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
In response to the amendment received August 4, 2026:
Claim 20 has been added as per Applicant’s request. Claims 1-20 are pending with claims 10-16 withdrawn as being drawn to an unelected invention.
Note: Claims 10-16 should be indicated as (Withdrawn). Correction is requested in a subsequent filing. However, Examiner is proceeding with the response to the amendment in full for compact prosecution’s sake.
The core of the previous prior art rejection is maintained with slight changes made in light of the amendment. All changes made are necessitated by the amendment. Thus, the action is final.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed May 14, 2026 has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 5 defines the length of the overlapping region as 0.01 mm to 2 mm; however, the length has already been defined in claim 1 as from 0.3 mm to 1 mm (narrower than claim 5). Thus, the metes and bound of the claim are unclear, and the claim is indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2012/0115030 (Tanaka et al.).
As to claim 1, Tanaka et al. teach electrode comprising:
a current collector layer (collector foil [11]);
an electrode active material layer [12] on the current collector layer [11]; and
an insulating layer (high-resistance layer [40]) on the current collector layer [11] (fig. 1);
wherein:
the electrode active material layer [12] and the insulating layer (high-resistance layer [40]) overlap each other in an overlapping region (interface [50]) while being disposed side by side along a direction perpendicular to the surface normal direction of the current collector layer (fig. 1), and
Regarding a thickness of the insulating layer satisfies the relation of Equation 1 below:
[Equation 1]
TL ≤ Ts x {a x exp(b x L) - c}
wherein, TL is the thickness of the insulating layer, Ts is a thickness of the electrode active material layer, L is a length of the overlapping region, L is 0.3 mm to 1 mm, a is a number within a range of 0.55 to 0.95, b is a number within a range of -0.8 to -0.2, and c is a number within a range of 0.001 to 0.004, this limitation is overlapped by the teaching of Tanaka et al.
Tanaka et al. teaches specific examples in Table 1 (on p9) shows results of examples. Although specific data is given in table 1, Tanaka et al. teach that the thickness of the bulk zone [121] of the positive active material layer is dictated by battery design specifications, there being no particular limitation with respect thereto (para 0032), that the thickness of the high-resistance layer has no specific limitation regarding its thickness (para 0035), that the taper angle [123] (fig. 1) is between 10-80° (para 0034), and the width of the tapered zone [122] is between 20 µm and 1 mm, wherein the high-resistance layer [40] partially overlaps the tapered zone [122] but not the bulk zone (para 0034, 0037). Accordingly, at the very least, Tanaka et al.’s teaching overlaps the claimed relation of:
TL ≤ Ts x {a x exp(b x L) - c}
wherein, TL is the thickness of the insulating layer (not specifically limited), Ts is a thickness of the electrode active material layer (not specifically limited), L is a length of the overlapping region, L is 0.3 mm to 1 mm (as a partial overlap of 20 µm and 1 mm is set forth), a is a number within a range of 0.55 to 0.95, b is a number within a range of -0.8 to -0.2, and c is a number within a range of 0.001 to 0.004 (i.e. any number for TL, Ts, and a L that fits the equation within Tanaka et al.’s teaching – for example taking any test example (Ts = 50 µm, TL = 10, 40, 60 µm, and setting L as anything from 0.3 mm to less than 1 mm (within teaching of Tanaka et al.); see table 1 and para 0034). “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
As to claim 2, Tanaka et al. teach the electrode further satisfying Equation 2 below:
[Equation 2]
0.1 x Ts ≤ TL
wherein, TL is the thickness of the insulating layer, and Ts is the thickness of the electrode active material layer, as Tanaka et al. teach that the thickness of the bulk zone [121] of the positive active material layer is dictated by battery design specifications, there being no particular limitation with respect thereto (para 0032), that the thickness of the high-resistance layer has no specific limitation regarding its thickness (para 0035) (thus any numbers that fit this relationship are overlapped). Additionally, Table 1 of Tanaka et al. (on p9) shows results of examples, and for example tests has TL = 10, 40, 60 µm; Ts = 50 µm, which yields a true statement.
As to claim 3, Tanaka et al. teach the electrode satisfies Equation 3 below:
[Equation 3]
TS = d x LD + e
wherein, LD is a loading amount, unit: mg/25cm2, of the electrode active material layer, d is a number within a range of 0.1 to 0.2, and e is a number within a range of 10 to 16, as Tanaka at al. shows results of examples (Table 1, p9); for example, Test 3 has TS = 50 µm. Additionally, LD (amount of coating being applied) is 7.5 mg/cm2 (para 0096), which translates to 187.5 mg/ 25 cm2. Accordingly, the statement is true at TS = 50 µm; 187.5 mg/ 25 cm2, d=0.2, and e= 12.5.
As to claim 4, Tanaka et al. teach the thickness,Ts, of the electrode active material layer is in a range of 50 µm to 300 µm, as Table 1 of Tanaka et al. (on p9) shows results of examples, and for example, Test 3 has Ts = 50 µm.
As to claim 5, Tanaka et al. renders obvious that the length of the overlapping region is in a range of 0.01 mm to 2 mm, as Tanaka et al. teach that the thickness of the bulk zone [121] of the positive active material layer is dictated by battery design specifications, there being no particular limitation with respect thereto (para 0032), that the thickness of the high-resistance layer has no specific limitation regarding its thickness (para 0035), that the taper angle [123] (fig. 1) is between 10-80° (para 0034), and the width of the tapered zone [122] is between 20 µm and 1 mm, wherein the high-resistance layer [40] partially overlaps the tapered zone [122] but not the bulk zone (para 0034, 0037). Thus, as the length of the overlapping area must be between 20 µm and 1 mm (overlaps the claimed range), the claimed invention is rendered obvious. “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
As to claim 6, Tanaka et al. teach the electrode active material layer comprises polyvinylidene fluoride as a binder (para 0046, 0094), and the insulating layer (high-resistance layer) comprises a binder such as polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), and so forth (para 0053, 0095).
Accordingly, Tanaka et al. do not teach styrene butadiene rubber or styrene butadiene latex as a binder for the insulating layer.
However, Tanaka et al. teach of binders known to be used in positive electrodes in general, including polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), and styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) (para 0046). The substitution of one binder (i.e. PDVF) with another (i.e. styrene-butadiene rubber) would yield the predictable result of providing a binder for a component of the positive electrode, as the substituted components and their functions were known in the art (as shown by Tanaka et al. in para 0046, as compared to para 0053, 0094, and 0095). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to substitute one binder (i.e. PDVF) with another (i.e. styrene-butadiene rubber), as the substitution would yield the predictable result of providing a binder for a component of the positive electrode, as the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I).
As to claim 7, Tanaka et al. teach the electrode active material layer comprises polyvinylidene fluoride as a binder (para 0046, 0094), and the insulating layer comprises polyvinylidene fluoride as a binder (para 0053, 0095).
As to claim 8, Tanaka et al. teach the insulating layer further comprises a ceramic (inorganic materials such as Al2O3 (alumina), SiO2, ZrO2, TiO2, and MgO) (para 0051).
As to claim 9, Tanaka et al. teach the ceramic is one or more selected from the group consisting of AlO(OH), Al2O3, SiO2, TiO2, SnO2, CeO2, MgO, NiO, CaO, ZnO, ZrO2, Y203, SrTiO3, BaTiO3, and Mg(OH)2 ((inorganic materials such as Al2O3 (alumina), SiO2, ZrO2, TiO2, and MgO) (para 0051)).
As to claim 17, Tanaka et al. teach an electrode assembly comprising: a negative electrode [20]; a positive electrode [10]; and a separator [30], wherein
the negative electrode and the positive electrode are laminated with the separator interposed therebetween (fig. 3; para 0021), and
at least one of the negative electrode and the positive electrode is the electrode according to claim 1 (positive electrode [10] has the heat-resistant layer (para 0024-0025; fig. 1). For full details regarding how claim 1 is met, see the rejection to claim 1 for full details, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake.
As to claim 18, Tanaka et al. teach a secondary battery (para 0020) comprising the electrode of claim 1 (positive electrode [10] has the heat-resistant layer (para 0024-0025; fig. 1). For full details regarding how claim 1 is met, see the rejection to claim 1 for full details, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake.
As to claim 19, Tanaka et al. teach the insulating layer further comprises a ceramic (inorganic materials such as Al2O3 (alumina), SiO2, ZrO2, TiO2, and MgO) (para 0051).
As to claim 20, Tanaka et al. renders obvious that the thickness, TS, of the electrode active material layer is in a range of 50 µm to 300 µm, and wherein L is 0.3 mm to 0.5 mm, as Tanaka et al. teaches that the thickness of the bulk zone [121] of the positive active material layer is dictated by battery design specifications, there being no particular limitation with respect thereto (but teaches a 40-130 µm thickness when applied and a 25-80 µm thickness once compressed, exemplifying 50 µm) (para 0032; table 1 examples). Additionally, Tanaka et al. teach that the thickness of the high-resistance layer has no specific limitation regarding its thickness (para 0035), that the taper angle [123] (fig. 1) is between 10-80° (para 0034), and the width of the tapered zone [122] is between 20 µm and 1 mm, wherein the high-resistance layer [40] partially overlaps the tapered zone [122] but not the bulk zone (para 0034, 0037). Thus, as the length of the overlapping area must be between 20 µm and 1 mm (overlaps the claimed range), the claimed invention is rendered obvious. “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 4, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the length of the overlapping region overcomes the rejection of record, as it is much larger than the calculated value.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Tanaka et al. teach that the thickness of the bulk zone [121] of the positive active material layer is dictated by battery design specifications, there being no particular limitation with respect thereto (para 0032), that the thickness of the high-resistance layer has no specific limitation regarding its thickness (para 0035), that the taper angle [123] (fig. 1) is between 10-80° (para 0034), and the width of the tapered zone [122] is between 20 µm and 1 mm, wherein the high-resistance layer [40] partially overlaps the tapered zone [122] but not the bulk zone (para 0034, 0037). Thus, with this teaching the length of the overlapping zone would lie within the tapered zone length (between 20 µm and 1 mm), which overlaps the claimed invention. Thus, the argument is not persuasive, and the rejection of record is maintained.
Applicant argues that Tanaka does not recognize the length of the overlapping region as a result-effective, and thus Tanaka’s teaching does not render obvious the claimed invention.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner submits that Tanaka’s teaching overlaps the claimed invention and thus renders it obvious (even if it is not set forth as a result effective variable, barring secondary considerations, which have not been set forth). “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” See MPEP §2144.05(I). Thus, the argument is not persuasive, and the rejection of record is maintained.
Applicant argues that the dependent claims are distinct from the prior art of record for the same reason as the independent claim.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection with respect to the independent claim has been maintained, and thus the rejections to the dependent claims are maintained as well.
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 EUGENIA WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4942. The examiner can normally be reached a flex schedule, generally Monday-Thursday 5:00 -7:30 (AM) and 9:45-3:15 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/EUGENIA WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights