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 and 16 are currently amended. Claims 4-9 and 20 are cancelled. Claims 2-3, 10-15, and 17-18 are as previously presented. Claims 21-22 are newly presented. Claims 1-3, 10-18, and 21-22 are presently presented.
Status of objections and rejections
The rejection below has been modified as necessitated by the applicant’s amendments.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 22 is allowed.
Regarding Claims 21 and 22 Nagayama (JP2007042385A) as modified by (US20160049637A1), Ishihara (US20110206985A1), and Bai (CN106374096A) does not teach:
“the second active substance region is one of a plurality of second active substance regions distributed at intervals along a length direction of the electrode plate; a length extension direction of the second active substance region is inclined with respect to an edge of the electrode plate, and the length extension direction of the second active substance region is between a width direction of the electrode plate and a length direction of the electrode plate; and in the width direction of the electrode plate, a first end of the second active substance region is closer to an edge of the active substance layer than a middle part of the active substance layer, a second end of the second active substance region is closer to the middle part of the active substance layer than the edge of the active substance layer, and the first ends of two adjacent second active substance regions are closer to two different edges of the active substance layer than the middle part of the active substance layer, respectively.”
The examiner’s current stance is that it is not obvious why one of ordinary skill within the arts would include the above (shared) features listed in claim 21 and 22 within the active substance layer of the electrode plate.
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, 10-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagayama (JP2007042385A) in view of Sohn (US20160049637A1), Ishihara (US20110206985A1), and Bai (CN106374096A).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Nagayama discloses an electrode plate, comprising: a current collector [0011, Nagayama]; and an active substance layer disposed on a surface of at least one side of the current collector [0011, Nagayama]; wherein: the active substance layer has a first active substance region and a second active substance region [0011, low and high regions], a surface of the first active substance region that is away from the surface of the at least one side of the current collector [fig. 4, Nagayama], and a surface of the second active substance region that is away from the surface of the at least one side of the current collector are coplanar with each other [0020, 0097 fig. 4, Nagayama teaches that the two layers have a substantially uniform thickness. Which reads on the two surfaces being coplanar]; a sectional area S2 of the second active substance region in a preset section is smaller than a sectional area S of the active substance layer in the preset section [fig. 4, Nagayama teaches that the active material layer comprises a high and low density region. As such, because the active material comprises two regions of uniform height one can arbitrarily select a sectional area in which the area second active substance region is smaller than the total sectional area ], the preset section being parallel to a preset surface and passing through the second active substance region [fig. 4, Nagayama], and the preset surface being a surface of the current collector and the active substance layer being located at the preset surface [fig. 4, Nagayama]; a porosity P1 of the first active substance region is smaller than a porosity P2 of the second active substance region [fig. 4, Nagayama depicts an alternating high density (HD) and low density (LD) section of the active material. In figure 4, one of ordinary skill within the arts will notice that the high density region is highly compact (has low porosity) and the low density region has gaps between the active materials (has high porosity). As such, this figure reads on the claim limitation].
Nagayama is silent to 1) the thickness of the second active substance region being 30-40% the thickness of the active substance layer, 2) the pore size of the active material, and 3) the compaction density of the first and second active substance regions.
In regards to 1) Ishihara discloses an electrode plate containing an active material layer with high void space (1, equivalent to high porosity) and with low void space (2, equivalent to low porosity) [0029-0037, fig. 1, 5, 6, 7-8, Ishihara], wherein the high and low void active materials (1, 2) are coplanar with one another [fig. 5, Ishihara]. Furthermore, Ishihara notes that an electrode plate in which the thickness of the active layer having large void space (1, “second active substance region”) to the electrode area (“active substance layer”) is a result-effective variable, see MPEP 2144.05.II. By including a larger area of large void space active material one can minimize the amount of time it takes for the electrolyte to permeate the electrode [0038-0039, Ishihara], but this increase in area of the large void active material will reduce the capacity of the battery [0038-0039, Ishihara]. As such, it is better that the ratio of the mixture layer having large void size is low [0039, Ishihara].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Nagayama such that the thickness of the second active substance region is larger than or equal to 30% and less than or equal to 40% of the thickness of the active substance layer. Doing so would allow for improved electrolyte permeation through the active material layer without sacrificing too much of the capacity of the battery.
In regards to 2), Sohn discloses an electrode plate where the active material layer comprises two separate regions of different porosity [0006, Sohn]. Wherein the first average pore size ranges from 20-1000 nm and the second average pore size ranges from 10-1000 nm [0007, Sohn discloses a pore size range that reads on the instant claimed range].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Nagayama such that the pore size of the first and second active materials was 20-1000 nm and 10-1000 nm. Doing so would allow for one to have a positive electrode with high active mass density [0036] as taught by Sohn.
In regards to 3), Bai teaches of an electrode active material containing natural graphite and MCMB (mesocarbon microbeads), a type of synthetic graphite. The tap (“compaction”) density of the natural graphite is 1.3 g/cm3 and the MCMB has a tap (“compaction”) density of 1.5 g/cm3. [0065, Table 2 Bai]. The combination of these two graphite’s was found to be synergetic and improve the battery’s discharge capacity (natural graphite) and cycle life (MCMB) [0126, Bai].
Prior to the effective filing date, it would be obvious to modify the high and low density regions of Nagayama such that the high density region was MCMB with a compaction density of 1.5 g/cm3 and the low density region was natural graphite with a compaction density of 1.3 g/cm3. Using these two graphite materials in these density range was found to provide synergetic benefits improving the battery’s discharge capacity and cycle life [0126, Bai].
Further with respect to claim 16, Nagayama discloses an electrode assembly, comprising: a positive electrode plate [0103, Nagayama]; a negative electrode plate [0103, Nagayama]; and a separator separating the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate [0103, Nagayama]; wherein at least one of the positive electrode plate or the negative electrode plate comprises [0024, Nagayama]: a current collector [0025, Nagayama]
Regarding claim 10, Nagayama as modified is silent to S x 2.5% ≤ S2 ≤ S x 30%.
However, Ishihara discloses the electrode plate, wherein the width of the pattern of the large void (“second active substance region”) is 2 mm with a pitch of 15 mm or 20 mm [0050-0051, Ishihara].
The examiner notes that this pattern width and pitch distance would create a pattern which satisfies the claim limitation. For example, in a plate with two second active regions (each with a width 2 mm) spaced apart by 20 mm would provide a sectional area S = 24 mm and a sectional area S2 = 4 mm = 16.7%.
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Nagayama such that the width of the second active substance region was 2 mm with a pitch of 15 mm or 20 mm as disclosed by Ishihara. Doing so would provide an electrode a functional electrode with improved electrolyte permeation [0062, Ishihara].
Regarding claim 11, Nagayama as modified above discloses the electrode plate, wherein in a width direction of the electrode plate, a minimum distance between the second active substance region and a center of the active substance layer is smaller than or equal to 35% of a size of the active substance layer [0018, 0021, figs. 2-4, Nagayama teaches that the high and low density regions are present in regular intervals of most preferably 100 µm. In a preferred embodiment at least one of the low or high density regions exists in a regular and periodic manner. In the three figures cited the center of the active substance layer has a second active substance region, this reads on the applicant’s claim.].
Regarding claim 12, Nagayama as modified above discloses the electrode plate, wherein in a width direction of the electrode plate, a minimum distance between the second active substance region and an edge of the active substance layer is smaller than or equal to 20% of a size M of the active substance layer [0018, 0021, figs. 2-4, Nagayama teaches that the high and low density regions are presented in regular intervals and may be present in a linear or net-like pattern. In a preferred embodiment at least one of the low or high density regions exists in a regular and periodic manner. In a liner pattern the second active region will reach the edge. In the patterned intervals depicted in figs 2-3 one can see that the second active region will be by the edge as well. This reads on the applicant’s claim limitation].
Regarding claim 13, Nagayama as modified above discloses the electrode plate, wherein: the second active substance region is one of a plurality of second active substance regions distributed at intervals along a length direction of the electrode plate [0018, 0021, figs. 2-4, Nagayama teaches that the low and high density regions may regularly distributed in a patterned or linear manner. In a preferred embodiment at least one of the low or high density regions exists in a regular and periodic manner.]; and in a width direction of the electrode plate, at least one of following conditions is satisfied: a minimum distance between the second active substance region and a center of the active substance layer is smaller than or equal to 10% of a size of the active substance layer [0018, 0021, figs. 2-4, Nagayama teaches that the low and high density regions may be present in a patterned or linear manner. In a preferred embodiment at least one of the low or high density regions exists in a regular and periodic manner. Wherein the regular intervals is most preferably 100 µm. This reads on the applicants claimed limitation as it can be seen from the figures and description that the second active region may be located in the center of the active material].
Regarding claim 14, Nagayama as modified above discloses the electrode plate, wherein: the second active substance region is one of a plurality of second active substance regions distributed at intervals along a width direction of the electrode plate [0018, 0021, figs. 2-4, Nagayama teaches that the low and high density regions may regularly distributed in a patterned or linear manner. In a preferred embodiment at least one of the low or high density regions exists in a regular and periodic manner.]; and in the width direction of the electrode plate [0018, 0021, figs. 2-4, Nagayama teaches that the low and high density regions may regularly distributed in a patterned or linear manner. In a preferred embodiment at least one of the low or high density regions exists in a regular and periodic manner.], a spacing between two adjacent ones of the second active substance regions is smaller than or equal to 20% of a size of the active substance layer [0018, 0021, figs. 2-4, Nagayama teaches that the low and high density regions may be present in a patterned or linear manner. In a preferred embodiment at least one of the low or high density regions exists in a regular and periodic manner. Wherein the regular intervals is most preferably 100 µm.].
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 15, Nagayama as modified above in claim 1, has a distance from the second active substance region to a surface of the active substance layer is smaller than a distance from the active substance layer to the preset surface.
The examiner notes that the first and second active substance regions are coplanar with each other on a surface away from the current collector and that the thickness of the second active substance region is 30-40% of the total thickness of the active material layer.
Regarding claim 18, Nagayama discloses a battery cell, comprising: a housing (29) [0059, fig. 5, Nagayama]; and the electrode assembly according to claim 16, accommodated in the housing [0059, fig. 5, Nagayama].
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Nagayama as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brown (US20130017340A1).
Regarding claim 2, Nagayama as modified above is silent to the porosity ranges of the high and low density regions.
However, Brown discloses an electrode plate with a high and low density region [0013, 0113, 0135-0137, Brown], wherein a difference between P2 and P1 ranges from 3% to 20% [0113, 0135-0137, Brown discloses that P1 (870, 1150) may be in the range of 20-40% and that P2 (880, 1160) ranges from 40-75%. As such the difference in porosity between the two active materials may range from 3% (43%-40%) to 20% (60%-40%) which overlaps with the applicants claimed range. ].
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." (see MPEP 2144.05).
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Nagaya such that the porosity ranges were within those disclosed by Brown. Doing so would allow for both high and low porosity channels that can allow for the fast movement of ions to lower parts of the film allowing for thicker electrodes being fabricated [0040, Brown].
Regarding claim 3, Nagayama as modified above is silent to the porosity ranges of the high and low density regions.
However, Brown discloses an electrode plate with high and low density regions [0013, 0113, 0135-0137, Brown], wherein: P1 ranges from 15% to 35% [0113, 0135-0137, Brown discloses that P1 (870, 1150) may be in the range of 20-40%]; and/or P2 ranges from 20% to 50% [0113, 0135-0137, Brown discloses that P2 (880, 1160) may be in the range of 40-75%].
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." (see MPEP 2144.05).
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Nagaya such that the porosity ranges were within those disclosed by Brown. Doing so would allow for both high and low porosity channels that can allow for the fast movement of ions to lower parts of the film allowing for thicker electrodes being fabricated [0040, Brown].
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Nagayama as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Kim (US20110240913A1).
Regarding claim 17, Nagayama as modified above discloses that the electrode assembly may be rectangular electrode [0059, Nagayama]. But is silent to it being a winding structure.
However, Kim discloses an electrode assembly with positive electrode containing two active materials of different porosity [abstract, Kim], wherein: the electrode assembly is of a winding structure [fig. 1, Kim], a width direction of the at least one of the positive electrode plate or the negative electrode plate is identical with an axial direction of the electrode assembly [fig. 1, Kim], and a length direction of the at least one of the positive electrode plate or the negative electrode plate is identical with a winding direction of the electrode assembly [fig. 1, Kim]; and the electrode assembly has a diameter of d, and in the winding direction of the electrode assembly, each region having an arc length of πd/4 has at least a part of the second active substance region [fig. 1, Kim and figs 8 and 11, Brown. There are four regions on a circle with an arc length of πd/4, the electrodes disclosed by Brown show the second active substrate region being constantly present on the electrode there would exist a second active substrate region being present in each region having an arc length of πd/4].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would be motivated to further modify Nagayama such that it used a winding structure as disclosed by Kim. Doing so would allow for a lithium ion battery that could be used in mobile devices and electric vehicles [0071, Kim].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See below for additional details.
Applicant argues the allowability of the presently amended claims 1 and 16 over its recitation of the active substance region comprising graphite and having a density of the first active substance region ranging from 1.3 g/cm3 – 1.5 g/cm3 and the second active substance region ranging from 1.1 g/cm3 - 1.3 g/cm3.
In response to the amendment the examiner has introduced the teachings of Bai. The examiner’s present stance is that Nagayama as presently modified reads on the applicant’s claimed limitations as outlined above in the rejection of claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Bao’969, Brown, Bao’289, and Kim have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any of these reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding the applicant’s arguments for claim 21. The examiner maintains that claim 1 is not allowable and as such claim 21 is not allowable as argued by the applicant. However, the examiner notes that if the features of claim 21 were introduced into claim 1 then claim 1 would be allowable.
Applicant’s arguments in regards to claim 22 are persuasive and the subject matter is allowable as noted above.
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 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