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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/13/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-18 are pending in the application. Claims 1-9 & 11-18 were rejected and claim 10 was allowable in the 2/13/2026 office action. Claims 1-18 are presently examined.
Response to Amendment / Arguments
The 5/13/2026 amendment, in response to the 2/13/2026 office action, has been entered. Applicant’s claim amendments overcame the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections; nevertheless, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
I. Edge region location.
As discussed below, CN207233865U (Lin) teaches the following limitations of independent claims 1 & 11:
a current collector (page 5, lines 3-11; figure 2: current collector 21), comprising, in a width direction, a first edge region, a second edge region, and a middle region extending from the first edge region to the second edge region (Figure A);
wherein each of the first edge region and the second edge region is defined between the middle region and respective edges of the electrode plate in the width direction (The first edge region is between the middle region and the left edge in Figure A. The second edge region is between the middle region and the right edge in Figure A.)
Figure A: Annotated Lin Figure 2
PNG
media_image1.png
482
1012
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues against this. Applicant states:
“According to the amended claims, an ‘edge region’ must be delimited by an edge, which represents the terminal outer boundary of the plate in the width direction.” Remarks p.10
“The amended claims now define the first and second edge regions as being delimited between the middle region and the respective edges of the electrode plate in the width direction, therefore establishing the edges of the electrode plate in the width direction as the absolute lateral boundaries of the edge regions…” Remarks p.12
Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s analysis for the following reasons:
The claims don’t state “delimited by an edge”, “terminal outer boundary of the plate”, “delimited between the middle region and the respective edges”, or “absolute lateral boundaries”. Arguments about limitations that are not in the claims won’t overcome the prior art.
Calling the structure an “edge region” could be interpreted in many ways. The claim should state where this structure is located, and not rely on its label to locate it.
Lin’s edge regions are at the outer edges of the grouping of the first edge region, middle region, and second edge region. They are thus on the edges of this group.
Applicant also argues:
“Lin's middle region 221 is an internal structure positioned between other coating regions. It is not, and cannot be, defined by the plate's edge. Because the middle 221 region is centrally located and lacks a boundary formed by an edge, it fails to meet the structural definition of an ‘edge region’ as now recited.” Remarks p.10
Examiner disagrees. The claims don’t state that the “second portion” (Lin’s middle second region 221) can’t be between portions of the first coating layer. The claims don’t state “defined by the plate's edge” or “boundary formed by an edge”. Arguments about limitations that are not in the claims won’t overcome the prior art.
Applicant also argues:
“Because the middle 221 region is centrally located… it fails to meet the structural definition of an ‘edge region’ as now recited.” Remarks p.10
Examiner disagrees. The claim doesn’t state that the second edge region can’t be centrally located. Here is the definition the edge regions in these claims:
each of the first edge region and the second edge region is defined between the middle region and respective edges of the electrode plate in the width direction
As illustrated in Figure A above, (A) Lin’s first edge region is between the middle region and the left edge of the electrode plate and (B) Lin’s second edge region is between the middle region and the right edge of the electrode plate.
The claims use the phrase “defined between”; however, Examiner isn’t giving any special meaning to the word “defined” because this word isn’t defined in the specification. The remaining word “between” doesn’t require touching the structures on either side. For example, a car between two houses is not necessarily touching one or both of them.
II. Bonding force.
Amended claims 1 & 11 now state:
the first bonding force and the second bonding force are both 2 to 5 times the third bonding force
Applicant argues the claimed relative bonding force is —
“achieved through adjustment of the widths, thicknesses, and lengths of the first and second coating layers, as well as the conductive-agent and binder contents of the first coating layer” Remarks p.11
As discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) section below, it is unclear what structural features or chemical composition provide this claimed result. Examiner suggests adding the structural features into the claim that result in this “2 to 5 times” result. Doing so might overcome both the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections.
Lin teaches all structural components of claims 1 & 11; therefore, until the claims are modified with structural components that Lin does not teach, presumably Lin’s electrode plate and claims 1 & 11 have the “2 to 5 times” functional limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor(s) regard as the invention.
Claims 1 & 11 state:
the first bonding force and the second bonding force are both 2 to 5 times the third bonding force
MPEP 2173.05(g) provides the following guidance for functional limitations (underline added for emphasis):
“A claim term is functional when it recites a feature ‘by what it does rather than by what it is’…
“Examiners should consider the following factors when examining claims that contain functional language to determine whether the language is ambiguous: (1) whether there is a clear cut indication of the scope of the subject matter covered by the claim; (2) whether the language sets forth well-defined boundaries of the invention or only states a problem solved or a result obtained; and (3) whether one of ordinary skill in the art would know from the claim terms what structure or steps are encompassed by the claim.”
“2 to 5 times” is a “result obtained”. It is unclear what structure, besides what is listed in claims 1 & 11, provides this relative bonding force. Here is guidance from the present specification for this claim limitation:
“In some embodiments, the first bonding force and the second bonding force are both 2 to 5 times the third bonding force…” [0007], [0023]
Some examples in Table 1 fall within this “2 to 5 times” range. It is unclear which structural features (e.g. first coating layer material composition, thickness, or width; edge region roughness; etc.), and what ranges of such structural features, provide this benefit.
The present specification is thus unclear as to which features and ranges result in the “2 to 5 times” claim limitation. Examiner suggests adding the structural features into the claim that result in this “2 to 5 times” result. Doing so might overcome both the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections.
Claims 2-10 & 12-18 are rejected due to their dependence on claims 1 or 11.
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 1-4, 8, 11-14, & 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN207233865U machine translation (Lin). Independent claims 1 & 11 are discussed first.
Lin teaches the following claim 1 limitations:
An electrode plate (Figure A below), comprising:
a current collector (page 5, lines 3-11; figure 2: current collector 21), comprising, in a width direction, a first edge region, a second edge region, and a middle region extending from the first edge region to the second edge region (Figure A);
wherein each of the first edge region and the second edge region is defined between the middle region and respective edges of the electrode plate in the width direction (The first edge region is between the middle region and the left edge in Figure A. The second edge region is between the middle region and the right edge in Figure A.)
a first coating layer (page 5, lines 3-11; figure 2: second region 221 / primer material), comprising a first portion disposed on the first edge region and a second portion disposed on the second edge region, wherein the first coating layer is not disposed on the middle region (Figure A); and
a second coating layer (Figure A), wherein a part of the second coating layer is disposed on the middle region, another part of the second coating layer is disposed on the first coating layer, and the second coating layer comprises an active material (page 5, lines 3-11; figure 2: active material layer 23);
Figure A: Annotated Lin Figure 2
PNG
media_image1.png
482
1012
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 also recites:
a first bonding force is a bonding force between the first portion and the first edge region, a second bonding force is a bonding force between the second portion and the second edge region, and a third bonding force is a bonding force between the second coating layer and the middle region
Lin teaches that the second region 221 / primer material improves adhesion (page 1, line 42-45; page 5, lines 3-11).The second region 221 / primer material, however, has high impedance, which can deteriorate battery performance (page 2, lines 1-3), so it is used only at certain regions, leaving open other regions for the active material 23 to directly contact the current collector 21 (page 5, lines 3-11). Thus, Lin impliedly teaches higher adhesion between the second region 221 and the current collector 21 than between the active material 23 and the current collector 21. Lin’s first and second bonding forces (at the edge regions) are greater than a third bonding force (at the middle region).
Claim 1 also recites:
the first bonding force and the second bonding force are both 2 to 5 times the third bonding force
Lin fails to explicitly teach these values. Nevertheless, Lin teaches the claimed electrode plate as discussed above; therefore, Lin’s electrode plate presumably has the claimed bonding force relationship and/or values.
MPEP 2144.05(II) also provides guidance:
“‘[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.’ In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)”.
Lin teaches the “general conditions” of using a primer material in selected regions to improve adhesion (page 1, line 42-45; page 5, lines 3-11). It would have been obvious to optimizing relative adhesion of the primer material compared to the active material layer by routine experimentation based on the teachings of Lin.
Lin teaches the following claim 11 limitations:
An electrochemical apparatus (page 6, lines 39-43: lithium ion battery), comprising:
a positive electrode plate (page 6, lines 39-43: positive pole piece);
a negative electrode plate (page 6, lines 39-43: negative pole piece); and
a separator (page 6, lines 39-43: separator) disposed between the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate;
the positive electrode plate and/or the negative electrode plate comprises a current collector (page 5, lines 3-11; figure 2: current collector 21), comprising, in a width direction, a first edge region, a second edge region, and a middle region extending from the first edge region to the second edge region (Figure A above);
wherein each of the first edge region and the second edge region is defined between the middle region and respective edges of the electrode plate in the width direction (The first edge region is between the middle region and the left edge in Figure A. The second edge region is between the middle region and the right edge in Figure A.)
a first coating layer (page 5, lines 3-11; figure 2: second region 221 / primer material), comprising a first portion and a second portion disposed on the first edge region and the second edge region respectively, wherein the first coating layer is not disposed on the middle region (Figure A above); and
a second coating layer, wherein part of the second coating layer is disposed on the middle region, another part of the second coating layer is disposed on the first coating layer, and the second coating layer comprises an active material (page 5, lines 3-11; figure 2: active material layer 23);
Claim 11 also recites:
wherein there is a first bonding force between the first portion and the first edge region, there is a second bonding force between the second portion and the second edge region, there is a third bonding force between the second coating layer and the middle region
Lin teaches that the second region 221 / primer material improves adhesion (page 1, line 42-45; page 5, lines 3-11).The second region 221 / primer material, however, has high impedance, which can deteriorate battery performance (page 2, lines 1-3), so it is used only at certain regions, leaving open other regions for the active material 23 to directly contact the current collector 21 (page 5, lines 3-11). Thus, Lin impliedly teaches higher adhesion between the second region 221 and the current collector 21 than between the active material 23 and the current collector 21. Lin’s first and second bonding forces (at the edge regions) are greater than a third bonding force (at the middle region).
Claim 11 also recites:
the first bonding force and the second bonding force are both 2 to 5 times the third bonding force
Lin fails to explicitly teach these values. Nevertheless, Lin teaches the claimed electrode plate as discussed above; therefore, Lin’s electrode plate presumably has the claimed bonding force relationship and/or values.
MPEP 2144.05(II) also provides guidance:
“‘[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.’ In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)”.
Lin teaches the “general conditions” of using a primer material in selected regions to improve adhesion (page 1, line 42-45; page 5, lines 3-11). It would have been obvious to optimizing relative adhesion of the primer material compared to the active material layer by routine experimentation based on the teachings of Lin.
With regard to claims 2-4, 8, 12-14, & 17, Lin teaches the limitations of claims 1 & 11 as noted above. Claims 2-4, 8, 12-14, & 17 recite:
Claims 2 & 12
1% ≤ d1/D ≤ 20%, and 1% ≤ d2/D ≤ 20%; wherein d1 is a width of the first portion, d2 is a width of the second portion and D is a width of the second coating layer
Claims 3 & 13
10% ≤ d1/D ≤ 20%
Claims 4 & 14
10% ≤ d2/D ≤ 20%
Claims 8 & 17
in a length direction of the current collector, the first portion and/or the second portion is discontinuously coated, a percentage of a total coating length of the first portion to a coating length of the second coating layer is greater than 80%, and a percentage of a total coating length of the second portion to the coating length of the second coating layer is greater than 80%
Lin fails to explicitly teach these relative widths and lengths. Lin, however, teaches the second region 221 / primer material to improve adhesion (page 1, line 42-45; page 5, lines 3-11), but that the second region 221 / primer material has high impedance, which can deteriorate battery performance (page 2, lines 1-3). Thus, Lin teaches adjusting the different regions for the best balance of adhesion without excessive impedance increase. It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to adjust the widths and lengths of Lin’s primer material to achieve these objectives. The limitations of these claims would thus have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With regard to claim 18 Lin teaches the limitations of claim 11 as described above. Lin teaches the following claim 18 limitation:
An electronic apparatus, comprising the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 11 (page 1, lines 36-40)
Claims 5, 7, & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN207233865U machine translation (Lin) in view of US20180076451A1 (Kim1).
With regard to claims 5 & 15, Lin teaches the limitations of claims 1 & 11 as noted above. Claims 5 & 15 recite:
the first bonding force and the second bonding force are both greater than 10 N/m
Lin fails to explicitly teach this value. Nevertheless, Lin teaches the claimed electrode plate as discussed above; therefore, Lin’s electrode plate presumably has the claimed bonding force relationship and/or values. MPEP 2112(I) provides guidance for this issue:
“‘[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.’ Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).”
The patent office does not have the ability to test, or to obtain data for, every possible property. Measurement of a property does not make an old substance patentable.
Kim1 provides added guidance. Kim1 is directed to a lithium secondary battery electrode with improved structural stability and adhesion (abstract) due to a primer layer (paragraphs 11-12 & 42). Kim’s adhesion was 19.2 gf / 15 mm, which equals 12.6 N/m (page 7, Table 1, Example 5):
19.2
g
f
15
m
m
*
0.009807
N
1
g
f
*
1000
m
m
1
m
=
12.6
N
/
m
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Lin’s second region 221 / primer material to have 12.3 N/m adhesion, as taught by Kim1, for an electrode with improved structural stability and adhesion.
With regard to claim 7, Lin teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Lin also teaches the following claim 7 limitation:
the first coating layer comprises a first conductive agent and a first binder (page 5, lines 25-27: “primer material contains glue and conductive agent”)
Lin, however, fails to teach the following claim 6 limitation, which is taught by Kim1:
the first conductive agent comprises at least one of… acetylene black… the first binder comprises at least one… polyvinyl alcohol (paragraphs 11-12 & 42: primer layer includes a first conductive agent [carbon black] and a first binder [polyvinyl alcohol])
Lin also fails to teach the following claim 7 limitation, which is taught by Kim1:
a mass percentage of the first conductive agent in the first coating layer is 30%–80%, and a mass percentage of the first binder in the first coating layer is 20%–70%
Kim1 teaches the following ranges (low to high) of components in the primer layer, in parts by weight (paragraph 11):
low
wt%
high
wt%
first conductive agent
100
61%
100
27%
first dispersant
5
20
first binder
60
36%
250
68%
Total
165
370
Kim1 thus teaches 36-68 wt% binder, which falls within the 20-70 wt% range.
Kim1 also teaches 27-61 wt% conductive agent, which overlaps the claimed 30-80 wt% range. MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A) provides the law for this issue:
“In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)”.
Given that Kim1’s range is similar to and substantially overlaps the claimed range, and further given the fact that no criticality is disclosed for the claimed range, the range in claim 7 is an obvious variant of Kim1’s range.
Kim1 is directed to a lithium secondary battery electrode with improved structural stability and adhesion (abstract). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Lin’s second region 221 / primer material to include 27-61 wt% first conductive agent [carbon black] and 36-68 wt% binder [polyvinyl alcohol] as taught by Kim1, for improved structural stability and adhesion.
Claims 6 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN207233865U machine translation (Lin) in view of US20030113624A1 (Kim2).
Lin teaches the limitations of claims 1 & 11 as described above. Lin also teaches the following limitation of claims 6 & 16:
0.5 μm < h < 8 μm… h is a thickness of the first coating layer (page 3, lines 3-12: second region thickness is 3 to 12 μm)
Lin’s 3 to 12 μm range overlaps the claimed 0.5 to 8 μm range. MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A) provides the law for this issue:
“In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)”.
Given that Lin’s range is similar to and substantially overlaps the claimed range, and further given the fact that no criticality is disclosed for the claimed range, the h range in claim 6 is an obvious variant of Lin’s range.
Lin, however, fails to teach the following claim 6 limitation, which is taught by Kim2:
20 μm < H < 200 μm… H is a thickness of the second coating layer (paragraph 52: active material layer 9 thickness is 2 to 200 μm)
Kim2 teaches that thickness < 2 μm causes manufacturing problems and thickness > 200 μm causes layer non-uniformity (paragraph 52). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Lin’s active material layer 23 to have a 2 to 200 μm thickness, as taught by Kim2, in order to avoid manufacturing problems and layer non-uniformity.
Kim2’s 2 to 200 μm range overlaps the claimed 20 to 200 μm range. MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A), quoted above, provides the law for this issue. Given that Kim2’s range is similar to and substantially overlaps the claimed range, and further given the fact that no criticality is disclosed for the claimed range, the H range in claim 6 is an obvious variant of Kim2’s range.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN207233865U machine translation (Lin) in view of US20200075947A1 (Cho).
Lin fails to teach the following claim 9 limitation, which is taught by Cho:
at least a part of the current collector is etched (paragraphs 63 & 73)
Cho teaches etching the current collector to roughen the surface for increased adhesion (paragraphs 63 & 73). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for a surface of Lin’s current collector to be etched, as taught by Cho, for increased adhesion.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for allowable subject matter:
CN207233865U machine translation (Lin) in view of US20200075947A1 (Cho) are the closest prior art of record. Claim 10 depends from claims 1 & 9. Lin teaches claim 1 limitations, and Lin plus Cho teach claim 9 limitations, as discussed above. Claim 10 recites:
the first edge region and the second edge region are etched; and roughness of the first edge region and roughness of the second edge region are both 2 to 4 times roughness of the middle region
The claim limitation, that roughness of the edge regions is 2 to 4 times roughness of the middle region, indicates that the middle region is not etched at all, or that the middle region is etched less than the edge regions. It would increase manufacturing cost to mask off the middle region and to etch only the exposed regions (edge regions).
Lin doesn’t teach etching the current collector. Cho teaches etching the current collector to roughen the surface for increased adhesion (paragraphs 63 & 73). Cho, however, fails to teach etching only selected regions of the current collector.
Adhesion is important across the entire current collector. It would increase manufacturing cost to mask off selected regions and to etch only the exposed regions. It would not have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to etch Lin’s current collector only in the edge regions, and thus preferentially increase edge region roughness.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights