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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 22nd 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed December 15th 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Nakamoto et al. JP 2007/172880 A. New rejections follow.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 9-11, 13-16, & 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui et al. US 2020/0112064 A1 in further in view of Nakamoto et al. JP 2007/172880 A1. Citations to Nakamoto are mapped to the English machine translation provided.
Regarding Claim 1, Matsui discloses a secondary battery comprising an electrode plate (electrodes) and an electrode tab (electrode leads) [0036]. Matsui discloses that the electrode plate comprises a current collector and an electrode plate film layer (active material layer) [0039]. Matsui discloses that the electrode plate film layer (active material layer) further comprises a first zone (flat portion Figure 4 Item 21M) and a second zone (inclined portion Figure 4 Item 21N) along an extension direction of the tab (longitudinal direction) wherein the second zone is closer to the electrode tab (as shown in Figure 3B wherein the second zone Item 21N is illustrated to be closer to the electrode tab Item 11) [0043]. Matsui further discloses that the first zone is thicker than the second zone (also shown in Figure 4) [0043]. More specifically, in the preparation of Examples 1-7 [0179], Matsui discloses that the thickness of the current collector is 12µm, the overall thickness of the first zone (flat portion) of the electrode plate (D1max) is 100µm, and the overall thickness of the second zone (inclined portion) of the electrode plate (D1min) is in the range of 93-99 µm [0179]. This is further illustrated in Annotated Figure 4 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
286
744
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4
Matsui discloses that the thickness of the first zone of the electrode plate film layer is 88 µm:
100 µm (overall thickness) - 12 µm (thickness of current collector) = 88 µm
Thus Matsui discloses that thickness of one side of the first zone of the electrode plate film layer is 44 µm.
Additionally, Matsui discloses that the thickness of the second zone of the electrode plate film layer is in the range of 81-87 µm
99 µm (upper end of range) - 12 µm (thickness of current collector) = 87 µm
93 µm (lower end of range) - 12 µm (thickness of current collector) = 81 µm
Thus, Matsui discloses that the thickness of one side of the second zone of the electrode plate film layer is 40.5-43.5 µm.
Thus, Matsui discloses a ratio of H2/H1, where H2 is the thickness of the electrode plate film layer in the second zone and H1 is the thickness of the electrode plate layer in the first zone, of 0.92-0.99.
40.5 µm / 44 µm = 0.92
43.5 µm / 44 µm = 0.99
However, Matsui fails to disclose that the ratio H2/H1 satisfies 0.6 ≤ H2/H1 ≤ 0.75.
Nakamoto discloses an electrode plate for a winding type battery having an active material layer (mixture layer containing an active material) wherein one end is thicker than the other end [0008-0009], more specifically wherein the end closest to the lead/terminal is thinner than the opposite end, as shown in Figure 2 (terminal Item 23, thin end 22A, thick end 22B) and similar to that of Matsui. Thus, Nakamoto discloses an electrode plate comprising an electrode plate film layer (mixed layer of active material) having a first zone (thick region 22B) and a second zone (thin region 22A), wherein the second zone is closer to the electrode tab, similar to that of Matsui, as illustrated in Annotated Nakamoto Figure 2 below.
PNG
media_image2.png
261
711
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Nakamoto Figure 2
Nakamoto further discloses that the difference in thickness between the first zone (thick region 22B) and the second zone (thin region 22A) is 5-20µm [0028].
Nakamoto discloses that if the difference in thickness is less than 5 µm, lateral displacement may occur during winding [0028]. Nakamoto additionally discloses that if the difference in thickness is more than 20 µm, the winding operation is difficult [0028].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the thickness of the second zone of Matsui to have the suggested difference in thickness from the first zone as suggested by Nakamoto to provide a winding type battery that is easy to wind and prevents lateral displacement during winding. Thus modified Matsui discloses that the second zone has a thickness that is 5-20 µm thinner than the first zone.
As mentioned above, Matsui discloses that the first zone has a thickness (one side) of 44 µm. Thus, modified Matsui discloses that the second zone has a thickness (one side) of 24-39 µm, as modified by Nakamoto. Therefore, modified Matsui discloses that a ratio of H2/H1, where H2 is the thickness of the electrode plate film layer in the second zone and H1 is the thickness of the electrode plate layer in the first zone, has a range of 0.55-0.89, which overlaps the claimed range.
24 µm /44 µm = 0.55
39 µm /44 µm = 0.89
In regards to the thickness ratio, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 I. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ranged disclosed by modified Matsui because selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the difference in thickness of the first zone and the second zone is a result effective variable, and would seek to optimize this parameter, and would therefore arrive at a ratio of H2/H1 within the claimed range to provide a winding type battery that is easy to wind and prevents lateral displacement during winding. See MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to select a difference in thickness that satisfies the claimed ratio 0.6≤H2/H1≤0.75 to provide a winding type battery that is easy to wind and prevent lateral displacement during winding, as suggested by Nakamoto.
Regarding Claim 11, Matsui discloses an apparatus, such as an electronic device like a laptop, mobile, phone among others [0149] or a hybrid vehicle [0155], containing the secondary battery according to the embodiments of the disclosure [0146]. As mentioned with regards to Claim 1 above, modified Matsui with the modification of Nakamoto discloses a secondary battery that meets the limitations of Claim 11.
Regarding Claims 3, 13, & 20, Matsui discloses that the thickness of the first zone H1 (flat portion) is 44 µm, as mentioned with regards to Claim 1. Thus Matsui discloses that the thickness of the first zone is 0.044mm, which falls within the claimed range. In regards to the thickness of the first zone, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2131.03 I. In the case where the prior art “discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim”. UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Accordingly, the thickness disclosed in Matsui anticipates the claimed range set forth in Claim 1. See MPEP 2131.03 I.
Modified Matsui, as modified above by Nakamoto with regards to Claim 1, discloses that the thickness ratio of the second zone to the first zone is 0.55-0.89, which overlaps with the claimed range 0.7-0.75. In regards to the thickness ratio, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 I. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ranged disclosed by modified Matsui because selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding Claims 4 & 14, Matsui discloses that the current collector (aluminum layer) has a width of 100 mm (Examples 1-7 [0179]), and that the electrode plate film layer is layered on the current collector, thus the electrode plate film layer would be expected to have the same width. Thus, Matsui discloses an electrode plate film layer with a width of 100mm, which falls within the claimed range. In regards to the thickness of the first zone, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2131.03 I. In the case where the prior art “discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim”. UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Accordingly, the thickness disclosed in Matsui anticipates the claimed range set forth in Claim 1. See MPEP 2131.03 I.
Regarding Claims 5 & 15, Matsui discloses that the negative electrode can have the same structure as the positive electrode [0137-0138], as discussed with regards to Claim 1. Thus, modified Matsui discloses that the electrode plate with the configuration claimed in Claim 1 is a negative electrode plate. Further, Matsui discloses that the negative electrode plate comprises a negative current collector and a negative electrode film layer (active material layer) coated on the current collector [0071].
Regarding Claims 6 & 16, Matsui discloses that the negative electrode plate film layer comprises a negative electrode active material [0071, 0078] and further discloses that the negative electrode active material comprises a silicon-based material [0081]. Matsui further discloses that the silicon compound can further comprise oxygen [0084], thus comprises a silicon oxygen compound.
Regarding Claims 9 & 19, Matsui discloses that the electrode plate is a positive electrode [0039] comprising a positive current collector and a positive electrode plate film layer (active material layer) on the current collector [0039]. Matsui discloses that the positive electrode plate film layer comprises a positive electrode active material [0057]. Matsui discloses that the positive electrode active material comprises a lithium transition metal composite oxide [0058]. Matsui discloses that the lithium transition metal composite oxide comprises the formula: LiNi0.5Co0.2Mn0.3O2 [0058] which reads on the limitations of Claims 9 & 19 when a = 1, b = 0.5, c = 0.2, d = 0.3 and M = Mn, e = 2, and f = 0 thus element A is not included.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Matsui discloses a method of preparing an electrode plate according the disclosed embodiments [0113-0115], which comprises a tab [0115], a current collector [0115], and an electrode plate film layer on the current collector [0115], which comprises a positive electrode plate having a first zone and a second zone with the configuration recited in Claim 1. Thus, modified Matsui discloses a method of preparing a secondary battery that meets the limitations of Claim 10.
Claims 2 & 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui and Nakamoto as applied to claims 1 & 11 above and further in view of Nishinaka et al. US 2015/0244017 A1.
Regarding Claims 2 & 12, Matsui and Nakamoto are relied upon for the reason given above in addressing Claims 1 & 11, however fail to disclose that the electrode plate film layer satisfies 0.03 < W2/W1 < 0.1, wherein W1 is the width of the first zone and W2 is the width of the second zone.
Nishinaka discloses an electrode plate for a secondary battery comprising an electrode plate film layer (active material layer) having a first zone and a second zone [Abstract] and further shown in Nishinaka Annotated Figure 13 below. Nishinaka discloses that the width of the entire coated region (which in this case comprises the first zone and the second zone) is 28mm (H1 in Figure 13) [0097, 0132]. Nishinaka further discloses that the second zone (shown as X2 in Figure 13 below as the width of the buffer region) has a width of 0.1-5mm (Tables 2-4).
PNG
media_image3.png
461
853
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 13
Thus, Nishinaka discloses that the width of the second zone W2 (width of buffer region) is 0.1-5mm, and the width of the first zone W1 (width of entire coated region – width of the buffer region) is 23-27.9mm, and therefore Nishinaka discloses that the ratio of W2 to W1 is from 0.004 to 0.22, which overlaps the claimed range. In regards to the ratio of the widths of the regions, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 I. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ranged disclosed by Nishinaka because selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Nishinaka discloses that an electrode plate with this ratio have reduced failures due to separation and cracking of the electrode active material layer [0022].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the widths of the zones of modified Matsui with the widths of the zones of Nishinaka to provide an electrode plate having a W2/W1 ratio within the claimed range, to achieve an electrode plate with reduced failures due to separation and cracking of the electrode active material layer.
Claims 7 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui and Nakamoto as applied to claim 6 & 16 above.
Regarding Claims 7 & 17, Matsui discloses that the negative electrode active material comprises a silicon-based material [0081].
Matsui discloses that preferably the negative electrode active material comprises one of tin or silicon [0082]. Matsui discloses that in the case where the negative electrode active material comprises tin, the tin is contained in an amount of 21.1-63.1 mass %, as illustrated in detail below:
Carbon content = 9.9-29.7 mass % overall
Remaining content of Tin and constituent = 70.3-90.1 mass %
Constituent content (in this case, Co) = 30-70 mass % of Cobalt and Tin
Thus Tin content would be 30-70 mass % of Cobalt and Tin
Therefore, the Tin content overall would be in the range of:
Low end – 70.3 x 0.3 = 21.1 mass % Tin overall
High end – 90.1 x 0.7 = 63.1 mass % Tin overall
Matsui discloses that silicon and tin can be alternatives as a negative electrode active material [0082]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to substitute one known negative electrode active material i.e. tin, for another negative electrode active material, i.e. silicon, with reasonable expectation of success. The simple substitution of one negative electrode active material for another to obtain predictable results is not patentable. See KSR International Co v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007); MPEP 2143 B.
In addition, by teaching the two alternative negative electrode active materials, Matsui demonstrates that these are known equivalents in the art, and the selection of either negative electrode active material would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.06.
Therefore, Matsui discloses, through substitution, that the mass percentage of silicon in the negative electrode active material is 21.1-63.1 mass %. In regards to the content of silicon, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 I. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ranged disclosed by Matsui because selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Claims 8 & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui and Nakamoto as applied to claims 5 & 15 above, in further view of Yue et al. US 10,522,834 B2.
Regarding Claim 8 & 18, Matsui and Nakamoto are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claims 5 & 15. However, Matsui and Nakamoto are silent as to the specific press density of the negative electrode plate film layer.
Yue discloses a negative electrode plate film layer (negative active material layer) similar to that of Matsui as mentioned above, comprising carbon material and a nano-active material [Column 2 Lines 22-24], specifically silicon [Column 2 Lines 55-60]. Yue discloses that the negative electrode plate film layer (negative active material layer) has a press density (powder compacted density) of 1.1-1.7 g/cm3 [Column 2 Lines 41-43]. In regards to the press density, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 I. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ranged disclosed by Yue because selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Yue discloses that having this press density leads to better processing performance [Column 6 Lines 57-60].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the press density of Yue in the negative electrode plate film layer of modified Matsui to achieve a battery with better processing performance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 ANNA E GOULD whose telephone number is (571)270-1088. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/A.E.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1726 /DANIEL P MALLEY JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726