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 .
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 § 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 a 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, see p. 6, filed 08 July 2026, with respect to the 112 rejection of claims 4 and 9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejection of claims 4 and 9 has been withdrawn as it has been overcome by applicant’s amendment.
Applicant's arguments filed 08 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “The word "resistive" in the claim must be given independent meaning and cannot be disregarded.” and the examiner notes that an interpretation of the claim limitation, in light of the specification, is used in the above rejection and therefore has not been disregarded. The examiner notes this argument is conclusory and applicant’s argument is not persuasive as applicant has not particularly pointed out what specifically is wrong with the assertions, including the interpretation in light of the Instant specification, and fact finding as set forth in the above rejections.
Applicant also argues “The Examiner maps primer layer 18 of Turi to the claimed "resistive coating." Applicant respectfully submits that primer layer 18 of Turi is not a resistive coating as recited in Claim 17. Turi describes primer layer 18 as including "a conductive filler which serves to render the layer conductive" (col. 4, lines 33-35). The conductive fillers of Turi include "carbon black, graphite fibers, graphite fibrils, metal coated glass particles, metal particles or metal fibers such as silver, copper nickel etc. or combinations thereof' at "5 to 70% by weight conductive filler" (col. 4, lines 35-38; col. 5, lines 9-10). The express purpose of primer layer 18 is to improve "the contact and adhesion of the electrode layer to a supporting member" (Abstract) by rendering the layer conductive. A layer that is expressly designed and optimized to maximize conductivity is not a "resistive coating."” This is not persuasive.
The examiner notes that the interpretation, in light of the specification, of a resistive coating is as one or more of carbon, PVDF, PTFE, as set forth in Instant [0027] and [0037] and the claim interpretation above. The layer 18 of Turi is described as “Layer 18 may also comprise blends of polymeric materials having pendant carboxylic acid groups or blends of a polymeric material having pendant carboxyl acid groups, and, polyurethanes (preferably polyurethanes with acid numbers greater than 10), polyolefins, polyvinylidene fluoride, polytetrafluoroethylene and combinations thereof. [emphasis added]”, satisfying the claim limitation according to the claim interpretation that has been applied, as additional metes and bounds, such as resistivity/conductivity values for the claimed invention, have not been provided. Further, Tori is directed toward adjusting the physical characteristics such as mechanical strength, surface roughness etc. or conductivity of the layer 18 (Tori, col. 4 lines 41-43) and does not seek to maximize conductivity, as argued by applicant. The examiner further notes that materials, for example, such as PVDF are well known in the art as being excellent insulators and providing good resistivity, and has a resistivity of > 1014 Ohm/cm as evidenced by “PVDF Properties”, retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20200809115453/https://www.fluorotherm.com/technical-information/materials-overview/pvdf-properties/, under “Electrical Properties”. The examiner also notes the skilled artisan would understand a coating comprising a substantially similar material such as, for example, PVDF, used in a similar manner and similar environment of that of the claimed invention would have resistive properties and that to maximize conductivity, removing the material, such as, PVDF would greatly improve said conductivity. Conversely, including a material, such as PVDF, would impart resistive properties to the layer, satisfying the limitation of a resistive coating absent additional metes and bounds to distinguish the claimed invention over that which is known in the prior art.
Applicant additionally argues “Claim 17 involves a resistive coating configured to at least partially coat a surface of the first current collector and the second current collector. The Examiner maps this limitation to "col. 3, line 17, Fig. 2, primer layer 18." However, FIG. 2 of Turi illustrates a single electrode structure comprising one support 17, one primer layer 18, and one electrode layer 20. The Examiner has not identified any disclosure in Turi where the primer layer is applied to both the first current collector and the second current collector. It is the Examiner's burden to establish where each and every claim limitation is found in Turi. Absent such a showing, the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of anticipation with respect to this limitation.” And “the Examiner has not identified any disclosure in Turi where the primer layer is applied to both the first current collector and the second current collector. FIG. 2 of Turi illustrates a single electrode structure. The Examiner bears the burden of establishing where each claim limitation is taught or suggested by the cited references. Absent such a showing, the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to these limitations.” This is not persuasive.
The examiner notes that the figure cited by the examiner for the limitation is Fig. 1 (see below) and not Fig. 2, as argued by applicant. As set forth above, Turi discloses 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, see annotated Fig. 1, collectors 16, primer layers 18), satisfying the claim limitation absent additional metes and bounds to distinguish over the prior art of
PNG
media_image1.png
684
1049
media_image1.png
Greyscale
record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang CN206293557U (discloses the positive collector is coated with temperature control intelligent alterable resistive coatings comprising materials such as PVDF and conductive material such as carbon black).
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 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
Prosecution Insights