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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 04/22/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 4-14 are amended, Claims 2-3 are canceled and Claims 1 and 4-15 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The 35 USC § 112(b) rejection of Claims 5 and 8 is withdrawn in view of the claim amendments filed on 04/22/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 4-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohta et al. (US 20150125732 A1), hereinafter "Ohta" in view of Fujii et al. (US 20180366786 A1), hereinafter "Fujii". Ohta and Fujii et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely electrode active materials.
In regard to Claim 1, Ohta et al. discloses an electrode assembly comprising: a positive electrode including a positive electrode current collector and a positive electrode active material layer on the positive electrode current collector, the positive electrode current collector including a first non-coated portion where the positive electrode active material layer is absent (Ohta, [0007]) and a negative electrode including a negative electrode current collector and Ohta et al. further depicts the negative electrode current collector comprising a tab, which necessitates an uncoated region to connect the tab and thus discloses a second non-coated portion where the negative electrode active material layer is absent (Ohta, [0002], Figures 6B-D) wherein the positive electrode and the negative electrode are arranged such that the positive electrode active material layer and the negative electrode active material layer face each other (Ohta, [0051]), which is a conventional lithium secondary battery electrode assembly.
Ohta et al. also discloses wherein the positive electrode further includes an insulating coating layer covering a portion of the first non-coated portion of the positive electrode current collector adjacent to a boundary between the first non-coated portion and an end part of the positive electrode active material layer and at least a part of the positive electrode current collector (Ohta, Abstract, Figure 4B).
Ohta et al. further discloses wherein the insulating coating layer includes a plurality of protrusions (Ohta, [0053]) that each protrudes along a surface of the end part of the positive electrode active material layer from the boundary in a direction toward a central portion of the positive electrode active material layer (Ohta, Annotated Figure 1C), however, Ohta is silent as to the insulating coating layer forming on the central portion of that active material layer.
Fujii et al. discloses an active material layer that tapers towards an uncoated region of a current collector with an insulating coating layer providing coverage (Fujii, Abstract) which includes coverage from an uncoated region to the tapered region and towards the central portion of that active material layer (Fujii, Figure 4 (13), Figure 6 (13)) wherein the benefit of this configuration is taught as being capable of increasing the output of the battery while the deposition of metal lithium is suppressed and the reliability of the battery is maintained (Fujii [0021]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide the insulating coating layer of Ohta on the current collector, tapered portion and central portion of the active material as disclosed Fujii et al. as doing so would be obvious to try and would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Fujii and as doing so would amount to nothing more than the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
PNG
media_image1.png
359
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1C
In regard to Claim 4, Ohta et al. in view of Fujii discloses the electrode assembly according to claim 1. Ohta et al. depicts the insulating coating layer covering at least 50% of the non-coated region and also discloses the insulating coating layer extends from positive electrode active material up to as far as the positive electrode lead tab which reasonably would cover the first non-coated portion in a range of 10% to 50% of the total area of the first non-coated portion and would be easily optimized by the skilled artisan (Ohta, Figure 4B, [0027]).
In regard to Claim 5, Ohta in view of Fujii et al. discloses the electrode assembly according to claim 1. Ohta et al. also discloses the insulating coating layer extends from positive electrode active material up to as far as the positive electrode lead tab (Ohta, [0027]) which by definition requires the insulating layer to cover some surface area of the positive electrode active material layer in contact with the positive electrode current collector and a surface area of the first non-coated portion, however, Ohta et al. is silent as to the ratio of this coverage.
Fujii et al. discloses an active material layer that tapers towards an uncoated region of a current collector with an insulating coating layer providing coverage (Fujii, Abstract), wherein a ratio of a surface area of the positive electrode active material layer covered to a surface area of the first non-coated portion covered by the insulating coating layer is depicted as a width ratio of 1:1 (Fujii, Figure 1), which anticipates the claimed range and would be obvious to try for the skilled artisan and would amount to nothing more than choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
In regard to Claim 6, Ohta in view of Fujii et al. discloses the electrode assembly according to claim 1. Ohta et al. also discloses a thickness of the end part of the positive electrode active material layer is less than the thickness of the central portion of the positive electrode active material layer as it goes toward the first non-coated portion (Ohta, Figure 2B) but is silent as to the tapering of the negative electrode active material.
Fujii et al. discloses both the positive and negative active materials comprise an end part of the active material layer that is made thinner than the thickness of the central portion of the active material layer as it goes toward the non-coated portion (Fujii, Figure 7), which amounts to nothing more than an obvious variation of it for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
In regard to Claim 7, Ohta et al. in view of Fujii et al. discloses the electrode assembly according to claim 6. Ohta et al. also discloses each protrusion of the insulating coating layer must have some predetermined length and width and that those variables are optimized by the skilled artisan and that the protrusions of the insulating coating layer prevent shorting by insulating between the positive tab region and the opposing negative electrode (Ohta, [0047, 0052]).
Fujii et al. discloses the relationship between the insulating layer on the positive electrode and the tapered negative electrode (Fujii, [0062-0065]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide an insulating coating layer with protrusions that have a length optimized to protect against contact with the negative active material as disclosed in Ohta, which would reasonably cover an area that corresponds to the thickness of the negative active material at full thickness (1.0) or less as doing so would amount to nothing more than choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
In regard to Claim 8, Ohta et al. in view of Fujii et al. discloses the electrode assembly according to claim 6. Fujii et al. discloses wherein a portion of the positive electrode active material layer covered by the insulating coating layer has the same thickness as the thickness of the central portion of the positive electrode active material layer (Fujji, Figure 4), therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide the plurality of protrusions of the insulating layer of Ohta on the active material central region as well as the tapered region and uncoated region as doing so would be obvious to try for the skilled artisan and as doing so would amount to nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
In regard to Claim 9, Ohta et al. discloses the electrode assembly according to claim 1. Ohta et al. also discloses wherein a width of each protrusion is a variable optimized by the skilled artisan in range of absolute values in which a range of 20% to 50% relative to a width of the positive electrode active material layer divided by the number of the protrusions (Ohta [0040-0042]).
In regard to Claim 10, Ohta et al. discloses the electrode assembly according to claim 2. Ohta et al. also discloses the positive electrode comprises the first uncoated region but is silent as to the negative electrodes uncoated region as a second uncoated region. Fujii et al. discloses a first and second uncoated region wherein a length of the first non-coated portion is greater than a length of the second non-coated portion (Fujii, Figure 7).
In regard to Claim 11, Ohta et al. discloses the electrode assembly according to claim 1. Ohta et al. also discloses wherein the plurality of protrusions, spaced apart from each other (Ohta, [0042], Figure 3B1).
In regard to Claim 12, Ohta et al. discloses the electrode assembly according to claim 11. Ohta et al. also discloses wherein a distance by which the protrusions are spaced apart from each other is optimizable by the skilled artisan to include spacing equal to or smaller than a width of the protrusions (Ohta, [0028, 0040-0041], Figure 3B1).
In regard to Claim 13, Ohta et al. discloses the electrode assembly according to claim 1. Ohta et al. also discloses the insulating coating layer is an insulator and the voids between the protrusions allow mass transfer pathways which makes the insulating material capable of preventing lithium ions from passing through (Ohta, [0004]) and Fujii et al. discloses an insulating coating layer comprising polypropylene which is commonly known to not allow lithium ions to pass.
In regard to Claims 14-15, Ohta et al. discloses the electrode assembly according to claim 1. Ohta et al. also discloses a battery cell comprising the electrode assembly as set forth in claim 1 wherein a separator is between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (Ohta, [0001, 0012]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection has been changed from a 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) rejection to a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection and relies on a secondary reference which was not specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to applicant's argument that the reference Ohta fails to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., protrusions along a surface of the end part (tapered region) extending toward the central portion) recited in amended claim 1 as written do not require the insulating layer and protrusions to be formed on the central region surface but only on the surface of the end region in a direction towards the central region. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Further, the annotated figure referenced above in the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection demonstrates the plurality of protrusion of Ohta along a surface of the end part extending toward a central part.
Conclusion
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 KENNETH MAX OTERO whose telephone number is (571)272-2559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Generally 7:30-430.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/K.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights