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 .
Claim Status
This Office action is responsive to amendments and remarks filed on 11/21/2025.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8-10, 13, 16, and 18-20 have been amended.
Claims 2, 4, 12 and 14 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 3, 5-11, 13, and 15-23 are currently pending.
Response to Amendment
In light of the amendment the objection to the drawings is withdrawn.
In light of the amendment the objection to the specification is withdrawn.
In light of the amendment the rejection to the claims under §112(b) is withdrawn.
In light of the amendment the rejection to the claims under §102 is withdrawn. A rejection under USC §103 on new grounds is detailed below.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 6 and 16 are being interpreted from the specification insomuch that the limitation(s) “a (first or second) negative electrode active material, a (first or second) conductive agent, a (first or second) dispersant, and a (first or second) binder” can be the same material regardless if it is first or second as per the instant specification [0024-0025].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has taken a limitation from now cancelled claims 2 and 12 and have moved it up into claim 1. While this has overcome the §102 rejection of record it is still obvious over the prior art from the last office action.
Applicant argues that “WANG never mentions the relative length of the first negative electrode active material layer and the second negative electrode active material layer”, however WANG discloses that the length of the edge region is 3 mm to 40 mm in length and that the [0052] the body region is the larger of the two regions. The limitation of claim 1 LA/(LA+LB) = 1/6 - 1/3 would have the expected results which would ensure that the edge region is long enough to sufficiently preclude formation of dendrites.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 3, 5-11, 13, and 15-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN109980177 (A), WANG et al. provided in the IDS dated 1/26/2023 with US 20200313186 A1 used as the English translation.
Regarding claim 1. WANG discloses [0006] a negative electrode piece which the reference calls an anode, wherein the negative electrode piece comprises
[0054] a negative electrode current collector which the reference calls a substrate (3),
[0048] a first negative electrode active material layer which the reference calls an edge region (5),
[0044] a second negative electrode active material layer which reference calls a body region (1), and
[0045] a negative electrode tab which the reference calls an empty foil region (2), wherein as shown in annotated figure 2 depicted below,
the negative electrode tab (2) is arranged on a surface of a first side of the negative electrode current collector a first portion of the surface the first side of the current collector nearer to negative electrode tab is coated with the first negative electrode active material layer (5), and a second portion of the surface of the first side of the negative electrode current collector (3) that is further from the negative electrode tab is coated with the second negative electrode active material layer (1).
[fig 2] the first negative electrode active material layer comprises
a first negative electrode active material [0067], and
[fig 2] the second negative electrode active material layer comprises
a second negative electrode active material [0068],
[0058-0059] an intercalation-deintercalation rate of lithium-ions received by the first negative electrode active material layer is greater than an intercalation-deintercalation rate of lithium-ions received by the second negative electrode active material layer
[0062] “the anode thin region per unit area can intercalate lithium ions more quickly than the anode body region per unit area.”
PNG
media_image1.png
501
598
media_image1.png
Greyscale
WANG does not explicitly disclose LA/(LA+LB) = 1/6 - 1/3
WANG [0060] discloses that these regions may be of differing thicknesses or sizes
WANG [0053] discloses that the edge region may be tens of millimeters in length particularly 3 mm to 40 mm, but does not disclose a length of the body region.
WANG does disclose safety of the battery can be improved by providing an edge portion of the anode which has a lower resistance than the body region to protect against dendrite formation.
Thus, the person of ordinary skill in the art in choosing the length of the edge region would be guided by ensuring it is long enough to sufficiently preclude formation of dendrites.
Moreover, WANG discloses that the resistance of the edge region is decreased relative to that of the body region by depositing a thinner active material layer in the edge region, including more conductive additive (and thus less active material) in the edge region, all of which decrease the capacity of the edge region relative to the body region.
Therefore, the person of ordinary skill in the art in choosing the length of the edge region would also be motivated to make it as small as necessary in order to maximize the capacity of battery. Accordingly, the Office finds that the recited formula related to the relative length of the body portion and edge portion is nothing more than the obvious result of balancing the benefit of increased safety from a longer edge region where dendrites are unlikely to form against the unwanted decrease in capacity that an excessively long edge region would result in.
Regarding claims 3 and 13. WANG discloses the negative electrode piece according to claim 1, wherein [0060] “the thickness of an edge region 5 in FIG. 2 seems the same as the thickness of the body region 1, but it actually does not require the thicknesses of the above two regions to be the same in the electrode described in the present application.”
WANG does not explicitly disclose LB/(LA+LB) = 2/3 - 5/6 with respect to claims 3 and 13,
WANG [0060] discloses that these regions may be of differing thicknesses or sizes
WANG discloses that the edge region may be tens of millimeters in length, but does not disclose a length of the body region.
WANG does disclose safety of the battery can be improved by providing an edge portion of the anode which has a lower resistance than the body region to protect against dendrite formation.
Thus, the person of ordinary skill in the art in choosing the length of the edge region would be guided by ensuring it is long enough to sufficiently preclude formation of dendrites.
Moreover, WANG discloses that the resistance of the edge region is decreased relative to that of the body region by depositing a thinner active material layer in the edge region, including more conductive additive (and thus less active material) in the edge region, all of which decrease the capacity of the edge region relative to the body region.
Therefore, the person of ordinary skill in the art in choosing the length of the edge region would also be motivated to make it as small as necessary in order to maximize the capacity of battery. Accordingly, the Office finds that the recited formula related to the relative length of the body portion and edge portion is nothing more than the obvious result of balancing the benefit of increased safety from a longer edge region where dendrites are unlikely to form against the unwanted decrease in capacity that an excessively long edge region would result in.
Regarding claims 5 and 15. The negative electrode piece according to claim 1, and the lithium-ion battery according to claim 11 wherein
[0057] the intercalation-deintercalation rate of lithium-ions in the first negative electrode active material layer is greater than the intercalation-deintercalation rate of lithium-ions in the second negative electrode active material layer.
Regarding claims 6 and 16. The negative electrode piece according to claim 1, and the lithium-ion battery according to claim 11, wherein
[0151-0152] the first negative electrode active material layer (edge region 5) comprises
[0152] the first negative electrode active material (graphite slurry),
[0074, 0158] a first conductive agent (may be added),
[0149] a first dispersant (carboxymethyl cellulose), and
[0149] a first binder (styrene-butadiene rubber), and
[0149] the second negative electrode active material layer (body region 1) comprises
[0149] the second negative electrode active material (graphite/hard carbon),
[0074, 0158] a second conductive agent (may be added),
[0149] a second dispersant (carboxymethyl cellulose), and
[0149] a second binder (styrene-butadiene rubber).
Regarding claims 7 and 17. WANG discloses the negative electrode piece according to claims 6 or in regards to claim 7, the lithium-ion battery according to claim 16, wherein
WANG discloses [0149-0150] in Embodiment 10 the mass percent contents of components in the first negative electrode active material layer are:
97 wt% of the first negative electrode active material,
1 wt% of the first binder, and
2 wt% of the first dispersant;
mass percentage contents of components in the second negative electrode active material layer are:
97 wt% of the second negative electrode active material,
1 wt% of the second binder, and
2 wt% of the second dispersant.
WANG does not disclose a single example with the recited ranges of materials. However, the base anode slurry disclosed as Embodiment 10 above shows WANG includes 97% active material, 1% binder and 2% dispersant and may be used for the edge region or the main region. Moreover, WANG discloses that conductivity additive may be included in the anode.
WANG [0074] discloses that the more conductive added that is provided, the faster the kinetics of that portion of the electrode will be.
Accordingly, the recited range of conductive additive amount to include in the two regions is considered to be nothing more than the product of routine experimentation with a known result effective variable to provide an electrode with the desired kinetics. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to have used the conductive agent in the anode in the instant range claimed by the applicant disclosed by WANG though routine experimentation with a known result effective variable to provide an electrode with the desired kinetics.
Regarding claims 8 and 18. The negative electrode piece according to claim 1, and the lithium-ion battery according to claim 11, wherein
[0153] a second surface of the negative electrode current collector is coated with the first negative electrode active material layer on an area near the negative electrode tab, and
[0153] the second surface of the negative electrode current collector is coated with the second electrode negative electrode active material layer on an area away from the negative electrode tab.
Regarding claims 9 and 19. The negative electrode piece according to claim 6, and the lithium-ion battery according to claim 11, wherein
[0158] a content of the first conductive agent for forming the first negative electrode active material layer is greater than a content of the second conductive agent for forming the second negative electrode active material layer; and/or
[0074] the first conductive agent is selected from at least one of graphene and carbon nanotube, and
[0074] the second conductive agent is selected from at least one of conductive carbon black, acetylene black, conductive graphite, conductive carbon fiber, metal powder, and carbon fiber; and/or
[0137] the binder is styrene- butadiene latex which the reference calls styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR); and/or
[table 2 embodiment 12] shows a particle size of the first negative electrode active material (which the reference calls the second anode region) is smaller (10 µm) than a particle size of the second electrode negative electrode active material (which the reference calls the first anode region) 15 µm.
Regarding claims 10 and 20. Figure 2 depicts the negative electrode piece according to claim 1, and the lithium-ion battery according to claim 11, wherein a negative electrode is a structure with the negative electrode tab arranged in middle.
Regarding claim 11. [0067] A lithium-ion battery, comprising the negative electrode piece according to claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20040161662 A1, KIM et al.
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 LAWRENCE LA RAIA III whose telephone number is (703)756-5441. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 6:00am-4:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571) 272-1330. 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.
LAWRENCE LA RAIA III
Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/L.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727