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 . If status of the application as subject to 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 a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 were rejected in the office action mailed 8/20/2025. Applicant cancelled claims 2, 4, 6, 8, & 10. Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, & 11-20 are pending in the application and are presently examined.
Response to Amendment / Arguments
The amendment filed 11/13/2025, in response to the office action mailed 8/20/2025, has been entered. Applicant’s drawing amendments overcame the drawing objections. Applicant’s claim amendments overcame the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 5 & 18. Applicant’s claim 1 amendment made the claim 18 amendments incorrect, so there is a new objection of claim 18. Applicant's arguments overcame the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 11.
Applicant's arguments, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The present claim 1 limitations are similar to the previous claim 2 limitations. Claim 2 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN202268433U machine translation (He), with regard to claim 1, in view of US20200020921A1 (Shiozaki). The following chart compares the claimed layers to the layers of He and Shiozaki:
Claim
He
Shiozaki
current collector
collector foil 2
current collector 21
first active layer
active material coating 1a
protective layer 23
second active layer
active material coating 1b
active material layer 22
Claim 1 was amended to recite that “the first active layer comprises active material”. Applicant argues that one skilled in the art would not have combined He and Shiozaki because “the protective layer 23 in Shiozaki does not include an active material”. Examiner disagrees.
Shiozaki’s protective layer 23 includes inorganic particles, an electrical conductor, and a binder in N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (paragraph 32). The inorganic particles can be silicon oxide (paragraph 44). Silicon oxide is an electrode active material1.
Furthermore, Shiozaki was not combined with He to teach an active material in the layer adjacent to the current collector. Shiozaki, like present claim 1 and He, has two layers on the current collector. Shiozaki teaches staggering the edges of these two layers for edge stress dispersion during charging and discharging, thus avoiding battery output characteristic deterioration (paragraphs 25-26, 28 & 44). Even if Shiozaki’s protective layer 23 did not include an active material, it still would have been obvious for He’s electrode to have a second groove length greater than a first groove length, as taught by Shiozaki for avoiding edge stress, and thus for avoiding battery output characteristic deterioration.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities. Claim 18 recites “a length of the second groove and a length of the first groove”. Both instances of “a length” should be amended to “the length” because both of these lengths were introduced in claim 1, through the recent claim 1 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The claims are in bold font, the prior art is in parentheses.
Claims 1, 3, 5, & 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over CN202268433U machine translation (He) in view of US20200020921A1 (Shiozaki), together “modified He”.
He teaches the following claim 1 limitations:
An electrode sheet (paragraphs 18 & 25; Figure A below: electrode), comprising
a current collector (paragraph 22; figures 2-3: collector foil 2), and a first active layer (paragraph 22; figures 2-3: lithium cobalt oxide positive electrode active material coating 1a) and a second active layer (paragraph 22; figures 2-3: 1b to lithium iron phosphate positive electrode active material coating) which are sequentially stacked on a surface of the current collector (2);
wherein, the first active layer (1a) is provided with a first groove (Figure A below), the second active layer (1b) is provided with a second groove (Figure A below), and a vertical projection of the second groove on the current collector covers a vertical projection of the first groove (Figure A below) on the current collector (2); and
a tab is disposed at the first groove (paragraph 26; figures 2-3: lug 3 on collector foil 2 in blank position 4) and is electrically connected (paragraph 26: welded together) with the current collector (2)
the first active layer comprises active material (paragraph 22; figures 2-3: lithium cobalt oxide positive electrode active material coating 1a)
Figure A: He Annotated Figure 3
PNG
media_image1.png
294
521
media_image1.png
Greyscale
He fails to teach the following claim 1 limitations, which are taught by Shiozaki (see Figures B & C below):
a length of the second groove is greater than a length of the first groove…
the first groove and the second groove have the same directions of length and width with the electrode sheet and the current collector; and
a longest side of the electrode sheet is the length of the electrode sheet, a shortest side of the electrode sheet is a height of the electrode sheet, and a side between the longest side and the shortest side is the width of the electrode sheet
Figure B: Shiozaki Annotated Figure 4A Figure C: Shiozaki Annotated Figure 4B
PNG
media_image2.png
554
630
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
388
698
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Shiozaki is directed to a secondary battery with suppressed output characteristic deterioration (paragraphs 4-8). Shiozaki describes a positive electrode 2 with a protective layer 23 [located like the claimed first active layer] on a positive electrode current collector 21, and a positive electrode active material layer 22 [located like the second active layer] on the protective layer 23. Shiozaki teaches staggering edges of these layers 21 & 23, as illustrated in Figures B & C above, for edge stress dispersion during charging and discharging, thus avoiding battery output characteristic deterioration (paragraphs 25-26, 28 & 44).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for He’s electrode to have a second groove length greater than a first groove length, as taught by Shiozaki, for edge stress dispersion during charging and discharging, thus avoiding battery output characteristic deterioration.
With regard to claims 3 and 17, modified He teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above, and claim 15 as noted below. He also teaches the following limitation of claims 3 and 17 (Figure D below):
a width of the second groove is the same as a width of the current collector (2)
Figure D: He Annotated Figure 3
PNG
media_image4.png
416
559
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With regard to claims 5 and 18, modified He teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 15, as noted above. Claim 5 recites (claim 18 is similar):
a difference between the length of the second groove and the length of the first groove is less than or equal to 500mm
As illustrated in He figure 3, these lengths are the same; thus, there is less than 500 mm difference. Furthermore, these two grooves would be cut for the lug 3 / tab to fit inside, so it would be obvious to make them the same size for manufacturing convenience – it would be more complex and expensive to cut them to different lengths.
With regard to claim 12, modified He teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Claim 12 recites:
an area of the vertical projection of the first groove on the current collector is greater than an area of a tab connection region in the current collector
Manufactured parts nearly always have some tolerance or space between an insert and a cavity or channel into which it is inserted. This tolerance or space is needed in order to avoid damage as the insert is placed inside the cavity or channel, and for ease of insert. Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for an area of He’s first groove to be larger than an area of He's lug 3, to avoid damage during insert / placement and for ease of insert / placement.
With regard to claim 13, modified He teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 12 as noted above. Claim 13 recites (see figure 2 below):
a width of the first groove is 1-2 times a width of the tab connection region
He Annotated Figure 2
PNG
media_image5.png
413
568
media_image5.png
Greyscale
These widths are the same size (1 time).
With regard to claim 14, modified He teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 12 as noted above. Claim 14 recites:
a length of the first groove is 1-2 times a length of the tab connection region
The first groove length must be at least 1 time the length of the tab connection region so that the tab will fit. He illustrates that the lug 3 fits without extra space in the length direction, so He’s first groove must be within 1-2 times the tab connection region length.
With regard to claim 15, modified He teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. He also teaches the following claim 15 limitation:
A lithium-ion battery, comprising the electrode sheet according to claim 1 (paragraph 25)
With regard to claim 16, modified He teaches the following claim 16 limitation, as discussed under claim 1 above:
a length of the second groove is greater than a length of the first groove
Claims 7, 9, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN202268433U machine translation (He) in view of US20200020921A1 (Shiozaki), as applied to claims 1, 3, and 15, and further in view of US20210336244A1 (Kang).
He fails to teach the following limitations of claims 7, 9, and 19, which are taught by Kang:
the electrode sheet is a negative electrode sheet (paragraph 44),
an average particle size of a negative active material in the second active layer is 10-18µm (paragraphs 44 & 48: 13-17 μm), and
a graphitization degree of the negative active material in the second active layer is 86-94% (paragraph 53: 92-94%)
Kang is directed to a secondary battery with fast charging performance and high energy density (paragraph 5). Kang’s battery includes a first negative film layer with a first negative active material and a second negative film layer with a second negative active material (paragraph 6). The first negative film layer is located on a negative current collector, and the second negative film layer is located on the first negative film layer (paragraph 6).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for He’s electrode sheet to be a negative electrode sheet with 13-17 μm average particle diameter and 92-94% graphitization, as taught by Kang, for a secondary battery with fast charging performance and high energy density (paragraphs 5-6, 44, 48, & 53).
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN202268433U machine translation (He) in view of US20200020921A1 (Shiozaki) and US20210336244A1 (Kang), as applied to claims 1 and 15, and further in view of US20210143414A1 (Guo).
He fails to teach the following limitation of claims 11 and 20, which is taught by Kang:
…a graphitization degree of a negative active material in the first active layer [is] greater than… the graphitization degree of the negative active material in the second active layer (paragraphs 52-53: graphitization of first is 96%-98%; graphitization of second is 92%-94%),
Kang is directed to a secondary battery with fast charging performance and high energy density (paragraph 5). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for He’s coating 1a to have a higher graphitization degree than He’s coating 1b, as taught by Kang, as part of a secondary battery with fast charging performance and high energy density (paragraphs 5 & 52-53).
He fails to teach the following limitation of claims 11 and 20, which is taught by Guo:
an average particle size… of a negative active material in the first active layer [is] greater than the average particle size… of the negative active material in the second active layer (paragraph 124, Table 1, example 14)
Guo is directed to a secondary battery, with a negative electrode, that has prolonged cycle life (paragraphs 11-14).
Guo describes a first active material layer 522 [claimed first active layer] on a negative electrode current collector 521, and a second active material layer 523 [claimed second active layer] on the first active material layer 522 (paragraph 29; figure 1). An average particle size in the first active material layer 522 can be greater than an average particle size in the second active material layer 523 (paragraph 124, Table 1, example 14).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for particles in He’s coating 1a to have a larger particle size than particles in He’s coating 1b, as taught by Guo, as part of a secondary battery with prolonged cycle life (paragraphs 11-14, 29, & 124).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT WEST whose telephone number is 703-756-1363 and email address is Robert.West@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am - 7 pm ET.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684.
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.
/R.G.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
1 Jung, S., Kim, H., Kim, J., & Han, Y. (2016). “Atomic-Level Understanding toward a High-Capacity and High-Power Silicon Oxide (SiO) Material”. J. Phys. Chem. 120, 886-892
Prosecution Insights