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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10-12, 14-19, 24, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanaka et al., US 2016/0294015 A1 (hereinafter “Tanaka”).
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka discloses an electrode plate (i.e., electrode) [par. 0001] comprising:
a current collector (i.e., current collector 3) [par. 0032] comprising a first surface (i.e., front surface) [par. 0032];
a first active substance layer (i.e., active material layer 2a) [par. 0035] comprising a first active substance (i.e., active material);
a second active material substance layer (i.e., active material layer 2b) [Id.] comprising a second active substance (i.e., active material) and an insulation layer (i.e., insulating layer 40); wherein
the first active layer is sandwiched between the current collector and the second active substance layer (see Fig. 3A) and covers a first portion of the current collector (see lefthand portion of the current collector 3 in Fig. 3A);
the insulation layer covers a second portion of the first surface of the current collector that is different from the first portion (see righthand portion of the current collector 3 in Fig. 3A)
in a length direction of the electrode plate, the first active substance layer comprises a first end portion and a second end portion, the insulation layer comprises a third end portion and a fourth end portion, and the first end and the third end are stacked to form an overlapped portion (see Fig. 1B).
With respect to the amendment of claim 1, Tanaka defines reference character S to denote the distance in the length direction of the electrode plate between an edge of the first end in the length direction of the electrode plate and an edge of the third/fifth end in the length direction of the electrode plate [par. 0038; see also Fig. 3A]. Tanaka further discloses a preferred value of S of 1 mm [par. 0038], which is within the claimed ranges of 20 mm or less.
Regarding claim 3, Tanaka anticipates the electrode plate of claim 1. Tanaka further depicts that the first end is sandwiched between the third end and the current collector in a thickness direction of the electrode plate (see Figs. 2 & 3A).
Regarding claim 4, Tanaka anticipates the electrode plate of claim 1. Tanaka further depicts that the third end is sandwiched between the first end and the current collector in a thickness direction of the electrode plate (see Figs. 1B, 2, & 3A).
Regarding claim 5, Tanaka anticipates the electrode plate of claim 1. Tanaka further depicts that the second active substance layer comprises a fifth end in the length direction of the electrode plate (see Figs. 1B, 2, & 3A).
Regarding claim 6, Tanaka anticipates the electrode plate of claim 5. Tanaka further depicts that an edge of the fifth end in the length direction of the electrode plate is flush with an edge of the third end in the length direction of the electrode plate (see Figs. 1B, 2, & 3A).
Regarding claim 10, Tanaka anticipates the electrode plate of claim 1. Tanaka further depicts that electrode plate further comprises a third active substance layer and a fourth active substance layer, the current collector further comprises a second surface, and the third active substance layer is sandwiched between the current collector and the fourth active substance layer and covers the second surface of the current collector (see Figs. 1B, 2, & 3A).
Regarding claim 11, Tanaka anticipates the electrode plate of claim 10. Tanaka further depicts that the third active substance layer comprises a sixth end in the length direction of the electrode plate, and an edge of the sixth end in the length direction of the electrode plate is sandwiched between an edge of the first end in the length direction of the electrode plate and an edge of the fourth end in the length direction of the electrode plate (see Figs. 1B, 2, & 3A).
Regarding claim 12, Tanaka anticipates the electrode plate of claim 10. Tanaka further depicts that the fourth active substance layer comprises a seventh end in the length direction of the electrode plate, and the seventh end extends beyond the sixth end in the length direction of the electrode plate (see Figs. 1B, 2, & 3A).
Regarding claim 14, Tanaka anticipates the electrode plate of claim 1. Tanka further discloses that active materials may be selected from lithium oxide materials such as LiCoO2 [par. 0041].
Regarding claim 15, Tanaka anticipates the electrode plate of claim 1. Tanka further discloses that active materials may be selected from lithium oxide materials such as graphite [par. 0042].
Regarding claim 16, Tanaka anticipates the electrode plate of claim 1. Tanka further discloses that the active material includes a binder (i.e., binding agent) such as PVDF [par. 0042] and a conductive agent (i.e., conductive assistant) such as carbon black [par. 0042].
Regarding claim 17, Tanaka anticipates the electrode plate of claim 1. Tanka further discloses that the insulation layer comprises a polymer such as polypropylene [par. 0048]. Note that the recitation of “and/or” in the claim permits an interpretation in which the presence of either the polymer or inorganic polymers is required in the alternative.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Tanaka anticipates the electrode plate of claim 1. Tanaka further discloses an apparatus (i.e., battery 100) [par. 0031], comprising a positive electrode plate (i.e., positive electrode 1) [par. 0031], a separator (i.e., separator 20) [par. 0031], and a negative electrode plate (i.e., negative electrode 6), wherein the positive electrode plate and/or the negative electrode plate is the electrode plate according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
With respect to new claim 24, Tanaka discloses that the thickness of 2a can be 40 μm [par. 0073]. Although this exceeds the claimed amount, Tanaka teaches that this thickness tapers down to 0 (fig. 3A) and in that tapered section, there exists portions with thickness ranging from 40 to 0 μm. Hence Tanaka teaches the claimed thickness giving the claim language its broadest reasonable interpretation.
With respect to new claim 25, Tanaka teaches the thickness of the insulation layer can be 0.03 mm which is less than the sum of the thickness of the first and second active substance layers (0.1 mm + 0.04 mm). See par. 0038.
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.
Claim(s) 13, 20, 21, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al., US 2016/0294015 A1.
Regarding claim 13, Tanaka anticipates the electrode plate of claim 11. Tanaka further discloses that the density of the S region is lower than that of the M region [par. 0038]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the density via routine experimentation with the density of the insulating layer within the parameters set forth in Tanaka. In doing so, the skilled artisan would have arrived at an optimal density within the claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05 (II).
With respect to new claim 20, as discussed earlier, the overlap between the first and third end would have to be ≤ 1 mm as the length of S is disclosed as being 1 mm [par. 0038]. Tanaka does not explicitly disclose where this distance would be ≥ 0.5 mm as well. However, Tanaka says that the dimensions of S (which control the dimensions of claim 20) is not particularly limited [par. 0066]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to utilize any number of dimensions for S as suggested by Tanaka because it is not particularly limited.
With respect to new claim 21, Tanaka discloses in par. 0066 the dimensions of S can run 0.5-5 mm, which overlaps the claimed range.
With respect to claim 26, Tanaka teaches the use of 30 μm (0.03 mm) for the thickness of the insulation [par. 0038]. This is essentially adjacent to the claimed “less than 30 μm”. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties (Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 22 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Zhong et al (US 2020/0144600). Zhong was cited in the 9/18/2025 IDS. Its use here was necessitated by new claims 22 and 23.
With respect to claim 22, Tanaka set forth all the limitations of the claim but did not explicitly recite the claimed particle size distributions. Zhong discloses an alternative electrode plate and set forth that the Dv50 of the active particles should be 0.2 to 15 μm and the Dv90 should be less than 30 μm, which helped provide increased coverage and adhesion to the current collector [par. 0046]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to utilize the particle sizes of Zhong for the electrode plate of Tanaka in order to improve the desired properties of the electrode.
With respect to claim 23, see Zhong par. 0047.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not disclose nor render obvious all the cumulative limitations of claims 1, 5, and 7 with particular attention to where an edge of the fifth end portion is sandwiched between in a length direction the edge of the first end portion and the edge of the third end portion. The prior art does not disclose nor render obvious all the cumulative limitations of claims 1, 5, and 8 with particular attention to where an edge of the first end portion is sandwiched between in a length direction the edge of the third end portion and the edge of the fifth end portion.
This examiner has withdrawn the previous rejection of these claims over Tanaka because the edge of the fifth end portion would be equivalent to the edge of layer 2b (fig. 3A). There is no suggestion in the art that would suggest or render obvious having this layer extend past the edge of layer 40 (to meet the requirement of claim 7) or to extend beyond the edge of layer 2a (to meet the requirement of claim 8). Fig. 10 of Tanaka is relevant to claim 8, but fig. 10 doesn’t read on the overlap of the edges of the first and third end portions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the previous rejection of claim 2 (now incorporated into claim 1), applicant urges that the dimensions of the single layer part S of Tanaka fails to teach anything regarding the distance between the claimed first end portion and the third end portion. In particular, applicant urges that S is a variable different from what is being claimed.
Although applicant is technically correct that S in Tanaka is different from the claimed dimensions, the dimensions are nonetheless still anticipated by Tanaka. In the annotated Tanaka figure below, the examiner has superimposed onto it the equivalent to the claimed dimensions of claim 1. Although Tanaka doesn’t not explicitly disclose the lengthwise distance between the first and third ends, by necessity that distance would have to be ≤ the length of S. Because Tanaka disclosed that the length of S can be 1 mm [par. 0038], then the distance between the first and third end portions has to be <= 1 mm, which meets the claims.
PNG
media_image1.png
288
746
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant further urges that there is no indication that the figures are drawn to scale. This is irrelevant because the logic utilized to reject claim 2 previously (and claim 1 in the present office action) does not rely on any scale inference of the drawings. It is based on the claimed overlap has to be less that the length of S because S is disclosed as being more that what is currently claimed as Tanaka anticipates that S already meets the claims.
The remaining arguments all appear to stem from the earlier arguments. Because those arguments were not persuasive, the remaining arguments are similarly unpersuasive.
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 KAJ K OLSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1344. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
/KAJ K OLSEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights