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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/26/2026 has been entered.
Status of Application
Claims 1-4, 6-18 are currently pending. Claims 8-13 are withdrawn. Claim 5 is canceled. Claims 16-18 are new.
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.
Claim 18 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 18 currently recites “a ratio of the polymerized unit represented by chemical formula 1 and the polymerized unit represented by chemical formula 2 is 10:90”. However, it is unclear whether the ratio is referring to a weight ratio or molar ratio of the two polymerized units. For examining purposes and in light of Example 3 of the instant application ([PG Pub 0111]), Examiner considers the ratio as a molar ratio.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant appears to argue there is no motivation to combine Li’241 with Zhang, as incorporating the structure of Li’241 into Zhang would render Zhang inoperable for its intended purpose by irreversibly breaking the electrical connection between the tab and the electrode assembly. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner notes that the rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art and the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144, I, II).
Li’241 teaches wherein forming PTC layer on the lug allows easy manufacturing of a compact lithium ion battery [0029], where at high temperature, the resistivity of the PTC layer increases [0020] and current of the lithium ion battery can be broken when the lithium ion battery overheats due to an overcharge, a short, or other causes [0029] (i.e., the thermal cut-off protection is only actuated at high temperature and would not irreversibly break as argued at normal temperature).
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have formed such PTC layer on the tab to limit current flow between the tab and the electrode at high temperature, thereby improving battery safety.
Regarding the newly added limitation, Haba teaches a thickness range encompassing the claimed thickness. See rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 6-7, 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (Poly(3-butylthiophene)-based positive-temperature-coefficient electrodes for safer lithium-ion batteries, IDS cited 10/04/2022, previously cited), in view of Li (US20120015241A1, IDS cited 04/01/2025, previously cited), and Haba (US20180205115A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses an electrode (P3BT-523 composite electrodes; abstract) comprising:
a current collector including a main body (“aluminum foil” in Experimental section, paragraph 2)
Zhang does not teach an electrode tab formed at one side of the main body.
In this regard, Li also teaches a lithium ion battery 100 comprising a positive electrode current collector and a negative electrode current collector, wherein a positive electrode lug 102 and a negative electrode lug 104 are welded to the respective current collectors [0013-0014 Li].
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have added an electrode tab, such as the electrode lugs 102 and 104 of Li, to conduct current between the lithium ion battery and the outer circuit [0014 Li].
Zhang further discloses:
an electrically conductive coating layer which is formed on at least one surface of the current collector (“a thin coating layer of the polymer on the aluminum foil”; Experimental section, paragraph 2) and includes a conducting polymer (i.e., PF6--doped P3BT polymer), which resistance increases when a temperature rises (see Fig 1 to see electrical conductivity vs temperature of the PF6--doped P3BT polymer)
Zhang further discloses a composite structure, such as Al/P3BT/523 (pg 174, Experimental section, paragraph 3), comprising:
an electrode mixture layer (i.e., “523” or cathode electrode active layer comprising Li [Ni0.5Co0.2Mn0.3]O2; pg 174, Experimental section, paragraph 1) which is formed on the conductive coating layer (i.e., PF6--doped P3BT polymer),
wherein the electrically conductive coating layer is formed on a region including the main body (i.e., via spraying; Experimental section paragraph 2), as claimed, to provide a P3BT polymer PTC layer with self-actuating thermal cut-off protection for safety control of rechargeable lithium-ion batteries (pg 174; Results and discussion section, second paragraph, lines 10-13).
However, Zhang does not disclose that the conductive coating layer is also formed on the electrode tab.
In this regard, Li teaches that the lug (i.e., tab) comprises a conductive foil 12 and a PTC layer 14 disposed on the surface of the conductive foil (see Fig 2 of Li).
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the electrode of Zhang, such that the P3BT polymer PTC layer is also formed on the electrode tab, with a reasonable expectation to stop the current flow of a lithium-ion battery when the lithium-ion battery overheats due to an overcharge, a short, or other causes [0029 Li], thereby improving battery safety.
Zhang further discloses wherein a thickness of the conductive coating layer is less than 0.2µm (i.e., less than 200nm; see pg 175, 2nd column, paragraph 1), which is close to the claimed range of “300nm to 2µm” absent evidence contrary (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Alternatively, Haba also teaches a lithium ion secondary battery including a positive electrode comprising a current collector and a conductive layer formed on the current collector, and a positive electrode active material layer formed on the conductive layer (abstract), wherein the conductive layer is a PTC layer having a thickness of preferably 0.1 μm to 10 μm [Haba 0058-0059], which encompasses the claimed range of 300nm (i.e., 0.3 μm) to 2μm, for improved discharge rate characteristics and film forming property [Haba 0058-0059]. Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the encompassed PTC thickness range, with a reasonable expectation to form a film and improve discharge rate characteristics of the battery.
Regarding claims 2,3, modified Zhang discloses the electrode of claim 1, wherein the conducting polymer includes poly (3-butylthiophene) (i.e., P3BT), which is a polythiophene-based polymer including at least one functional group of alkyl group, wherein R1 is a hydrogen, R2 is an unsubstituted butane group (i.e., alkyl group).
PNG
media_image1.png
285
677
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, modified Zhang discloses the electrode of claim 1. Zhang does not explicitly teach wherein a pencil hardness of the conductive coating layer is in a range of 8B to 2H.
Zhang discloses wherein the conductive coating layer is prepared by 1. washing P3BT polymer with methanol, 2. mixing the washed P3BT with chloroform solution with a P3BT concentration of 0.5 wt%, 0.75 wt%, 3. spray coating to form a conductive coating layer (pg 174, experimental section, paragraph 2-3).
The instant application also teaches wherein the conductive coating layer is prepared by washing the conducting polymers, followed by melting the conducting polymers in chloroform, 3. Applying the coating liquid and drying [0101-0103]. The instant application also teaches that the content of the conducting polymer of the coating liquid may be in the range of 0.1 to 10 wt%, 0.1 to 7wt%, 0.1 to 5% of the total weight of the coating liquid for good dispersibility of the conducting polymer in the solvent [0095].
A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the method disclosed by Zhang is substantially similar to the method of the instant application, and further envisage the hardness of the coating layer to fall within the claimed range of 8B to 2H (MPEP 2112.01 (I)).
Regarding claim 7, modified Zhang discloses the electrode of claim 1, wherein the electrode mixture layer is formed on a region including the main body (“a thin coating layer of the polymer on the aluminum foil” in Experimental section, paragraph 3, pg 174).
Regarding claim 14, modified Zhang discloses the electrode of claim 1. Zhang does not explicitly disclose an oxidation potential of the conducting polymer.
In this regard, Zhang discloses wherein the P3BT (i.e., the claimed conducting polymer) used is synthesized by a chemical oxidative polymerization of 3-butylthiophene monomer in chloroform using FeCl3 as an oxidant, wherein the P3BT is washed with methanol and then added into a mixture of chloroform and monohydrate and stirred for de-doping, wherein the de-doped P3BT is re-precipitated out by pouring the inorganic layer of chloroform solution into methanol and extracting in a Soxhlet extractor (pg 174, Experimental section, second paragraph)
The instant specification also discloses wherein the conducting polymer is made by injecting a thiophene compound into a solution comprising FeCl3 and stirring, wherein the mixed solution is poured in a space having an osmotic membrane, followed by immersing in acetonitrile, washing with methanol, and drying [PG Pub 0101].
A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the method for making the conducting polymer disclosed by Zhang is substantially similar to the method of the instant application. Accordingly, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, it is understood that the conducting polymer of Zhang would inherently have the “oxidation potential of the conducting polymer to be in a range of 2.0 eV to 3.8 eV”, as claimed (MPEP 2112.01 (I)).
Regarding claim 15, modified Zhang discloses the electrode of claim 1, wherein the P3BT film is prepared without any binder (pg 174, Results and discussion section, paragraph 3, line 5), which is “less than or equal to 5 wt% of a total weight of the electrically conductive coating layer” as claimed.
Regarding claim 16, modified Zhang discloses the electrode of claim 15, wherein the P3BT film does not include any binder, thus the binder is not in an amount of “greater than 0 wt% to less than or equal to 5 wt% of a total weight of the electrically conductive coating layer”.
In this regard, Li teaches wherein the PTC layer comprises PTC liquid and conductive adhesive, wherein the conductive adhesive is in a range from about 5% to about 10% in the PTC liquid [0026], which overlaps with the claimed range of “greater than 0 wt% to less than or equal to 5 wt%”. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected the overlapping amount of binder with a reasonable expectation to bind the components of the PTC liquid.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (Poly(3-butylthiophene)-based positive-temperature-coefficient electrodes for safer lithium-ion batteries, IDS cited 10/04/2022), in view of Li (US20120015241A1, IDS cited 04/01/2025), Haba (US20180205115A1), and Ho (TW201025700A, translation previously attached, previously cited).
Regarding claim 4, modified Zhang teaches the electrode of claim 3, wherein the polymerized unit represented by the chemical formula 2, but does not follow the claimed formula 4.
In this regard, Ho teaches an electrochemical device comprising an electrode pair and an electrolyte solution, wherein the electrode pair comprises an anode and a cathode, and at least one electrode in the electrode pair comprises a conductive polymer layer [0023 Ho].
Ho further teaches that the conductive layer is independently selected from a group comprising 2,2-diethyl-3,4-propylenedioxythiophene [0024], where L1 and L2 are alkylene group with 1 carbon atom and R3 and R4 are alkyl groups.
PNG
media_image2.png
413
402
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used 2,2-diethyl-3,4-propylenedioxythiophene as the polymer for conducting coating layer of Zhang, as Ho teaches that the coating layer with 2,2-diethyl-3,4-propylenedioxythiophene has the highest surface roughness coefficient [0040], providing high surface area thereby further increasing the electrochemical reaction area.
Claim(s) 17,18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (Poly(3-butylthiophene)-based positive-temperature-coefficient electrodes for safer lithium-ion batteries, IDS cited 10/04/2022), in view of Li (US20120015241A1, IDS cited 04/01/2025, previously cited) and Lepage (Modification of aluminum current collectors with a conductive polymer for application in lithium batteries, copy attached)
Regarding claim 17, Zhang discloses an electrode comprising:
Zhang discloses an electrode (P3BT-523 composite electrodes; abstract) comprising:
a current collector including a main body (“aluminum foil” in Experimental section, paragraph 2)
Zhang does not teach an electrode tab formed at one side of the main body.
In this regard, Li also teaches a lithium ion battery 100 comprising a positive electrode current collector and a negative electrode current collector, wherein a positive electrode lug 102 and a negative electrode lug 104 are welded to the respective current collectors [0013-0014 Li].
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have added an electrode tab, such as the electrode lugs 102 and 104 of Li, to conduct current between the lithium ion battery and the outer circuit [0014 Li].
Zhang further discloses:
an electrically conductive coating layer which is formed on at least one surface of the current collector (“a thin coating layer of the polymer on the aluminum foil”; Experimental section, paragraph 2) and includes a conducting polymer (i.e., PF6--doped P3BT polymer), which resistance increases when a temperature rises (see Fig 1 to see electrical conductivity vs temperature of the PF6--doped P3BT polymer)
Zhang further discloses a composite structure, such as Al/P3BT/523 (pg 174, Experimental section, paragraph 3), comprising:
an electrode mixture layer (i.e., “523” or cathode electrode active layer comprising Li [Ni0.5Co0.2Mn0.3]O2; pg 174, Experimental section, paragraph 1) which is formed on the conductive coating layer (i.e., PF6--doped P3BT polymer),
wherein the electrically conductive coating layer is formed on a region including the main body (i.e., via spraying; Experimental section paragraph 2), as claimed, to provide a P3BT polymer PTC layer with self-actuating thermal cut-off protection for safety control of rechargeable lithium-ion batteries (pg 174; Results and discussion section, second paragraph, lines 10-13).
However, Zhang does not disclose that the conductive coating layer is also formed on the electrode tab.
In this regard, Li teaches that the lug (i.e., tab) comprises a conductive foil 12 and a PTC layer 14 disposed on the surface of the conductive foil (see Fig 2 of Li).
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the electrode of Zhang, such that the P3BT polymer PTC layer is also formed on the electrode tab, with a reasonable expectation to stop the current flow of a lithium-ion battery when the lithium-ion battery overheats due to an overcharge, a short, or other causes [0029 Li], thereby improving battery safety.
Zhang further discloses wherein a thickness of the conductive coating layer is less than 0.2µm (see pg 175, 2nd column, paragraph 1), which overlaps with the claimed range of “300nm to 2µm”. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected the overlapping range with a reasonable expectation to provide a cut off the electrochemical reaction in advance and provide a self-actuating thermal cutoff protection for safety control of the lithium-ion batteries (see pg 174, Results and discussion section, paragraph 2).
However, Zhang does not disclose wherein the conducting polymer includes a mixture of a polymerized unit represented by a following chemical formula 1 and a polymerized unit represented by a following chemical formula 2.
In this regard, Lepage teaches a cathode comprising Al current collector and PEDOT polymer covering the surface of Al, which a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that PEDOT follows the chemical formulae 2,3 of the instant application (i.e., Q is an sulfur atom, R is an ethylene with 2 carbon atoms).
Lepage further teaches that the PEDOT is able to store and conduct lithium ions, and has high stability and conductivity (See introduction in pg 1). Lepage further teaches that the PEDOT coating on Al foil improves the contact resistance between current collector and active materials, increasing the energy density at high discharge rate (see section 3.2 Electrochemical characterization of PEDOT-Al in pg 3-4).
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have added the polymerized unit represented by chemical formula 2 such as PEDOT, with a reasonable expectation to improve the contact resistance between the current collector and the active materials, thereby increasing energy density at high discharge rate (see section 3.2 Electrochemical characterization of PEDOT-Al in pg 3-4).
Regarding claim 18, modified Zhang teaches the electrode of claim 17. Zhang discloses that P3BT polymer (i.e., the polymerized unit represented by chemical formula 1 of the instant application) in 0.5-0.75 wt% (see the Experimental section-Zhang).
However, Zhang and Lepage do not disclose a ratio (interpreted as molar ratio, see 112b rejection above) of the polymerized unit represented by chemical formula 1 and formula 2, and further does not disclose that their ratio is 10:90.
However, Zhang discloses wherein the P3BT polymer coating on Al foil provides a self-actuating thermal cut-off protection for safety control of the batteries (see section 3. Results and discussion, paragraph 2), and Lepage teaches that the PEDOT polymer coating on Al foil improves contact resistance between the current collector and the active materials, thereby increasing energy density at high discharge rate (see section 3.2 Electrochemical characterization of PEDOT-Al in pg 3-4- Lepage).
As such, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to added and optimized the molar ratio of the P3BT polymer of Zhang (i.e., the polymerized unit represented by chemical formula 1) and the PEDOT polymer of Lepage (i.e., the polymerized unit represented by chemical formula 2), by routine experimentation to arrive at a desired balance between thermal cut-off of the batteries while improving contact resistance between the current collector and the active materials (see MPEP 2144.06-I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAEYOUNG SON whose telephone number is (703)756-1427. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5pm.
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 Leong can be reached at (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.
/T.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights