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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 3/12/2026 has been entered. Claims 6 and 17 are cancelled. Claims 1-18 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 12/17/2025.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jan et al. (US 2007/0245548, hereinafter "Jan") in view of Wang et al. (CN 113097428, referring to previously provided English translation thereof, hereinafter "Wang").
Regarding claim 1, Jan teaches a rechargeable battery (“electrochemical device”) comprising a positive pole (“positive electrode plate”), a negative pole (“negative electrode plate”), and an isolation membrane (“separator”) stacked together [0007, “the rechargeable battery fabrication method comprises the steps of: (a) preparing a positive pole, a negative pole and two isolation membranes”, “said positive pole, one of said isolation membranes, said negative pole and the other one of said isolation membranes, which are orderly arranged in a stack”, Jan Fig. 1]. The positive pole comprises a positive pole material film (“positive active material layer”) and the negative pole comprises a copper strip (“negative electrode current collector”) and a negative pole material film (“first negative active material layer”) [0007, “wherein said positive pole includes an elongated aluminum strip and a positive pole material film partially covering said elongated aluminum strip”, “said negative pole includes an elongated copper strip and a negative pole material film partially covering said copper strip”]. Jan Fig. 1 illustrates the negative pole material film (34) having a first edge and a second edge opposite to the first edge in a width direction (“length direction”) [0017, “The negative pole material film 34 is a MCMB (Mesophase Carbon Micro Beads) film, having a width w3”]. The width direction is parallel to the W3 direction in Fig. 1. Fig. 1 also illustrates the positive pole material film (24) having a fifth edge and a sixth edge opposite to the fifth edge in a width direction, wherein the first and fifth edge are located on a first side in the length direction, and the second and sixth edge are located on a second side in the length direction [0017, “The positive pole material film 24 is a LiCoO2 film, having a width w1”]. The negative pole material film width (w3) is approximately equal to the positive pole material width (w1) [0017, “The negative pole material film 34 is a MCMB (Mesophase Carbon Micro Beads) film, having a width w3 approximately equal to the width w1 of the positive pole material film 24 “]. Jan Fig. 2 shows that the negative pole material film and positive pole material film are stacked directly on top of each other. Therefore, the distance between the first edge and the fifth edge in the width direction is 0, which is less than 2 mm. Jan does not specifically teach a second negative active material layer.
Wang teaches analogous art of a battery (“electrochemical device”) comprising a negative electrode sheet (“negative electrode plate”) [0003, “purpose of this invention is to provide a negative electrode sheet, a battery”]. The negative electrode sheet comprises a negative electrode current collector, a first coating(“first negative active material layer”), and a second coating (“second negative active material layer”), wherein the first coating is located between the negative electrode current collector and the second coating [0004, “a negative electrode sheet, including a negative electrode current collector, a negative electrode tab, a first coating, and a second coating. The first coating is disposed on the surface of the negative electrode current collector”]. The first and second coatings contain active material [0006, “The first coating contains a first active material, and the second coating contains a second active material”]. The first coating (20) has a first edge and a second edge opposite the first edge in a length direction (left-right direction in Wang Fig. 1), and the second coating (30) has a third edge and a fourth edge opposite the third edge in the length direction, wherein the first and third edges are located on a first side the length direction, and the second and fourth edges are located on a second side in the length direction [Wang Fig. 1, 0037, “The aforementioned negative electrode sheet includes a negative electrode current collector 10, a negative electrode tab (not shown in the figure), a first coating 20, and a second coating 30”]. The third edge protrudes beyond the first edge in the length direction [Wang Fig. 1, 0037, “The second coating 30 includes a first part and a second part. The first part is disposed on the first coating 20, and the second part is disposed on the negative electrode current collector 10”].
Wang discloses that the energy density of the negative electrode can be increased through double-layer coating [0043]. Wang also teaches that the median diameter of the active material in the second coating is smaller than the median diameter of the active material in the first coating, which makes it easier for lithium ions to move inside the active material, providing better ion diffusion kinetics [0043]. Since the edge portions of the second coating protrude beyond the edge portions of the first coatings in the length direction, the active material having improved kinetic performance is closer to the negative electrode tab, thus reducing the risk of lithium plating during charging [0043].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrochemical device taught by Jan by adding a second negative active material layer as taught by Wang, in order to reduce the risk of lithium plating during charging and increase the energy density of the negative electrode plate. Since the first negative active material layer and the positive active material layer taught by Jan have the same width, the edges of the second negative active material layer taught by Wang would also protrude beyond the edges of the positive active material layer.
Regarding claim 2, as described in the rejection of instant claim 1, Jan teaches that the negative pole material film width (w3) is approximately equal to the positive pole material width (w1) [0017]. Jan Fig. 2 shows that the negative pole material film and positive pole material film are stacked directly on top of each other. Therefore, the distance between the first edge and the fifth edge in the width direction is 0.
Regarding claim 3, modified Jan teaches the electrochemical device of claim 1, as described in the rejection of claim 1.
Wang teaches that the first coating (20) has a first edge and a second edge opposite the first edge in a length direction (left-right direction in Wang Fig. 1), and the second coating (30) has a third edge and a fourth edge opposite the third edge in the length direction, wherein the first and third edges are located on a first side the length direction, and the second and fourth edges are located on a second side in the length direction [Wang Fig. 1, 0037]. The fourth edge protrudes beyond the second edge in the length direction [Wang Fig. 1, 0005, “the distance between the edge of the second coating near the negative electrode tab and the negative electrode tab is the first distance, the distance between the edge of the first coating near the negative electrode tab and the negative electrode tab is the second distance, and the first distance is less than the second distance”]. Wang Fig. 1 illustrates that on both the first and second sides in the length direction, the edges of the second coating protrude beyond the edges of the first coating.
Wang discloses that the energy density of the negative electrode can be increased through double-layer coating [0043]. Wang also teaches that the median diameter of the active material in the second coating is smaller than the median diameter of the active material in the first coating, which makes it easier for lithium ions to move inside the active material, providing better ion diffusion kinetics [0043]. Since the edge portions of the second coating protrude beyond the edge portions of the first coatings in the length direction, the active material having improved kinetic performance is closer to the negative electrode tab, thus reducing the risk of lithium plating during charging [0043].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrochemical device taught by Jan by adding a second negative active material layer whose edges protrude beyond the edges of the first negative active material layer as taught by Wang, in order to reduce the risk of lithium plating during charging and increase the energy density of the negative electrode plate. Since the first negative active material layer and the positive active material layer taught by Jan have the same width, the edges of the second negative active material layer taught by Wang would also protrude beyond the edges of the positive active material layer.
Regarding claim 4, modified Jan teaches the electrochemical device of claim 3, as described in the rejection of instant claim 3. Jan teaches that the negative pole material film width (w3) is approximately equal to the positive pole material width (w1) [0017]. Jan Fig. 2 shows that the negative pole material film and positive pole material film are stacked directly on top of each other. Therefore, the distance between the second edge and the sixth edge in the width direction is 0, which is less than 2 mm.
Regarding claim 5, modified Jan teaches the electrochemical device of claim 4, as described in the rejection of instant claim 4. Jan teaches that the negative pole material film width (w3) is approximately equal to the positive pole material width (w1) [0017]. Jan Fig. 2 shows that the negative pole material film and positive pole material film are stacked directly on top of each other. Therefore, the distance between the second edge and the sixth edge in the width direction is 0.
Regarding claim 6, modified Jan teaches the electrochemical device of claim 1, as described in the rejection of instant claim 1.
Wang teaches a specific embodiment, Embodiment 1, of the battery wherein the coating width (which is in the left-right direction of Wang. Fig. 1) of the first coating L1 is 2L-10mm, and the coating width of the second coating is 2L [Wang Fig. 1, 0086, “the coating width L1 is 2L-10mm … the coating width L2 is 2L”]. Wang Fig. 1 shows that the first and second coating are placed symmetrically on the negative electrode current collector, making the distance between the edges of the first and second coatings in the length direction the same on each side. Therefore, the distance between the first edge and the third edge in the length direction would be 10 mm divided by two, or 5mm, which is within the recited range.
Wang discloses that Embodiment 1, where the distance between the first edge and the third edge in the length direction is 5 mm, solved the issue of lithium plating at the head of the battery cell cause by insufficient negative electrode paste at the edges of the negative electrode sheet, while also improving the energy density [0109, “Embodiment 1 of the present invention can improve the energy density of the cell while ensuring no lithium plating”].
Since modified Jan teaches that the first negative active material layer and the positive active material layer have the same width and are stacked directly on top of each other, the distance between the third edge and the fifth edge in the length direction would be the same as the distance between the first edge and the third edge in the length direction, which is 5 mm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrochemical device taught by modified Jan to have the distance between the third edge and the fifth edge in the length direction be 5 mm as taught by Wang, in order to improve the energy density of the negative electrode and solve the issues of lithium plating.
Regarding claim 7, modified Jan teaches the electrochemical device of claim 3, as described in the rejection of instant claim 3.
Wang teaches a specific embodiment, Embodiment 1, of the battery wherein the coating width (which is in the left-right direction of Wang. Fig. 1) of the first coating L1 is 2L-10mm, and the coating width of the second coating is 2L [Wang Fig. 1, 0086, “the coating width L1 is 2L-10mm … the coating width L2 is 2L”]. Wang Fig. 1 shows that the first and second coating are placed symmetrically on the negative electrode current collector, making the distance between the edges of the first and second coatings in the length direction the same on each side. Therefore, the distance between the second edge and the fourth edge in the length direction would be 10 mm divided by two, or 5mm, which is within the recited range.
Wang discloses that Embodiment 1, where the distance between the first edge and the third edge in the length direction is 5 mm, solved the issue of lithium plating at the head of the battery cell cause by insufficient negative electrode paste at the edges of the negative electrode sheet, while also improving the energy density [0109, “Embodiment 1 of the present invention can improve the energy density of the cell while ensuring no lithium plating”].
Since modified Jan teaches that the first negative active material layer and the positive active material layer have the same width and are stacked directly on top of each other, the distance between the fourth edge and the sixth edge in the length direction would be the same as the distance between the second edge and the fourth edge in the length direction, which is 5 mm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrochemical device taught by modified Jan to have the distance between the fourth edge and the sixth edge in the length direction be 5 mm as taught by Wang, in order to improve the energy density of the negative electrode and solve the issues of lithium plating.
Regarding claim 9, modified Jan teaches the electrochemical device of claim 1, as described in the rejection of instant claim 1. Jan is silent regarding the conditions recited in claim 9.
Wang teaches that the first coating contains a first active material and the second coating contains a second active material [0039]. Wang teaches that the first coating and second coating may satisfy one of the following conditions:
The content of conductive agent in the first coating is less than the content of conductive agent in the second coating [0047];
the porosity of the first coating is less than that of the second coating [0048];
the average particle size (“diameter”) of the first active material is greater than the average particle size of the second active material [0050];
the graphite orientation index (OI) value of the first active material is greater than that of the second active material [0051]; and
the impedance (“resistivity”) of the first coating is greater than the impedance of the second coating [0052].
Wang discloses that the difference in kinetic performance between the first coating and the second coating can be achieved by controlling at least one of the foregoing conditions (i-v), so that the kinetic performance of the second coating is stronger than that of the first coating. Wang teaches that when a second active material with better kinetic performance is used in the region near the electrode tab on the edge of the negative electrode current collector, the risk of lithium plating is reduced.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrochemical device taught by modified Jan to control the first and second negative active material layers to follow at least one of conditions (i-v) taught by Wang, in order to reduce the risk of lithium plating.
Claims 8 and 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jan (US 2007/0245548) in view of Wang (CN 113097428) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (CN 110335996, referring to examiner-provided English translation thereof, hereinafter "Zhang").
Regarding claim 8, modified Jan teaches the electrochemical device of claim 1, as described in the rejection of instant claim 1. Modified Jan is silent regarding a gram capacity of a negative active material in the first and second negative active material layers.
Zhang teaches analogous art of a lithium-ion battery (“electrochemical device”) comprising an anode (“negative electrode plate”) [0002]. The anode employs a double-layer coating method for two negative electrode materials with different specific capacities (“gram capacities”) [0011, “a double-sided, double-layer coating method for two negative electrode materials with different specific capacities”]. The first layer (“first negative active material layer”), located near the current collector, has an active material specific capacity of greater than or equal to 1000 mAh/g [0011]. The second layer (“second negative active material layer”), located away from the current collector and covering the first layer, has an active material specific capacity of less than or equal to 420 mAh/g [0012].
Zhang teaches that batteries including the double-layer negative electrode comprising the first layer having a greater specific capacity than the second layer in Examples 1-19 had significantly improved cycle performance.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrochemical device taught by modified Jan to have the gram capacity of a negative active material in the first negative active material layer be greater than the gram capacity of a negative active material in the second negative active material layer as taught by Zhang, in order to improve its cycle performance.
Regarding claim 10, modified Jan teaches the electrochemical device of claim 1 as described in the rejection of instant claim 1. Jan does not specifically teach an electronic device comprising the electrochemical device.
Zhang teaches analogous art of a lithium-ion battery (“electrochemical device”) comprising an anode (“negative electrode plate”) [0002]. Zhang further discloses that lithium-ion batteries may be used for new energy vehicles (“electronic device”) [0004, “Improving the energy density of lithium-ion batteries is key to increasing the driving range of new energy vehicles”].
The electrochemical devices taught by both modified Jan and Zhang are intended to provide power. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the electrochemical device taught by modified Jan with the electronic device taught by Zhang, in order to yield the predictable result of providing power to the electronic device [see MPEP 2143 (I)(A)].
Regarding claim 11, as described in the rejection of instant claim 1 above, Jan teaches that the negative pole material film width (w3) is approximately equal to the positive pole material width (w1) [0017]. Jan Fig. 2 shows that the negative pole material film and positive pole material film are stacked directly on top of each other. Therefore, the distance between the first edge and the fifth edge in the width direction is 0.
Regarding claim 12, modified Jan teaches the electronic device of claim 10, as described in the rejection of claim 10.
Wang teaches that the first coating (20) has a first edge and a second edge opposite the first edge in a length direction (left-right direction in Wang Fig. 1), and the second coating (30) has a third edge and a fourth edge opposite the third edge in the length direction, wherein the first and third edges are located on a first side the length direction, and the second and fourth edges are located on a second side in the length direction [Wang Fig. 1, 0037]. The fourth edge protrudes beyond the second edge in the length direction [Wang Fig. 1, 0005, “the distance between the edge of the second coating near the negative electrode tab and the negative electrode tab is the first distance, the distance between the edge of the first coating near the negative electrode tab and the negative electrode tab is the second distance, and the first distance is less than the second distance”]. Wang Fig. 1 illustrates that on both the first and second sides in the length direction, the edges of the second coating protrude beyond the edges of the first coating.
Wang discloses that the energy density of the negative electrode can be increased through double-layer coating [0043]. Wang also teaches that the median diameter of the active material in the second coating is smaller than the median diameter of the active material in the first coating, which makes it easier for lithium ions to move inside the active material, providing better ion diffusion kinetics [0043]. Since the edge portions of the second coating protrude beyond the edge portions of the first coatings in the length direction, the active material having improved kinetic performance is closer to the negative electrode tab, thus reducing the risk of lithium plating during charging [0043].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electronic device taught by Jan by adding a second negative active material layer whose edges protrude beyond the edges of the first negative active material layer as taught by Wang, in order to reduce the risk of lithium plating during charging and increase the energy density of the negative electrode plate. Since the first negative active material layer and the positive active material layer taught by Jan have the same width, the edges of the second negative active material layer taught by Wang would also protrude beyond the edges of the positive active material layer.
Regarding claim 13, modified Jan teaches the electronic device of claim 12, as described in the rejection of instant claim 12. Jan teaches that the negative pole material film width (w3) is approximately equal to the positive pole material width (w1) [0017]. Jan Fig. 2 shows that the negative pole material film and positive pole material film are stacked directly on top of each other. Therefore, the distance between the second edge and the sixth edge in the width direction is 0, which is less than 2 mm.
Regarding claim 14, modified Jan teaches the electrochemical device of claim 13, as described in the rejection of instant claim 13. Jan teaches that the negative pole material film width (w3) is approximately equal to the positive pole material width (w1) [0017]. Jan Fig. 2 shows that the negative pole material film and positive pole material film are stacked directly on top of each other. Therefore, the distance between the second edge and the sixth edge in the width direction is 0.
Regarding claim 15, modified Jan teaches the electrochemical device of claim 10, as described in the rejection of instant claim 10.
Wang teaches a specific embodiment, Embodiment 1, of the battery wherein the coating width (which is in the left-right direction of Wang. Fig. 1) of the first coating L1 is 2L-10mm, and the coating width of the second coating is 2L [Wang Fig. 1, 0086, “the coating width L1 is 2L-10mm … the coating width L2 is 2L”]. Wang Fig. 1 shows that the first and second coating are placed symmetrically on the negative electrode current collector, making the distance between the edges of the first and second coatings in the length direction the same on each side. Therefore, the distance between the first edge and the third edge in the length direction would be 10 mm divided by two, or 5mm, which is within the recited range.
Wang discloses that Embodiment 1, where the distance between the first edge and the third edge in the length direction is 5 mm, solved the issue of lithium plating at the head of the battery cell cause by insufficient negative electrode paste at the edges of the negative electrode sheet, while also improving the energy density [0109, “Embodiment 1 of the present invention can improve the energy density of the cell while ensuring no lithium plating”].
Since modified Jan teaches that the first negative active material layer and the positive active material layer have the same width and are stacked directly on top of each other, the distance between the third edge and the fifth edge in the length direction would be the same as the distance between the first edge and the third edge in the length direction, which is 5 mm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electronic device taught by modified Jan to have the distance between the third edge and the fifth edge in the length direction be 5 mm as taught by Wang, in order to improve the energy density of the negative electrode and solve the issues of lithium plating.
Regarding claim 16, modified Jan teaches the electrochemical device of claim 12, as described in the rejection of instant claim 12.
Wang teaches a specific embodiment, Embodiment 1, of the battery wherein the coating width (which is in the left-right direction of Wang. Fig. 1) of the first coating L1 is 2L-10mm, and the coating width of the second coating is 2L [Wang Fig. 1, 0086, “the coating width L1 is 2L-10mm … the coating width L2 is 2L”]. Wang Fig. 1 shows that the first and second coating are placed symmetrically on the negative electrode current collector, making the distance between the edges of the first and second coatings in the length direction the same on each side. Therefore, the distance between the second edge and the fourth edge in the length direction would be 10 mm divided by two, or 5mm, which is within the recited range.
Wang discloses that Embodiment 1, where the distance between the first edge and the third edge in the length direction is 5 mm, solved the issue of lithium plating at the head of the battery cell cause by insufficient negative electrode paste at the edges of the negative electrode sheet, while also improving the energy density [0109, “Embodiment 1 of the present invention can improve the energy density of the cell while ensuring no lithium plating”].
Since modified Jan teaches that the first negative active material layer and the positive active material layer have the same width and are stacked directly on top of each other, the distance between the fourth edge and the sixth edge in the length direction would be the same as the distance between the second edge and the fourth edge in the length direction, which is 5 mm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electronic device taught by modified Jan to have the distance between the fourth edge and the sixth edge in the length direction be 5 mm as taught by Wang, in order to improve the energy density of the negative electrode and solve the issues of lithium plating.
Regarding claim 17, modified Jan teaches the electronic device of claim 10, as described in the rejection of instant claim 10. Modified Jan is silent regarding a gram capacity of a negative active material in the first and second negative active material layers.
Zhang teaches a lithium-ion battery (“electrochemical device”) comprising an anode (“negative electrode plate”) [0002]. The anode employs a double-layer coating method for two negative electrode materials with different specific capacities (“gram capacities”) [0011, “a double-sided, double-layer coating method for two negative electrode materials with different specific capacities”]. The first layer (“first negative active material layer”), located near the current collector, has an active material specific capacity of greater than or equal to 1000 mAh/g [0011]. The second layer (“second negative active material layer”), located away from the current collector and covering the first layer, has an active material specific capacity of less than or equal to 420 mAh/g [0012].
Zhang teaches that batteries including the double-layer negative electrode comprising the first layer having a greater specific capacity than the second layer in Examples 1-19 had significantly improved cycle performance.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electronic device taught by modified Jan to have the gram capacity of a negative active material in the first negative active material layer be greater than the gram capacity of a negative active material in the second negative active material layer as taught by Zhang, in order to improve its cycle performance.
Regarding claim 18, modified Jan teaches the electronic device of claim 10, as described in the rejection of instant claim 10. Jan is silent regarding the conditions recited in claim 18.
Wang teaches that the first coating contains a first active material and the second coating contains a second active material [0039]. Wang teaches that the first coating and second coating may satisfy one of the following conditions:
The content of conductive agent in the first coating is less than the content of conductive agent in the second coating [0047];
the porosity of the first coating is less than that of the second coating [0048];
the average particle size (“diameter”) of the first active material is greater than the average particle size of the second active material [0050];
the graphite orientation index (OI) value of the first active material is greater than that of the second active material [0051]; and
the impedance (“resistivity”) of the first coating is greater than the impedance of the second coating [0052].
Wang discloses that the difference in kinetic performance between the first coating and the second coating can be achieved by controlling at least one of the foregoing conditions (i-v), so that the kinetic performance of the second coating is stronger than that of the first coating. Wang teaches that when a second active material with better kinetic performance is used in the region near the electrode tab on the edge of the negative electrode current collector, the risk of lithium plating is reduced.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrochemical device taught by modified Jan to control the first and second negative active material layers to follow at least one of conditions (i-v) taught by Wang, in order to reduce the risk of lithium plating.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant presents the following arguments:
Jan “does not disclose or suggest a first negative active material layer and a second negative active material layer, different kinetic performances between negative active material layers or selective protrusion of only a kinetically superior layer beyond a positive active material layer” [Remarks, pg. 6].
“Wang does not disclose a positive electrode plate or any positional relationship between negative coating edges and a positive active material layer” [Remarks, pgs. 6 and 8].
The “positional coordination” of “the claimed edge relationship for three active material layers, namely, the positive active material layer and the first and second negative active material layers” is “absent from both references” [Remarks, pg. 8].
In response to these arguments it is noted that 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). These arguments fail to address the combined teaching of the applied references and instead only argue that each reference individually does not teach all of the claim limitations. All of the limitations of the claim are disclosed in either Jan or Wang, and the combination of the references renders the claimed invention obvious. The positional relationship of the first negative active material layer and the positive active material layer is disclosed in Jan. The positional relationship of the second negative active material layer and the first negative active material layer is disclosed in Wang. Furthermore, as described in the rejection of claim 1 above, since Jan teaches that the positive active material layer and the first negative active material layer may have an equal width, when Jan is modified to include the second negative active material layer taught by Wang, the positional relationship of the second negative active material layer and the positive active material layer would be the same as the positional relationship of the second negative active material layer and the first negative active material layer disclosed by Wang, thus the positional relationship of the second negative active material layer and the positive active material layer is rendered obvious by the combination of Jan and Wang. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection of claim 1 as obvious over Jan in view of Wang is maintained.
The applicant also presents the following arguments:
Jan expressly teaches that the width (w5) of the isolation membranes, the width (w3) of the negative pole material film (“first negative active material layer”), and the width (w1) of the positive pole material film (“positive active material layer”) are all equal [Remarks, pg. 7].
“Jan describes width variation with respect to membranes and metal strips” [Remarks, pg. 7].
“In Jan’s structure, because w1, w3, and w5 are expressly taught to be approximately equal, any negative active material extending beyond the aligned edges would extend beyond the isolation membrane”, which would defeat the isolation function taught by Jan and render Jan’s device unsatisfactory for its intended purpose [Remarks, pg. 7].
In response to these arguments, it is noted that Jan teaches that the isolation membranes “may be made having their width w5 greater than the width w3 of the negative pole material film” (emphasis added) [0017]. Furthermore, Jan does not only described width variation of the isolation membrane “with respect to membranes and metal strips”, but with respect to the negative pole material film as well [0007, “said two isolation membranes each have a width larger than or equal to the width of said negative pole material film” (emphasis added)]. Therefore, even if a negative active material were to extend beyond the aligned edges of the negative pole material film and positive pole material film, that would not necessarily mean that the negative active material would extend beyond the isolation membrane, since the isolation membrane may in fact have a greater width than that of the negative pole material film. Given Jan’s disclosure, there is no evidence that the proposed modification of Jan with Wang would necessarily render the electrochemical device of Jan unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection of claim 1 as obvious over Jan in view of Wang is maintained.
Applicant argues that neither Jan or Wang “explains why Jan’s equal-width electrode and separator configuration would be modified to adopt Wang’s tab-oriented structure” [Remarks, pg. 8].
In response to these arguments, it is noted that Jan discloses that the isolation membrane, or separator, may have a greater width than the pole material films, or electrodes (see above). It is further noted that, as described in the rejection of instant claim 1 above, Wang teaches that the energy density of a negative electrode can be increased through double-layer coating [0043]. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Jan to adopt Wang’s tab-oriented structure by incorporating the second negative active material layer taught by Wang, in order to increase the energy density of the negative electrode. This argument is not persuasive and the rejection of claim 1 as obvious over Jan in view of Wang is maintained.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the feature upon which applicant relies (i.e., the length direction corresponding to the winding direction of the electrode assembly) is not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Additionally, the specification does not itself identify a winding direction in relation to a length direction of the negative electrode. This argument is not persuasive and the rejection of claim 1 as obvious over Jan in view of Wang is maintained.
In response to applicant's argument that the combination of Wang and Zhang would lead alter the material properties on which Wang relies and lead to unexpected results or failure [Remarks, pg. 9], the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). There is no evidence shown that the proposed combination would change the principle of operation of the primary reference or render the reference inoperable for its intended purpose. There is a reasonable expectation of success as the negative active materials of both Wang and Zhang are directed towards carbon-based materials. This argument is not persuasive and the rejection of claim 1 as obvious over Jan in view of Wang is maintained.
Further regarding applicant's argument with respect to claim 8 that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning [Remarks, pg. 9], 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). The rejection of instant claim 8 relies only on what was disclosed in the prior art. This argument is not persuasive and the rejection of claim 1 as obvious over Jan in view of Wang is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MARIA F OROZCO whose telephone number is (571)272-0172. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. 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.
/M.F.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights