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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I and Species A in the reply filed on 1/13/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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 non-obviousness.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (KR 10-2019-0046688, citations from US 2021/0336272) in view of Hasegawa et al. (US 2019/0348663).
Regarding claims 1, 2 and 4, Oh et al. discloses in Figs 1-3, an electrode assembly ([0065]) for a lithium secondary battery ([0063]-[0065]), comprising: at least one electrode (ref 100) located at an outermost shell ([0065]) of the electrode assembly ([0065]), wherein the at least one electrode (ref 100) is a single-sided ([0032], Fig 2) positive electrode ([0033]) including an active material coating layer (ref 120) disposed only on one surface ([0032], Fig 2) of a current collector (ref 110) facing an inner electrode ([0065]) with a separator ([0065], [0073]) being interposed therebetween, and a coating layer (ref 130) containing a particulate ([0057], dry sheet includes particles) plastic polymer ([0043]) disposed on another surface (Fig 2, bottom) of the current collector (ref 110) of the single-sided ([0032], Fig 2) positive electrode (ref 100).
Oh et al. does not explicitly disclose the coating layer containing 60% or 70% by weight or more of a super-engineering plastic polymer including polyamide-imide.
Hasegawa et al. discloses in Figs 1-8, a battery (ref 100) including a current collector (ref 11) with a coating of a surface polymer-coated ([0032]-[0033]), the coating constituting ([0033], the polymer is the only material, thus is 100% by weight) super-engineered polyamide-imide ([0033]). This configuration enhances battery structural integrity, preventing short-circuiting and enhancing overall electrical performance ([0032]-[0033]).
Hasegawa et al. and Oh et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the super-engineered polyamide-imide at the amount disclosed by Hasegawa et al. into the polymer coated layer of Oh et al. to enhance battery structural integrity, preventing short-circuiting and enhancing overall electrical performance.
Regarding claim 8, modified Oh et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above, but the reference does not explicitly disclose the coating layer has a thickness of 5 – 60% relative to a thickness of the positive electrode active material coating layer. As the electrode cost of construction and physical properties are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said thickness of the coating layer (see Oh et al., [0044]), with said construction cost and physical properties both varying as the coating thickness is varied, the precise coating thickness would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed coating thickness cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the thickness of the coating in the coating material layer of Oh et al. to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the physical properties (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223.
Regarding claim 9, modified Oh et all discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the electrode assembly ([0065]) is configured such that the single-sided electrode ([0032], Fig 2) is formed on a whole of outermost shells on both sides of a stacking direction ([0065], [0073], [0005], general configuration disclosed).
Regarding claim 10, modified Oh et all discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses a separator ([0065], [0073], [0005]) is located outside of the single-sided positive electrode ([0032], Fig 2)
Regarding claim 11, modified Oh et all discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the electrode assembly is of a stack-folding type ([0005]) in which one or more unit cells of a full-cell are folded ([0005]) with a sheet-type separation film such that a positive electrode and a negative electrode are alternately stacked ([0005]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (KR 10-2019-0046688, citations from US 2021/0336272) in view of Hasegawa et al. (US 2019/0348663) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Scordilis-Kelley et al. (US 2011/0287305).
Regarding claim 3, modified Oh et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the particulate super-engineering plastic polymer has a D50 particle diameter of 50 nm – 20 microns.
Scordilis-Kelley et al. discloses in Figs 1-3, a battery (Abstract) including an electrode containing polymer particles at D50 = 12 microns ([0106]). This configuration enhances the structural integrity and performance of the electrode and battery ([0105]-[0107]).
Scordilis-Kelley et al. and Oh et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the plastic polymer particles of Oh et al. at the size disclosed by Scordilis-Kelley et al. to enhance structural integrity and performance of the battery.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (KR 10-2019-0046688, citations from US 2021/0336272) in view of Hasegawa et al. (US 2019/0348663) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2008/0292968).
Regarding claims 5-7, modified Oh et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose
Lee et al. discloses in Figs 1-5, a battery separator structure (Abstract) including a substrate (ref 1) coated with a surface polymer binder layer (ref 5). The surface polymer binder layer (ref 5) includes PVdF an amount of 20 wt% relative to other components ([0071]). This configuration enhances the stability and performance of the battery ([0053], [0095]).
Lee et al. and Oh et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate a PVdF binder at the amount disclosed by Lee et al. into the plastic coating layer of Oh et al. to enhance stability and performance of the battery.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yamada et al., “Review of the Design of Current Collectors for Improving the Battery Performance in Lithium-Ion and Post-Lithium-Ion Batteries” discloses polymer PVdF coatings on surfaces of current collectors to inhibit dendrite growth (P144/§8.1).
Meguro et al. (US 2017/0125842) discloses in Figs 1-6, a battery including super engineered plastic particles therein ([0122]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH J DOUYETTE whose telephone number is (571)270-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8A - 4P EST.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/KENNETH J DOUYETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725