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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN2020232287453, filed on 12/28/2020.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 8 and 9 describe a testing result of stripping the protective layer from a surface of the positive electrode current collector which do not provide adequate structural limitations to the battery of claim 1. The instant application implies that the residual protective layer remaining on the surface of the positive electrode current collector after stripping is based on the content of binder of the protective layer [PgPublication pars. 0089-91], but fails to teach what the necessary binder amount is for the respective residual amounts claimed. For examination purposes, if the prior art teaches the binder amounts reasonably within the same scope as disclosed in the instant specification, it will be considered to have met the requirements of these claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 11, 14 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shiozaki (US20200020921A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Shiozaki discloses a a lithium ion battery (secondary battery 1 in which the positive electrode active material is composed of a lithium transition metal oxide) [pars. 0018,0039; Fig. 1], comprising a positive electrode plate 2, a negative electrode plate 3, and a separator 4, the positive electrode plate, the separator and the negative electrode plate being stacked successively and then wound from inside to outside [par. 0018; Figs. 1-2];
wherein the positive electrode plate comprises a positive electrode current collector 21, at least one functional surface of the positive electrode current collector (i.e., main surfaces including coatings) is provided with a protective layer 23, a surface of the protective layer away from the positive electrode current collector is provided with a positive electrode active layer 22, and a length of the protective layer is greater than a length of the positive electrode active layer in a winding direction of the positive electrode current collector [pars. 0020,0027; Figs. 2,4A,4B].
Regarding Claim 2, modified Shiozaki discloses wherein the at least one functional surface of the positive electrode current collector comprises an active layer region and further comprises a first end region and/or a second end region; wherein the protective layer comprises a conductive protective layer, the conductive protective layer is disposed on the first end region and/or the second end region and on the active layer region, and a surface of the conductive protective layer disposed on the active layer region away from the positive electrode current collector is provided with the positive electrode active layer.
Regarding Claim 11, Shiozaki discloses wherein the conductive protective layer comprises 92% of an inorganic filler, 5% of a first conductive agent and 3% of a first binder by a mass percentage [par. 0057], which falls within the claim ranges of 50%-98% of an inorganic filler, 0.5%- 10% of a first conductive agent and 1.5%-50% of a first binder.
Regarding Claim 14, Shiozaki discloses a uniform thickness of the conductive protective layer disposed on the first end region, the second end region and the active layer region to be from 1 μm to 5 μm [par. 0046; Fig. 4B], which falls within the claimed ranges.
Regarding Claim 16, Shiozaki discloses wherein the at least one functional surface of the positive electrode current collector comprises an installation region (tab bonding part 28) exposing the positive electrode current collector, and the installation region is disposed to a side of the positive electrode current collector (i.e., end part on the winding start side – not explicitly shown) [pars. 0018,0036; Figs. 2,4A,4B].
Regarding Claim 17, Shiozaki discloses the positive electrode plate further comprises a positive battery tab 27, the positive battery tab is disposed on the installation region on the at least one functional surface of the positive electrode current collector, and a side of outside the installation region close to a winding center and a side of outside the installation region away from the winding center are both provided with the protective layer [Fig. 4A,4B].
Claim(s) 3, 12-13, 15 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiozaki, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Sasaki (JP2013206743A – see IDS; machine translation attached).
Regarding Claim 3, Shiozaki fails to disclose wherein the protective layer further comprises an insulating protective layer, and the insulating protective layer is disposed on a surface of the conductive protective layer disposed on the first end region and/or the second end region away from the positive electrode current collector. However, Sasaki, from the same field of endeavor, discloses a positive electrode plate 410 comprising a positive electrode current collector (base material 411), a protective layer (undercoat layer 412) and a positive electrode active layer 414, in this order, and further an insulating protective layer (protective layer 416), and the insulating protective layer is disposed on a surface of the conductive protective layer disposed on the first end region and/or the second end region away from the positive electrode current collector in order to impart the protective layer at the second end region thereof with higher adhesion than at the central portion to suppress the peeling or detachment of the protective layer from the current collector [Sasaki – pars. 0010-11,0046-55; Fig. 5]. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have further modified the battery of Shiozaki wherein the protective layer further comprises an insulating protective layer, and the insulating protective layer is disposed on a surface of the conductive protective layer disposed on the first end region and/or the second end region away from the positive electrode current collector in order to impart the protective layer at the second end region thereof with higher adhesion than at the central portion to suppress the peeling or detachment of the protective layer from the current collector.
Regarding Claim 12, modified Shiozaki teaches wherein the insulating protective layer comprises 21%-73% of a ceramic material and 27%-79% of a second binder by a mass percentage [Sasaki – pars. 0054-55,0062], which overlaps the claimed ranges of 50%-96% of a ceramic material and 4%- 50% of a second binder by a mass percentage, respectively, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness [MPEP 2144.05(I)].
Regarding Claim 13, Shiozaki fails to explicitly teach wherein a thickness of the protective layer is 1%-50% of a thickness of the positive electrode active layer. However, Sasaki discloses that a thickness of the insulating protective layer disposed on a surface of the conductive protective layer disposed on the first end region or the second end region away from the positive electrode current collector to be greater than the thickness of the protective layer but less than the thickness of the active material layer [Sasaki – Fig. 5]. Thus, an ordinary skilled artisan would appreciate that modified Shiozaki necessarily teaches a thickness of the insulating protective layer disposed on a surface of the conductive protective layer disposed on the first end region or the second end region away from the positive electrode current collector overlaps the claimed range of from 1 μm to 15 μm, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness [MPEP 2144.05(I)]. Moreover, Sasaki teaches that a thickness of the insulating layers is formed to have a thickness so as not to abut the separator [par. 0054]. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled artisan to have controlled the thickness of the insulating protective layer disposed on a surface of the conductive protective layer disposed on the first end region or the second end region away from the positive electrode current collector to be from 1 μm to 15 μm in order to prevent the insulating protective layer from abutting the separator, without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success [MPEP 2144.05(II)].
Regarding Claim 15, modified Shiozaki teaches wherein a thickness of the insulating protective layer is 0.5 μm to 5 μm, and the thickness of the positive electrode active layer is 50 μm to 100 μm, such that the thickness ratio of the insulating protective layer to the positive electrode active layer overlaps the claimed range of 1%-50% [Takezaki – pars. 0050,0073]. Further, Sasaki discloses that a thickness of the insulating protective layer disposed on a surface of the conductive protective layer disposed on the first end region or the second end region away from the positive electrode current collector to be greater than the thickness of the protective layer but less than the thickness of the active material layer [Sasaki – Fig. 5]. Thus, an ordinary skilled artisan would appreciate that modified Shiozaki necessarily teaches a thickness of the insulating protective layer disposed on a surface of the conductive protective layer disposed on the first end region or the second end region away from the positive electrode current collector overlaps the claimed range of from 1 μm to 15 μm, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness [MPEP 2144.05(I)]. Moreover, Sasaki teaches that a thickness of the insulating layers is formed to have a thickness so as not to abut the separator [par. 0054]. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled artisan to have controlled the thickness of the insulating protective layer disposed on a surface of the conductive protective layer disposed on the first end region or the second end region away from the positive electrode current collector to be from 1 μm to 15 μm in order to prevent the insulating protective layer from abutting the separator, without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success [MPEP 2144.05(II)].
Regarding Claim 18, Shiozaki discloses wherein the first end region along the winding direction of the positive electrode current collector comprises a first flat region, an installation region, a second flat region, a third flat region and a first arc region, the installation region is provided with a positive battery tab, but fails to disclose wherein a surface of the positive electrode plate is pasted with a first taping, and the first taping is bonded with a surface of the protective layer disposed on the third flat region, a surface of the protective layer disposed on the first arc region and at least part of a surface of the positive electrode active layer disposed on the active layer region. However, Sasaki, from the same field of endeavor, discloses a positive electrode plate 410 comprising a positive electrode current collector (base material 411), a protective layer (undercoat layer 412) and a positive electrode active layer 414, in this order, and further a first taping (protective layer 416) pasted on a surface of the positive electrode plate, wherein the first end region along the winding direction of the positive electrode comprises a third flat region, a first arc region, and the wherein a surface of the positive electrode plate is pasted with a first taping, and the first taping is bonded with a surface of the protective layer disposed on the third flat region, a surface of the protective layer disposed on the first arc region and at least part of a surface of the positive electrode active layer disposed on the active layer region in order to impart the protective layer at the first end region thereof with higher adhesion than at the central portion to suppress the peeling or detachment of the protective layer from the current collector [Sasaki – pars. 0010-11,0046-55; Fig. 5]. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have further modified the battery of Shiozaki, wherein a surface of the positive electrode plate is pasted with a first taping, and the first taping is bonded with a surface of the protective layer disposed on the third flat region, a surface of the protective layer disposed on the first arc region and at least part of a surface of the positive electrode active layer disposed on the active layer region in order to impart the protective layer at the second end region thereof with higher adhesion than at the central portion to suppress the peeling or detachment of the protective layer from the current collector.
Regarding Claim 19, Shiozaki fails to disclose wherein the second end region along the winding direction of the positive electrode current collector comprises a second arc region and a fourth flat region, a surface of the positive electrode plate is pasted with a second taping, and the second taping is bonded with at least part of a surface of the positive electrode active layer disposed on the active layer region, a surface of the protective layer disposed on the second arc region and at least part of a surface of the protective layer disposed on the fourth flat region. However, Sasaki, from the same field of endeavor, discloses a positive electrode plate 410 comprising a positive electrode current collector (base material 411), a protective layer (undercoat layer 412) and a positive electrode active layer 414, in this order, and further a second taping (protective layer 416) pasted on a surface of the positive electrode plate, wherein the second end region along the winding direction of the positive electrode comprises a second arc region and a fourth flat region, and the second taping is bonded with at least part of a surface of the positive electrode active layer disposed on the active layer region, a surface of the protective layer disposed on the second arc region and at least part of a surface of the protective layer disposed on the fourth flat region in order to impart the protective layer at the second end region thereof with higher adhesion than at the central portion to suppress the peeling or detachment of the protective layer from the current collector [Sasaki – pars. 0010-11,0046-55; Fig. 5]. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have further modified the battery of Shiozaki, wherein the second end region along the winding direction of the positive electrode current collector comprises a second arc region and a fourth flat region, a surface of the positive electrode plate is pasted with a second taping, and the second taping is bonded with at least part of a surface of the positive electrode active layer disposed on the active layer region, a surface of the protective layer disposed on the second arc region and at least part of a surface of the protective layer disposed on the fourth flat region in order to impart the protective layer at the second end region thereof with higher adhesion than at the central portion to suppress the peeling or detachment of the protective layer from the current collector.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiozaki, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Takezawa (US20200020924A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Shiozaki discloses wherein the protective layer comprises an inorganic filler (inorganic particles – not shown) [par. 0032], but fails to disclose wherein a D50 of the inorganic filler is less than a D50 of an active substance in the positive electrode active layer. However, Takezawa, from the same field of endeavor, teaches a positive electrode plate 30 for a lithium ion battery (i.e., battery 10 including a lithium-based positive electrode active material), the positive electrode plate comprising a positive electrode current collector 31, at least one functional surface of the positive electrode current collector is provided with a protective layer 33, a surface of the protective layer away from the positive electrode current collector is provided with a positive electrode active layer 32, wherein the protective layer comprises an inorganic filler, an average particle diameter of the inorganic filler is from 0.01 μm to 1 μm, and the average particle diameter of an active substance in the positive electrode active layer is from 5 μm to 20 μm [Takezawa – pars. 0014,0024,0028,0041,; Figs. 1-2]. Takezawa further teaches that if the particle diameter of the inorganic filler is too large, the porosity of the protective layer is made large, so that there is a possibility that the electrical conductivity of the protective layer is deteriorated [Takezawa – par. 0041]. Therefore, before the effective fling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have modified the battery of Shiozaki wherein the D50 of the inorganic filler to be less than the D50 of the active substance in order to provide optimal electrical conductivity to the protective layer and prevent the electrical conductivity from being deteriorated, without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success [MPEP 2144.05(II)].
Regarding Claims 5-6, modified Shiozaki discloses wherein the inorganic filler comprises a ceramic material, and the ceramic material is one or more selected from aluminium oxide, boehmite, zirconium dioxide, titanium dioxide, silicon dioxide, magnesium oxide and magnesium hydroxide [Shiozaki – par. 0044].
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiozaki, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Endo (US20200006778A1).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Shiozaki fails to disclose wherein a bonding force between the protective layer and the positive electrode current collector is greater than a bonding force between the protective layer and the positive electrode active layer; and/or the bonding force between the protective layer and the positive electrode current collector is greater than a bonding force between particles of the active substance in the positive electrode active layer. However, Endo, from the same field of endeavor, teaches a positive electrode plate 20 comprising a positive current collector 21, a protective layer (intermediate layer 23), and a positive electrode active layer (positive electrode mixture layer 22), in this order, wherein the bonding force between the protective layer and the positive electrode current collector is greater than a bonding force between the protective layer and the positive electrode active layer in order to prevent the exposure of the surface of the positive electrode current collector caused by the peeling-off of the protective layer together with the positive electrode active material when a large force is applied to the positive electrode plate by contamination of foreign matter and the like [Endo – pars. 0019,0024,0030; Fig. 2]. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have further modified the battery of Shiozaki, wherein the bonding force between the protective layer and the positive electrode current collector is greater than a bonding force between the protective layer and the positive electrode active layer in order to prevent the exposure of the surface of the positive electrode current collector caused by the peeling-off of the protective layer together with the positive electrode active material when a large force is applied to the positive electrode plate by contamination of foreign matter and the like.
Regarding Claim 8, Shiozaki discloses wherein a mass fraction of a binder in the protective layer is greater than a mass fraction of a binder in the positive electrode active layer [pars. 0057-58].
Regarding Claims 9-10, Shiozaki fails to explicitly teach wherein after the protective layer is stripped from a surface of the positive electrode current collector, total area of a residual protective layer on the positive electrode current collector accounts for more than 10 % or 70% of total area of the protective layer on the positive electrode current collector before stripping. However, the instant specification teaches the protective layer may comprise 1.5%-50% binder, 0.5%-10% of a conductive agent and 50%-96% of a ceramic material [Specifciation – par. 0093]. In this regard, Shiozaki discloses wherein the conductive protective layer comprises 92% of an inorganic filler, 5% of a first conductive agent and 3% of a first binder by a mass percentage [par. 0057], which falls within the disclosed ranges of 50%-98% of an inorganic filler, 0.5%- 10% of a first conductive agent and 1.5%-50% of a first binder. Thus, an ordinary skilled artisan would expect that the positive electrode plate of Shiozaki meets the requirements of the instant claims such that after the protective layer is stripped from a surface of the positive electrode current collector, total area of a residual protective layer on the positive electrode current collector accounts for more than 10 % or 70% of total area of the protective layer on the positive electrode current collector before stripping.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiozaki, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Araki (US20140072877A1).
Regarding Claim 20, Shiozaki discloses wherein the negative electrode plate 3 comprises a negative electrode current collector 31 and a negative electrode active layer 32 disposed on at least one functional surface of the negative electrode current collector [Shiozaki – par. 0021; Fig. 2], but fails to disclose wherein a length of the negative electrode active layer is greater than a length of the positive electrode active layer. However, Araki, from the same field of endeavor, discloses a positive electrode plate 2 comprising a positive current collector 21, a protective layer (undercoat layer 23) and a positive electrode active layer 22, in this order, and further, a negative electrode plate 1 comprising a negative electrode current collector 11, a negative electrode active layer 12 disposed on at least one functional surface of the negative electrode current collector, in this order, and a separator 3 arranged therebetween, wherein a length of the negative electrode active layer is greater than a length of the positive electrode active layer so that, in the event an abnormal heat generation occurs in the electrode assembly and the separator is shrunk to cause the separator to be absent between the first end region or the second end region of the respective positive and negative electrode active layers, the undercoat prevents direct contact of the respective active layers to suppress short-circuit current [Araki – pars. 0059-63,0105-107,0110]. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have further modified the battery of Shiozaki wherein a length of the negative electrode active layer is greater than a length of the positive electrode active layer so that, in the event an abnormal heat generation occurs in the electrode assembly and the separator is shrunk to cause the separator to be absent between the first end region or the second end region of the respective positive and negative electrode active layers, the undercoat prevents direct contact of the respective active layers to suppress short-circuit current.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,512,457 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of each claim of the instant application is anticipated by the claims of the U.S. Patent.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAROON S SHEIKH whose telephone number is (571)270-0302. The examiner can normally be reached 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, 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.
HAROON S. SHEIKH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751