fig. 1, separator 15) disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (Turi, Fig. 1)
and a resistive coating (Turi, col. 4 lines 21-27 and 33-35, Fig. 1, primer layers 18; see claim interpretation above) configured to at least partially coat the first current collector and the second current collector (Turi, col. 3 lines 2-15, Fig. 1, collectors 16, primer layers 18). While it is well known in the art wherein electrochemical cells comprising current collectors further comprise tabs thereby connecting the electrochemical cell to a load, Turi does not explicitly disclose a positive electrode comprising one or more first tabs and a negative electrode comprising one or more second tabs.
Stadler teaches a positive electrode (Stadler, [0039-0040]) comprising one or more first tabs (Stadler, [0040], Fig. 2, tab 14) and a negative electrode (Stadler, [0039-0040]) comprising one or more second tabs (Stadler, [0040], Fig. 2, tab 12). Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the first and second tabs of Stadler to the positive and negative electrode of Turi, thereby providing an intuitive and easy assembly of the electrochemical cell (Stadler, [0031]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Turi teaches the same composition of the resistive coating as set forth above (see claim 1) and it is the examiner’s position that the resistive coating of modified Turi has the inherent properties of the claimed resistive coated and the skilled artisan would expect it to perform the same as in the Instant specification, satisfying the functional claim limitation wherein the resistive coating is chosen to prevent internal shorts between the first electrode and the second electrode. See MPEP § 2112.
Regarding claim 3, modified Turi teaches the same composition of the resistive coating as set forth above (see claim 1) and it is the examiner’s position that the resistive coating of modified Turi has the inherent properties of the claimed resistive coated and the skilled artisan would expect it to perform the same as in the Instant specification, satisfying the functional claim limitation wherein the resistive coating is chosen to prevent thermal runaway of the electrochemical cell. See MPEP § 2112.
Regarding claim 4, modified Turi also teaches wherein the resistive coating comprises one or more of carbon (Turi, col. 4 lines 33-35), PVDF, and PTFE (Turi, col. 4 lines 26-27).
Regarding claim 5, modified Turi additionally teaches wherein the resistive coating has a thickness in a range of about 0.1 microns to about 100 microns (Turi, col. 4 lines 45-46, 0.5 to 100 µm).
Regarding claim 6, modified Turi further teaches wherein the resistive coating has a thickness in a range of about 1 microns to about 10 microns (Turi, col. 4 lines 45-46, 0.5 to 100 µm).
Regarding claim 7, modified Turi teaches the same composition of the resistive coating as set forth above (see claim 1) and it is the examiner’s position that the resistive coating of modified Turi has the inherent properties of the claimed resistive coated and the skilled artisan would expect it to perform the same as in the Instant specification, satisfying the claim limitation wherein the resistive coating has a conductivity in a range of about le-5 S/m to about 10,000 S/m. See MPEP § 2112.
Regarding claim 8, modified Turi teaches the same composition of the resistive coating as set forth above (see claim 1) and it is the examiner’s position that the resistive coating of modified Turi has the inherent properties of the claimed resistive coated and the skilled artisan would expect it to perform the same as in the Instant specification, satisfying the claim limitation wherein the resistive coating has a conductivity in a range of about 0.01 S/m to about 100 S/m. See MPEP § 2112.
Regarding claim 10, modified Turi also teaches wherein the electrochemical cell is configured to transfer energy from the electrochemical cell to an external source (Turi, col. 2 lines 59-60), satisfying the claim limitation wherein one or more first tabs, one or more second tabs are configured to transfer energy from the electrochemical cell to an external source.
Regarding claim 11, modified Turi additionally teaches wherein the resistive coating is configured to substantially coat all of one or both of the first and the second current collector (Turi, col. 3 lines 3-4) except for a location of one or more tabs (Turi does not teach coating the tabs, satisfying the limitation).
Regarding claim 14, modified Turi additionally teaches wherein the resistive coating is configured to coat at least one planar surface of one or both of the first current collector (Turi, Fig. 1, collector 16, layer 18) and the second current collector (Turi, Fig. 1, collector 16, layer 18).
Regarding claim 15, modified Turi further teaches wherein at least one planar surface faces a respective active material (Turi, Figs. 1-2, primer layer 18, layer 20 and cathode 22).
Regarding claim 16, modified Turi also teaches further comprising one or more adhesion layers (Turi, col. 3 line 17, Fig. 3, layer 19) proximate to the resistive coating (Turi, Fig. 3, primer layer 18, layer 19), the one or more adhesion layers configured to promote adhesion between the resistive coating and an adjacent structure (Turi, col. 1 lines 63-64).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turi US5478676A in view of Stadler US20140162116A1 as evidenced by Tanaka JP4281329B2 (using machine English translation provided).
Regarding claim 9, modified Turi teaches the same composition of the resistive coating as set forth above (see claim 1) and it is the examiner’s position that the resistive coating of modified Turi has the inherent properties of the claimed resistive coated and the skilled artisan would expect it to perform the same as in the Instant specification, satisfying the claim limitation wherein the resistive coating has a resistance in a range between a resistance of the negative electrode and the resistance of one or both of the first current collector and the second current collector, the one or more first tabs, and the one or more second tabs, otherwise it would short circuit and fail inherently. As evidenced Tanaka, wherein the resistive coating (Tanaka, [0018], Fig. 1, layer 12) has a resistance in a range between a resistance of the negative electrode and the resistance of one or both of the first current collector and the second current collector in order to avoid a short circuit (Tanaka, [0018-0019]).
Claim(s) 12 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turi US5478676A in view of Stadler US20140162116A1 and further in view of Lyu CN109888163A (using machine English translation provided).
Regarding claim 12, modified Turi does not teach wherein the resistive coating is configured to substantially coat one or more first tabs and the one or more second tabs.
Lyu teaches wherein the resistive coating (Lyu, [0014], PVDF coating) is configured to substantially coat a tab (Lyu, [0014]). Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the one or more first tabs, and the one or more second tabs and the protective coating of modified Turi with the tab and coating of Lyu, thereby improving battery safety without affecting the battery's energy density and rate performance (Lyu, [0047]).
Regarding claim 21, modified Turi does not teach wherein the resistive coating configured to at least partially coat the one or more first tabs, and the one or more second tabs.
Lyu teaches wherein the resistive coating (Lyu, [0053], Fig. 2, coating 1) configured to at least partially coat a tab (Lyu, [0053], Fig. 2, tab body 2). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the one or more first tabs, and the one or more second tabs and the protective coating of modified Turi with the tab and coating of Lyu, thereby improving battery safety without affecting the battery's energy density and rate performance (Lyu, [0047]).
Response to Arguments
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mitchell US6007588A (discloses a resistive coating on a current collector comprising a fluorinated polymer and adjustable amounts of carbon having a conductivity of about 0.1 to about 100,000 S/cm),
Kita JP4396082B2 (discloses a PVDF coating chosen to prevent internal shorts between the first electrode and the second electrode),
Scott US20060093894A1 (discloses PVDF on an aluminum current collector and the assignee is Medtronic Inc),
Buiel US20080113268A1 (discloses a current collector coated with use carbon),
Lang US20090201629A1 (discloses current collectors coating with a Teflon layer).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARED HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4590. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at 571-270-7078. 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.
/JARED HANSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723