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 presents claim 1 as amended, claims 4, 9, 13, 14, 18, and 19 as cancelled, and claims 6-8, 10, 16, 17, and 20 as withdrawn. Claims 1-3, 5, 11, 12, and 15 remain pending examination on the merits.
The amendment is sufficient in addressing a portion of the previously indicated objection to claim 1, but not the objection to the dependent claims. While the amendment changes “a groove” to “the groove,” the amendment omits amending “an electrode plate” to “the electrode plate.” The objection to such claims is repeated herein.
The amendment to claim 1 is sufficient in overcoming the rejection under 35 USC 102.
Further grounds of rejection, necessitated by amendment, are presented herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant traverses the prior art in that “Zhang teaches laser removal to expose the current collector layer, followed by particle or residue cleanup” and does not teach leaving “the current collector covered by a residual active material layer of the claimed thickness.”
Applicant traverses the Franke reference in that replacing Zhang’s dust collection with Franke’s scraper would “at most, alter the tool used for cleanup or residual-material removal” and “would not change Zhang’s laser-removal process into a laser-thinning process that stops while a controlled residual active material layer remains over the current collector.”
Applicant also traverses the Wen reference in that Wen’s “disclosed process uses laser cleaning to remove most of the material and then uses a further laser operation, in a negative defocus mode, to clean the remaining material and expose the basis [sic] material” and that Wen “does not teach Applicant’s claimed sequence in which the laser step leaves a protective residual active material over the current collector and the later expose of the current collector is accomplished by a physical removal method.”
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Zhang, alone, is not relied upon to teach the entire claimed limitation of “after the thinning, the current collector layer is not exposed and remains covered by a residual portion of the active material layers, and wherein after the thinning, a thickness H of the residual portion of the active material layer is 30 μm≥H≥1 μm.”
In Zhang, the laser system 3 performs a laser method, i.e., impinging upon a surface to cause an increase in temperature, that is used to remove a portion of the coating layer 82 from the electrode plate 8. Dust collecting mechanism removes most of the layer 82, with the remaining portions of layer 82 being removed by the dust sticking rollers 6 so that the formed region R, ultimately, exposes the current collector 81, as shown in Figure 2. In this case, the claim language merely requires any laser method that functions, or otherwise aids, in reducing the thickness or depth of the coating layer. Here, the laser system 3 functions by causing an increase in localized temperature such that most of the coating layer is separated from the current collector, with small amounts remaining. This small amount that remains corresponds to the claimed residual portion. This methodology amounts to reducing the thickness or depth of the coating layer as the amount that remains on the current collector layer is less than the total thickness of the coating layer.
Zhang, therefore, teaches the method for forming a groove on an electrode plate including after the thinning of the active material layer, residual material, of some thickness, remains on the surface of the current collector (i.e., the residual material left that is removed by the dust sticking rollers 6).
Zhang is silent on the thickness being 30 μm≥H≥1 μm.
Wen teaches the thickness of the coating, after being thinned by the laser, being 30 μm≥H≥1 μm [which converts to 0.03 mm≥H≥0.001 mm.] (“As shown in FIG. 2, the laser 9 focus 91 with the substance to be cleaned on the surface of 42, then selecting a certain pulse energy and achieve high energy density, then control laser 9 repetition frequency and spot overlapping coefficient, calculating the scanning speed. scanning distance matched with the spot overlap rate so as to quickly and uniformly removes most (about 80 to 90%) the cleaning material 42, and under the condition of ensuring no damage to substrate material 41, try to reduce the residual substance to be cleaned 42; The active material thickness is 0.15mm, then removing the 0.135-0.14mm thickness, the remaining 0.01-0.015mm; thereby removing the substances to be cleaned of most 42.”) [Here, Wen teaches the material starts at 0.15 mm in thickness, which is thinned by removing 0.135-0.14 mm of material, leaving 0.01-0.015 mm of material remaining. This 0.01-0.015 mm lies within the claimed range and corresponds to the thickness of the coating remaining after initial thinning of the coating by the laser.].
Accordingly, Zhang, as modified by Wen, teaches the “after the thinning, the current collector layer is not exposed and remains covered by a residual portion of the active material layers, and wherein after the thinning, a thickness H of the residual portion of the active material layer is 30 μm≥H≥1 μm” limitation.
With respect to the combination of Zhang and Wen (or Zhang and Franke), Applicant contends that the “stated rationale for combining references thus relies on the claimed invention as a roadmap.”
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case, Applicant’s contention does not indicate what knowledge was gleaned “only” from the applicant’s disclosure. Rather, as detailed herein, the conclusion of obviousness includes a non-hindsight rational for combining.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 5, 11, 12, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“the method for forming the groove on an electrode plate” in claim 1 should change “an electrode plate” to “the electrode plate;” and
“…a residual portion of the active material layers…” in claim 1 should be “the active material layer” [singular] to be consistent with the rest of the claim language..
Dependent claims 2-3, 5, 11, 12, and 15 should be amended to replace “forming a groove on an electrode plate” with “forming the groove on the electrode plate.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 11, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Wen et al. (CN208033201, machine translation provided).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches a method for forming a groove on an electrode plate (para. 0001; “removing a coating layer of an electrode plate”) (See Figure 2; electrode plate 8), wherein the electrode plate comprises a current collector layer (current collector 81 of Cu and Ai foil-para. 0007) and an active material layer (coating layer 82) attached on the current collector layer (81), the method for forming the groove on an electrode plate (8) comprising:
thinning the active material layer located in a to-be-grooved area of the electrode plate by a laser method (Fig. 7; laser removing system 3 ablates layer 82 to remove 82 from the current collector 81 at region R-para. 0053), wherein after the thinning, the current collector layer is not exposed and remains covered by a residual portion of the active material layers.
Here, the plain and ordinary meaning of “thinning,” consistent with the instant specification, is “to reduce in thickness or depth” (see www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/thinning, verb, viewed on 04/03/2026). The laser removal system of Zhang is directed onto the coating layer (82) to aid in its removal from the current collector layer (81) of the electrode plate (8). As such, the laser removal system of Zhang acts to reduce the thickness or depth of the coating layer (82), with the remaining thickness removed from the dust sticking rollers (6).
Here, the laser system 3 performs a laser method, i.e., impinging upon a surface to cause an increase in temperature, that is used to remove a portion of the coating layer 82 from the electrode plate 8. Dust collecting mechanism removes most of the layer 82, with the remaining portions of layer 82 being removed by the dust sticking rollers 6 so that the formed region R, ultimately, exposes the current collector 81, as shown in Figure 2. In this case, the claim language merely requires any laser method that functions, or otherwise aids, in reducing the thickness or depth of the coating layer. Here, the laser system 3 functions by causing an increase in localized temperature such that most of the coating layer is separated from the current collector, with small amounts remaining. This small amount that remains corresponds to the claimed residual portion. This methodology amounts to reducing the thickness or depth of the coating layer as the amount that remains on the current collector layer is less than the total thickness of the coating layer.
Zhang further teaches
removing the thinned active material layer by a physical removal method to form an accommodating groove (R) that exposes the current collector layer (81) (para. 0063; “ dust collecting mechanisms 5 provided between the electrode plate 8 and the laser removing system 3, and provided at two sides of the coating layer 82 within the region R where the coating layer will be removed corresponding to the one surface of the electrode plate 8, so as to remove the particles of the coating layer 82 generated during the laser removing process. In an embodiment, the dust collecting mechanism 5 may be a downdraught dust collecting mechanism having a certain negative pressure. Under the action of the downdraught dust collecting mechanism having the constant negative pressure, the generated particles enter into a particle discharging pipeline (not shown) of the dust collecting mechanism 5, which thus may ensure the particles not to remain on the electrode plate 8, prevent the particles from affecting the property of a product (for example, a super capacitor or a lithium ion battery) using the electrode plate 8, at the same time may further prevent the particles from polluting the environment.”) (Additionally, downstream of the dust collecting mechanism 5 are dust sticking rollers 6 for “removing the particles and impurities of the residue on the electrode plate after the coating layer 82 is removed”-para. 0071).
Zhang teaches the method for forming a groove on an electrode plate including after the thinning of the active material layer, residual material, of some thickness, remains on the surface of the current collector (i.e., the residual material left that is removed by the dust sticking rollers 6).
Zhang is silent on the thickness being 30 μm≥H≥1 μm.
Wen relates to a battery pole piece coating cleaning device in which a laser module is used to remove coating material (Abstact) (Figures 1-3; battery pole sheet 4 layered onto plate 1).
Wen teaches the thickness of the coating, after being thinned by the laser, being 30 μm≥H≥1 μm [which converts to 0.03 mm≥H≥0.001 mm.] (“As shown in FIG. 2, the laser 9 focus 91 with the substance to be cleaned on the surface of 42, then selecting a certain pulse energy and achieve high energy density, then control laser 9 repetition frequency and spot overlapping coefficient, calculating the scanning speed. scanning distance matched with the spot overlap rate so as to quickly and uniformly removes most (about 80 to 90%) the cleaning material 42, and under the condition of ensuring no damage to substrate material 41, try to reduce the residual substance to be cleaned 42; The active material thickness is 0.15mm, then removing the 0.135-0.14mm thickness, the remaining 0.01-0.015mm; thereby removing the substances to be cleaned of most 42.”) [Here, Wen teaches the material starts at 0.15 mm in thickness, which is thinned by removing 0.135-0.14 mm of material, leaving 0.01-0.015 mm of material remaining. This 0.01-0.015 mm lies within the claimed range and corresponds to the thickness of the coating remaining after initial thinning of the coating by the laser.].
Wen teaches that the laser module functions to quickly remove the coating material while greatly avoiding damage to the battery (abstract) (See also; “In order to prevent the thin substrate in cleaning the damage (such as perforations, wrinkling, deformation and material performance, etc.) of the using mode or change focus of optical device, increasing the size of the light spot, the energy density of the laser is rapidly reduced. achieve no damage to base material, and the other method is for directly reducing the laser energy, so that the energy density is also not damage along with the reduction, the matrix material, but with reduced energy density, material removal efficiency is badly decreased. difficult to reach the requirement of large-scale high efficiency production.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Zhang with Wen, by modifying the laser processing of Zhang, to allow for the thickness of the coating, after being thinned by the laser, to be 30 μm≥H≥1 μm as taught by Wen, for in doing so would provide an arrangement in which most of the coating material is removed without causing damage to the underlaying substrate. In this case, modifying Zhang to allow for an amount of coating material to remain after laser processing would provide an arrangement in which most of the coating material, in the prescribed area, is removed while also preventing damage to the underlaying current collector of the electrode plate.
Regarding claim 2, Zhang teaches the method for forming a groove on an electrode plate, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the removing the thinned active material layer by a physical removal method comprises: removing the thinned active material layer by any one of a brushing method, a scraping method, a wiping method or a sticking method (dust sticking rollers 6).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang teaches the method for forming a groove on an electrode plate, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches wherein before the thinning the active material layer by a laser method, the method for forming a groove on an electrode plate further comprises: moving the electrode plate, to move the active material layer to a thinning processing position (See Fig. 7, electrode plate 8 is fed toward laser system 3, via rollers 11/12); and after the thinning the active material layer by a laser method, and before the removing the thinned active material layer by a physical removal method, the method for forming a groove on an electrode plate further comprises: moving the electrode plate, to move the active material layer from the thinning processing position to a removal position (See Fig. 7, electrode plate 8 is fed toward laser system 3, and afterwards, fed toward dust sticking rollers 6 via rollers 11/12).
Regarding claim 11, Zhang teaches the method for forming a groove on an electrode plate, as applied in claim 2, and further teaches wherein the brushing method is to use a brush to brush off the thinned active material layer; the scraping method is to use a scraper to scrape off the thinned active material layer; the wiping method is to use a dust-free cloth to adsorb and wipe off the thinned active material layer; the sticking method is to use an adhesive tape to remove the thinned active material layer by sticking (As claim 2 sets forth a series of alternative methodologies, and claim 11 merely further defines those same methodologies, claim 11 is understood to retain the alternative limitations such that only one limitation must be met by the prior art. In this case, Zhang teaches dust sticking rollers be used to remove residual material. These rollers amount to a sticking method using an adhesive tape to remove the thinned active material layer by sticking. In this case, the outer surface of the rollers 6 of Zhang necessarily include a sticky, tacky, or adhesive substance in order for dust to stick thereto. Further, “tape,” under its plain and ordinary meaning, is understood to refer to “a strip of material with an adhesive surface, used for sealing, binding, etc.” -see.www.thefreedictionary.com/tape, viewed on 04/03/2026. Here, the surface of the rollers that include some form of tacky, sticky, or adhesive material amounts to a strip of material with an adhesive surface).
Regarding claim 15, Zhang teaches the method for forming a groove on an electrode plate, as applied in claim 2, and further teaches wherein before the thinning the active material layer by a laser method, the method for forming a groove on an electrode plate further comprises: moving the electrode plate, to move the active material layer to a thinning processing position (See Fig. 7, electrode plate 8 is fed toward laser system 3, via rollers 11/12); and after the thinning the active material layer by a laser method, and before the removing the thinned active material layer by a physical removal method, the method for forming a groove on an electrode plate further comprises: moving the electrode plate, to move the active material layer from the thinning processing position to a removal position (See Fig. 7, electrode plate 8 is fed toward laser system 3, and afterwards, fed toward dust sticking rollers 6 via rollers 11/12).
Claim(s) 3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Franke et al. (US 2018/0355221).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang teaches the method for forming a groove on an electrode plate, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches a two step physical removal method (i.e., using dust collecting mechanism 5 followed by dust stick rollers 6).
Zhang is silent on a first removal on the thinned active material layer by any one of a brushing method, a scraping method, or a wiping method.
However, Zhang, as detailed above, does teach performing a second removal on the thinned active material layer by a sticking method (dust sticking rollers 6).
In this case, the claimed invention differs from that of Zhang in that the first removal method includes any one of a brushing method, a scraping method, or a wiping method (which is in contrast to the negative pressure applied by dust collecting mechanism 5 of Zhang).
However, Zhang does teach that mechanical scrape removing is conventional in the art (see para. 0004) in conjunction with a chemical removing method.
Franke relates to the art of additive manufacturing of continuous substrates (para. 0001) and is concerned with removing residue and cleaning the substrate (para. 00068), which is reasonably pertinent to the problem of removing thinned material layer and residue from an underlaying surface.
Franke teaches using a scraping method (scraper 24), followed by a sticking method (tacky roller 26), to clean the surface of the substrate (Fig. 1; para. 0068) (see also para. 0070; “scraper 254 contacts the major surface 11 of the substrate and removes residual adhesive from the substrate 10…a tacky roller 26 contacts the major surface 11 of the substrate and removes residual adhesive from the substrate.”).
Here, Franke teaches an alternative methodology of removing residual material by using a scraper followed by a tacky roller.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Zhang with Franke, by replacing the dust collecting mechanism, using negative pressure, upstream of the dust sticking rollers of Zhang, with the scraper upstream of the tacky roller of Franke, for in doing so would provide an alternative means that is known for aiding in removal of material from the surface of a substrate.
Furthermore, using the scraper amount to a simple substitution of art recognized material removal methods performing the same function of physically removing material and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. (See MPEP 2144.06-II).
Regarding claim 12, Zhang teaches the method for forming a groove on an electrode plate, as applied in claim 3, and further teaches wherein the brushing method is to use a brush to brush off the thinned active material layer; the scraping method is to use a scraper to scrape off the thinned active material layer (citations to Franke, applied in claim 3); the wiping method is to use a dust-free cloth to adsorb and wipe off the thinned active material layer; the sticking method is to use an adhesive tape to remove the thinned active material layer by sticking (In this case, Zhang and Franke teach dust sticking or tacky rollers be used to remove residual material. These rollers amount to a sticking method using an adhesive tape to remove the thinned active material layer by sticking. In this case, the outer surface of the rollers necessarily include a sticky, tacky, or adhesive substance in order for dust or residual material to stick thereto. Further, “tape,” under its plain and ordinary meaning, is understood to refer to “a strip of material with an adhesive surface, used for sealing, binding, etc.” -see.www.thefreedictionary.com/tape, viewed on 04/03/2026. Here, the surface of the rollers that include some form of tacky, sticky, or adhesive material amounts to a strip of material with an adhesive surface).
Note: as claim 3 sets forth a series of alternative methodologies of the first removal on the thinned material (i.e., any one of a brushing method, a scraping method, or a wiping method), and claim 12 merely further defines those same methodologies, claim 12 is understood to retain the alternative limitations such that only one limitation must be met by the prior art.
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 JUSTIN C DODSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0529. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 12:00-8:00 PM (ET).
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. 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.
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights