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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed April 30th, 2026, has been entered. Claims 1-5 & 8 remain pending in the application. Claims 9-17 remaining withdrawn by the Applicant. Claims 6 & 7 were cancelled by the Applicant. Applicant’s amendments to Claim 1 have overcome the previous rejections. However upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Jung et al. KR 20170111289 A, further in view of Muraoka et al. JP 2007/329077 A. New rejections follow.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. KR 20170111289 A, further in view of Muraoka et al. JP 2007/329077 A. Citations to Jung and Muraoka are mapped to the English machine translations provided.
Regarding Claim 1, Jung discloses an anode for a lithium secondary battery (electrode for secondary batter [0001] that can be an anode [0018]) comprising an anode current collector [0018] and an anode active material layer formed on the current collector [0018]. Jung discloses that the anode active material layer comprises a first portion and second portion (second active material layer comprises first pattern and second pattern [0018, 0021]), and that the first and second portions are repeatedly and alternately arranged multiple times [0018]. Jung discloses that the first and second portions have different porosities [0033].
Jung discloses that when the electrode is a negative electrode, the first portion has a porosity of 20-35% and the second portion have a porosity is 20-30% [0035]. Thus, Jung discloses a maximum porosity (X) of 35% and a minimum porosity (Y) of 20% which would result in a ratio Y/X of 20/35 or 0.57, which falls within the claimed range. Additionally, if the porosity of the first portion is 35% (a maximum X) and the porosity of the second portion is 30% (a minimum Y), this would result in a ratio Y/X of 30/35 or 0.86, which falls within the claimed range. Thus, Jung discloses that the anode active material layer meets the porosity limitations of claim 1. In regards to the ratio Y/X, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2131.03 I. In the case where the prior art “discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim”. UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Accordingly, the ratio Y/X disclosed in Jung anticipates the claimed range set forth in Claim 6. See MPEP 2131.03 I.
In regards to the limitation “X is the maximum porosity obtained by an X-ray microscopy”, the Examiner is treating it as a product by process claim, specifically regarding the phrase “obtained by an X-ray microscopy”. It has been shown that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (MPEP 2113).
In regards to the limitation “Y is the minimum porosity obtained by an X-ray microscopy”, the Examiner is treating it as a product by process claim, specifically regarding the phrase “obtained by an X-ray microscopy”. It has been shown that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (MPEP 2113).
Jung discloses, as shown in Figure 1, that the first portion and the second portion adjacent to the first portion are defined as a pattern:
PNG
media_image1.png
269
296
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jung Annotated Figure 1
Jung discloses that the first portion has a higher porosity than the second portion [0033]. Jung further discloses that the first portion and the second portion each comprise an anode active material [0018, 0021].
Jung is silent as to the widths of the first portion and the second portion, and is thus silent as to the distance between a maximum porosity in the first portion and a minimum porosity in the second portion.
Muraoka discloses a secondary battery and an electrode for the secondary battery [Page 2 Lines 21-24], wherein the electrode comprises a current collector and an active material layer [Page 2 Lines 22-23]. Muraoka further discloses that the active material layer comprises a first portion (central region) with a higher porosity (more pores) than a second portion (peripheral region) [Page 2 Lines 52-54, Page 8 Lines 27-29], as further shown in Figure 3 below.
PNG
media_image2.png
375
797
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Muraoka discloses that the central region (having a higher porosity similar to the first portion of Jung) is 20mm in the width direction of the electrode, and the peripheral region (similar to Jung’s second portion) is 15mm in the width direction of the electrode, thus Muraoka discloses that the maximum distance from the farthest point in the central region to the farthest point in the peripheral region would be 0-35mm, as illustrated in Annotated Figure 3 below:
PNG
media_image3.png
375
775
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3
Muraoka discloses that an electrode with this configuration provides a secondary battery with long charge/discharge cycle life and that is easy to manufacture [Page 2 Lines 17-18].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the widths of the first and second portions of Jung to have the widths of the first and second portions as suggested by Muraoka to provide a battery with along charge/discharge cycle life and easy manufacturability.
Thus, modified Jung discloses that the distance between a point of a maximum porosity in the first portion in the pattern and a point of a minimum porosity in the second portion in the pattern is in a range from 0-35mm, which overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 5, Jung discloses that the first portion can have a thickness of 5-50µm and the second portion can have a thickness of 5-40µm [0040], which overlap with each other, thus Jung discloses that the first portion and the second portion can have the same thickness.
Regarding Claim 8, Jung discloses a secondary battery including the electrode of the invention [0010]. Jung discloses in Example 1 that the electrode of the invention is used as the anode in a battery further comprising a cathode facing the anode (assembled to be stacked together) [0066-0074].
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung and Muraoka as applied to Claim 1 above and further in view of Kim US 10,629,944 B2.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Jung is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1, however is silent as to an anode tab protruding from one side of the anode current collector.
Kim discloses a battery cell comprising an anode tab (electrode lead) protruding from one end of the battery cell and attached to the electrode (Figure 4 Item 120).
Kim discloses that when a battery cell comprises an electrode lead, it acts as an electrode terminal that allows for electrical connecting to an external component, such as another battery or a device [Column 1 Line 65 – Column 2 Line 3].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the electrode tab of Kim in the battery cell of Jung to enable electrical connection to external components.
Modified Jung thus discloses the first portion and the second portion are alternately and repeatedly arranged along the protruding direction of the anode tab, as shown in Annotated Figure 1 – Anode Tab below:
PNG
media_image4.png
417
563
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 – Anode Tab
Regarding Claim 3, modified Jung discloses, with the modification of Kim’s anode tab, that the first and second portions extend in a direction that is perpendicular to the protruding direction, as shown in Annotated Figure 1 of Jung.
PNG
media_image5.png
417
724
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
Regarding Claim 4, as mentioned with regards to Claim 1 above, Jung discloses that the first and second portions have different porosities and that each portion has a singular porosity [0035]. One of skill in the art would understand the teaching of Jung to indicate that the porosities of each portion to be uniform, thus Jung discloses that the first portion and the second portion each have uniform porosities along the protruding direction.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Muraoka does not disclose controlling the maximum or minimum porosities or the distance between them. Examiner respectfully points out as stated in the rejection that Muraoka was relied upon for teaching widths of each of the portions to modify that of Jung, and Jung was relied upon for teaching the different porosities of the two portion. Together, Jung with the modified widths of Muraoka disclose a distance between points within the two regions at a maximum and minimum porosity within each region that read on the limitations of Claim 1. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that there is not motivation to combine Kato, Cobb ‘519, Cobb ‘383, and Muraoka. This combination is no longer being relied upon for the rejection of the claims, thus this argument is 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
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 ANNA E GOULD whose telephone number is (571)270-1088. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/A.G.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 1 July 2026
Prosecution Insights