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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7-8, 11, 14, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by CN 207233865 (see English translation included with this action).
CN’865 discloses an electrode pole piece for a Li ion battery having a current collector layer(21) with an active material layer thereon (23). A polymer coating layer is formed between the two layers in zones h1, h2 and d2 (see Fig 2 and description thereof on pp 4-5). The different zones shown in Figure 2 of CN’865 corresponds to the claimed zones 1-5 as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
203
461
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As shown in the annotated figure, zones 1 and 2 are “edge zones” of the electrode plate and the third zone is “a middle zone.” The reference teaches that the impedance of the stack of polymer coating (221) and the active material in section h1 and d2 is higher than that of the active material (222) without the coating in section d1 (see Fig 2 and the paragraph bridging pages 4 and 5 in the translation). The reference discloses the use of the aforementioned electrode as a cathode (see Example 1). Thus, the impedance of the 3rd zone (d1) is less than that of the combined portions 1 and 4 as well as that of combined portions 2 and 5.
With regard to claim 4, CN’865 discloses thickness of the regions 221 in Figure 2 of 3-12 micron (see next to last para on p. 4 and claim 7). The overlapping portion of the range, 3-8 micron, anticipates the claim.
With regard to claim 7, see Figure 2.
With regard to claim 8, CN’865 discloses the use of the aforementioned electrode as anode (see last para p3).
Claim 11, 14, 17, and 20 are met for the foregoing reasons
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.
Claim(s) 2-6, 8-13, 15-16 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 207233865 (see English translation included with this action).
With regard to claims 2, 8-9, and 15, CN’865 teaches all of the features of the claims, as set forth in section 102, above, except for the ratio of the combined impedance of the fourth and first portion to that of the third portion.
CN’865 does teach that the combined impedance of layers 221+23 in region h1 (corresponding to the claimed 4th and 1st portions as shown in annotated Fig 2,above) is greater than that of layer 223 in region d1 (corresponding to the claimed 3rd portion). Thus, the ratio must be at least greater than 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the optimal impedance value above 1 in view of the teaching that the impedance differential affects circulation stability of the electric core (see last para, p 4). Determination of an optimal value of a result effective variable would have been obvious.
With regard to claim 3 and 16, CN’865 does not explicitly disclose the width of the 4th or 5th portions or the ratio of the width of the 4th or 5th portions to a width of the active material layer of 0.01-0.25. However, in the embodiment shown in Figure 2, the regions 221 all appear to be the same size (Note: it appears that the labels “h3” and “d2” were inadvertently switched in Figure 2). Likewise, the regions 222 each appear to be of equal size. The reference teaches that the width of h1+h2+h3 is 78-300% to that of regions d1+d2. If 300% is chosen from this disclosed range, it follows that h1=h2=h3=100 and d1=100=d2. A value for h1 and h3 (erroneously written as d2 in Figure 2) would be 25% of the total width of the active material layer. Thus, some inner portion width of h1 would read on the claimed 4th portion and would necessarily by less than 25% (0.25) of the total width of the active material layer. Likewise, some inner portion width of h3 (or d2 in Figure 2) would read on the claimed 5th portion and would necessarily by less than 25% (0.25) of the total width of the active material layer.
With regard to claims 4 and 11, CN’865 discloses thickness of the regions 221 in Figure 2 of 3-12 micron (see next to last para on p. 4 and claim 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose any value from within the disclosed range of 3-12 microns in view of apparent suitability of all values within the range.
With regard to claims 5-6, 12-13 and 18-19, CN’865 discloses the use of a binder and a conductive filler for the coating layer as claimed. The reference does not specifically disclose the particular conductive fillers for use therein. However, the use of conductive carbon as a conductive filler in battery applications was well known in the art. Choice of widely known materials for use as the conductive filler would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 10, CN’865 does not disclose the ratio of a width of the negative electrode layer to a width of the negative electrode active layer in the range of 0.75-0.99. However, the reference does teach that the ratio of the sum of the widths of regions h1+h2+h2 to that of d1+d2 shown in Figure 2, is 78-300% (see p.4). For a ratio of 300%, the width of h1+h2+h3 (i.e, width of the negative electrode coating layer) could be said to be 300 and the width of the regions d1+d2 =100. Thus, the ratio of 300/(300+100) would be 0.75. Choice of any width value corresponding to the disclosed range of 78-300% would have been prima facie obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/1/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art to Lin et al. (CN 207233865) fails to teach or suggest the spatial relationship of the first through fifth zones as now claimed.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in annotated Fig 2, above, Lin discloses an embodiment wherein the first, second, third, fourth and fifth portions are in the claimed spatial configuration.
With regard to claim 8, Applicant argues that the embodiment relied upon by the Examiner is directed to a positive electrode and the negative electrode is double sided coating on copper foil (see p. 6). However, the reference also broadly claims “an electrode” having the structure as set forth in Figure 2- see claims section. Given this broad disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art would have immediately envisaged the structure of Figure 2 for use as either a positive or negative electrode.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOLLY RICKMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1514. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, 9am-3pm 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
/Holly Rickman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights