DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-19 are currently pending. New claim 19 has been added. The previous objection to the specification is withdrawn. The amended claims do overcome the previously stated 102 and 103 rejections. However, upon further consideration, claims 1-19 are rejected under the following new 103 rejections. This action is made FINAL as necessitated by the amendment.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al (CN 105655540 A, machine translation) in view of Wang et al (US 2020/0313186).
Regarding claims 1, 8, 12, and 19, Guo et al discloses a lithium ion battery (electrochemical device), characterized in that the lithium-ion battery comprises: a positive electrode sheet (positive electrode plate); a negative electrode sheet (negative electrode plate); and inherently a separator disposed between the positive electrode sheet and the negative electrode sheet, wherein the positive electrode sheet or the negative electrode sheet comprises: a current collector “1”; an active material layer “2” (first coating) applied onto the current collector, the active material layer comprising an active material and a first edge part, a middle part, and second edge part sequentially in a width direction of the current collector; and an insulating adhesive-active material mixed layer “4” (second coating) comprising an insulating adhesive/insulating gel (second binder) that is polyvinylidene fluoride or styrene-butadiene rubber, the insulating adhesive-active material mixed layer comprising a first part disposed on the first edge part and a second part disposed on the second edge part which inherently comprises a first bonding force that is exerted by a surface that is of the first part and that is away from the first edge part, a second bonding force that is exerted by a surface that is of the second part and that is away from the second edge part, a third bonding force that is exerted by a surface that is of the middle part and that is away from the current collector, and both the first bonding force and the second bonding force are greater than the third bonding force because the first part and second part comprises an adhesive that increases bonding force while the middle part does not comprise an adhesive ([0041],[0045],[0049],[0051],[0053],[0056] and Figs. 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 12).
However, Guo et al does not expressly teach a second coating that includes a conductive agent (claims 1 and 12); a mass percent of the second binder in the second coating that is 30% to 80% (claim 8); wherein a mass percent of the conductive agent in the second coating is 20%-70% (claim 19).
Wang et al discloses an electrode comprising a body region “1” (first coating) and an edge region “5” (second coating) comprising a LiCoO2 slurry comprising 1.5 wt% of a conductive agent ([0060],[0136],[0140]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Guo insulating adhesive-active material mixed layer to include a LiCoO2 slurry comprising a conductive agent in order to divide the cathode into a plurality of regions (parts) to alleviate the extent of lithium deposition of the electrochemical device during charge and discharge by adjusting the kinetic performance of different regions, thereby enhancing the safety of the electrochemical device ([0059]). Examiner’s note: the Office takes the position that the Guo insulating adhesive in combination with the Wang edge region (cathode slurry) form a “second coating” as recited in claims 1 and 12. In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Guo/Wang insulating adhesive-active material mixed layer to include a mass percent of the second binder in the second coating that is 30% to 80% and a mass percent of the conductive agent in the second coating that is 20%-70% because it has been held that the discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Where 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. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454. 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). There is no evidence of criticality of the claimed mass percent of the second binder and the conductive agent in the second coating.
Regarding claims 2-6 and 13-17, Guo et al discloses a width of the insulating adhesive “3” coated on the corresponding edge of the active material layer that may be 1 mm to 50 mm and a thickness of the insulating adhesive that is 1 um-200um ([0046],[0047]).
However, Guo et al does not expressly teach first part has a width d1, the second part has a width d2, the first coating has a width D, 1%< d1/D <10% and 1%< d2/D<10% (claims 2 and 13); wherein 5%< d1/D <10% (claims 3 and 14); wherein 5%< d2/D <10% (claims 4 and 15); both the first bonding force and the second bonding force are 2 to 10 times the third bonding force; and/or both the first bonding force and the second bonding force are greater than 5 N/m (claims 5 and 16); a thickness of the second coating is h, a thickness of the middle part is H, 0.5 um < h < 8 um and 20 um < H <200 um (claims 6 and 17).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Guo electrode sheet to include first part has a width d1, the second part has a width d2, the first coating has a width D, 1%< d1/D <10% and 1%< d2/D<10%; wherein 5%< d1/D <10%; wherein 5%< d2/D <10%; both the first bonding force and the second bonding force are 2 to 10 times the third bonding force; and/or both the first bonding force and the second bonding force are greater than 5 N/m; a thickness of the second coating is h, a thickness of the middle part is H, 0.5 um < h < 8 um and 20 um < H <200 um because it has been held that the discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The width of the first part, the width of the second part, the thickness of the second coating, the thickness of the middle part, the first bonding force/second bonding force, and third bonding force are result effective variables of enhancing the adhesion between the edge of the active material layer and the current collector, thereby reducing the detachment of the edge of the active material layer ([0039]). Where 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. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454. 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Regarding claim 7, Wang et al also discloses a body region (first coating) comprising 1.5 wt% of a binder comprising polyvinylidene fluoride ([0136]).
Regarding claim 18, Guo et al also discloses an electronic device comprises a lithium-ion rechargeable battery (electrochemical device) ([0004]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al in view of Wang et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sun et al (CN 103840123 A, machine translation).
However, Guo et al as modified by Wang et al does not expressly teach in a length direction of the first coating, the first part and/or the second part that are applied discontinuously, a ratio of an aggregate coating length of the first part to a length of the first coating is greater than 80%, and a ratio of an aggregate coating length of the second part to the length of the first coating is greater than 80% (claim 9).
Sun et al discloses a glue layer “2” (first part / second part) that are applied discontinuously in a length direction ([0017] and Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Guo/Wang electrode sheet to include in a length direction of the first coating, the first part and/or the second part that are applied discontinuously in order to provide a lithium-ion battery electrode with good processability, high production efficiency, and the ability to improve the qualified rate and safety of finished battery products ([0007]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Guo/Wang/Sun electrode sheet to include a ratio of an aggregate coating length of the first part to a length of the first coating that is greater than 80%, and a ratio of an aggregate coating length of the second part to the length of the first coating that is greater than 80% because it has been held that the discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Where 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. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454. 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). There is no evidence of criticality of the claimed ratio of an aggregate coating length of the first part/second part to a length of the first coating.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al in view of Wang et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al (US 2014/0349171).
However, Guo et al as modified by Wang et al does not expressly teach at least a partial region of the current collector that is etched (claim 10); wherein regions of the current collector where the first edge part and the second edge part of the first coating are applied, are etched; and a roughness of the regions of the current collector where the first edge part and the second edge part of the first coating are applied is 2 to 4 times a roughness of a region of the current collector where the middle part of the first coating is applied (claim 11).
Kim et al discloses a current collector that is etched ([0034],[0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Guo/Wang electrode sheet to include at least a partial region of the current collector that is etched in order to enhance the adhesion between the current collector and the electrode active material ([0034],[0062]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Guo/Wang/Kim electrode sheet to include a roughness of the regions of the current collector where the first edge part and the second edge part of the first coating are applied that is 2 to 4 times a roughness of a region of the current collector where the middle part of the first coating is applied because it has been held that the discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The roughness of the regions of the current collector where the first edge part and the second edge part of the first coating are applied is a result effective variable of optimizing the adhesion of the insulating adhesive to the first edge part and the second edge part, thereby reducing the detachment of the edge of the active material layer. Where 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. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454. 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-19 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 TONY S CHUO whose telephone number is (571)272-0717. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:30pm.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1292. 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.
/T.S.C/Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 4/9/2026
Prosecution Insights