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 . 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 Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 1-10 be found allowable, claims 11-20 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See M.P.E.P. § 608.01(m). Furthermore, the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. The preamble is thus not considered a claim limitations. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see also M.P.E.P. § 2111.02. Here, the claims are identical except for the recitation of Applicant’s intended use for the claimed electrochemical apparatus. Specifically, Applicant’s recitation of “electronic apparatus” in the preambles of claims 11-20 adds nothing to the claims other than Applicant’s intention to use the claimed electrochemical apparatus to store and provide electrical energy for some type of load. The claims are therefore identical.
The objection to claims 8 and 18 for lack of the required line indentation is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claims 1, 3-11, 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite is withdrawn because Applicant amended claims 1 and 11 and canceled claims 6 and 16.
The rejection of claims 2 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite is maintained as set forth below.
Claims 2 and 12 both recite the limitation “the insulating layer is provided on a surface of the positive electrode current collector on a side of the positive electrode current collector opposite to the side where the tab portion is disposed.” Claims 1 and 11, upon which claims 2 and 12 respectively depend, recite that the insulating layer is disposed on a surface of the positive electrode current collector on a side of the positive electrode current collector where a tab portion is disposed.” Claims 2 and 12 are indefinite because, generally speaking, an object cannot be in two places at the same time. In other words, it is unclear if Applicant is attempting to claim a second insulating layer provided on the opposite side of the current collector from the first or a single insulating layer that is formed on both sides of the current collector. For the purposes of examination, the claims will be interpreted to recite that “another insulating layer is provided on a surface of the positive electrode current collector...”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The rejection of claims 2, 6, 12, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2015/0149629 A1), hereinafter “Kim,” is withdrawn because Applicant amended claims 2 and 12 and canceled claims 6 and 16.
Claims 1, 8, 10, 11, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2015/0149629 A1), hereinafter “Kim.”
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses an electrochemical apparatus comprising:
a negative electrode, in this case the anode (¶ [0024], Fig. 3, ref. no. 142), wherein the negative electrode comprises a negative electrode current collector, in this case the anode collector (¶ [0024], Fig. 3, ref. no. 150), and a negative electrode active substance layer is provided on at least one surface of the negative electrode current collector, in this case the anode active material (¶ [0024], Fig. 3, ref. no. 140);
a positive electrode, in this case the cathode (¶ [0024], Fig. 3, ref. no. 122), wherein the positive electrode comprises a positive electrode current collector, in this case the cathode collector (¶ [0024], Fig. 3, ref. no. 110), a positive electrode active substance layer disposed on at least one surface of the positive electrode current collector, in this case the cathode active material (¶ [0024], Fig. 3, ref. no. 120), and in insulating layer disposed on a surface of the positive electrode current collector “close to a tab portion”, in this case the insulation layer (¶ [0024], Fig. 3, ref. no. 160) is near the exposed portion (¶ [0026], Fig. 3, ref. no. T2); and
a separator disposed between the negative and positive electrodes (¶ [0024], Fig. 3, ref. no. 130) where the positive and negative active substance layers face each other across the separator (see Fig. 3, ref. nos. 120, 130, & 140);
wherein:
an outer edge of the negative electrode active substance layer extends further outward than an outer edge of the positive electrode active substance layer at an opposite position, in this case the anode has a size greater than that of the cathode (¶ [0025], Fig. 3, ref nos. 120 & 140); and
an inner edge of the insulating layer is in contact with the outer edge of the positive electrode active substance layer (see Fig. 3, ref. nos. 120 & 160) and an outer edge of the insulating layer extends further outward than the outer edge of the negative electrode active substance layer (see Fig. 3, ref. nos. 140 & 160); and
0 μm ≤ Tp – Ti ≤ 10 μm where T-i is the insulating layer thickness and Tp is the positive electrode active substance layer, in this case the thickness of the insulation layer is 1 μm to 100 μm (¶ [0026]) and that both the insulation layer and the positive electrode active substance layer extend between and are in contact with both the positive electrode current collector and the separator (see Fig. 3, ref. nos. 110, 120, 130, & 160) which results in 0 μm = Tp – Ti.
Regarding claim 8, Kim further discloses that the insulating layer comprises an inorganic material and a binder wherein:
the inorganic material comprises barium sulfate (¶ [0029]); and
the binder comprises at least one of polyurethane, polyacrylate, styrene-butadiene rubber (¶ [0030]).
Regarding claim 10, Kim is silent as to the impedance of the insulating layer. However, the impedance of the insulating layer disclosed by Kim would inherently possess the same impedance of 1 KΩ or more because Kim discloses the same material of construction. See M.P.E.P. § 2112.
Regarding claim 11, Kim discloses an electrochemical apparatus comprising:
a negative electrode, in this case the anode (¶ [0024], Fig. 3, ref. no. 142), wherein the negative electrode comprises a negative electrode current collector, in this case the anode collector (¶ [0024], Fig. 3, ref. no. 150), and a negative electrode active substance layer is provided on at least one surface of the negative electrode current collector, in this case the anode active material (¶ [0024], Fig. 3, ref. no. 140);
a positive electrode, in this case the cathode (¶ [0024], Fig. 3, ref. no. 122), wherein the positive electrode comprises a positive electrode current collector, in this case the cathode collector (¶ [0024], Fig. 3, ref. no. 110), a positive electrode active substance layer disposed on at least one surface of the positive electrode current collector, in this case the cathode active material (¶ [0024], Fig. 3, ref. no. 120), and in insulating layer disposed on a surface of the positive electrode current collector “close to a tab portion”, in this case the insulation layer (¶ [0024], Fig. 3, ref. no. 160) is near the exposed portion (¶ [0026], Fig. 3, ref. no. T2); and
a separator disposed between the negative and positive electrodes (¶ [0024], Fig. 3, ref. no. 130) where the positive and negative active substance layers face each other across the separator (see Fig. 3, ref. nos. 120, 130, & 140);
wherein:
an outer edge of the negative electrode active substance layer extends further outward than an outer edge of the positive electrode active substance layer at an opposite position, in this case the anode has a size greater than that of the cathode (¶ [0025], Fig. 3, ref nos. 120 & 140); and
an inner edge of the insulating layer is in contact with the outer edge of the positive electrode active substance layer (see Fig. 3, ref. nos. 120 & 160) and an outer edge of the insulating layer extends further outward than the outer edge of the negative electrode active substance layer (see Fig. 3, ref. nos. 140 & 160); and
0 μm ≤ Tp – Ti ≤ 10 μm where T-i is the insulating layer thickness and Tp is the positive electrode active substance layer, in this case the thickness of the insulation layer is 1 μm to 100 μm (¶ [0026]) and that both the insulation layer and the positive electrode active substance layer extend between and are in contact with both the positive electrode current collector and the separator (see Fig. 3, ref. nos. 110, 120, 130, & 160) which results in 0 μm = Tp – Ti.
Regarding claim 18, Kim further discloses that the insulating layer comprises an inorganic material and a binder wherein:
the inorganic material comprises barium sulfate (¶ [0029]); and
the binder comprises at least one of polyurethane, polyacrylate, styrene-butadiene rubber (¶ [0030]).
Regarding claim 20, Kim is silent as to the impedance of the insulating layer. However, the impedance of the insulating layer disclosed by Kim would inherently possess the same impedance of 1 KΩ or more because Kim discloses the same material of construction. See M.P.E.P. § 2112.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claims 1 and 11, above, and further in view of Kato (US 2021/0159505 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Kim does not disclose another insulating layer provided on the positive electrode current collector opposite to the side where the tab portion is disposed. However, Kato teaches two insulating layers (¶ [0029], Fig. 6, ref. no. 36a) disposed on a current collector (¶ [0028]-[0029], Fig. 6, ref. no. 32) and on opposite sides of the current collector, in this case on either side of the active material layer (¶ [0028], Fig. 6, ref. no. 34). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing an insulating layer at both ends of the positive electrode current collector would have prevented short circuiting (see ¶ [0039]), thereby facilitating improved electrochemical apparatus performance and safety. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided a second insulating layer on the opposite side of the current collector in order to have facilitated improved electrochemical apparatus performance and safety.
Regarding claim 12, Kim does not disclose another insulating layer provided on the positive electrode current collector opposite to the side where the tab portion is disposed. However, Kato teaches two insulating layers (¶ [0029], Fig. 6, ref. no. 36a) disposed on a current collector (¶ [0028]-[0029], Fig. 6, ref. no. 32) and on opposite sides of the current collector, in this case on either side of the active material layer (¶ [0028], Fig. 6, ref. no. 34). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing an insulating layer at both ends of the positive electrode current collector would have prevented short circuiting (see ¶ [0039]), thereby facilitating improved electrochemical apparatus performance and safety. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided a second insulating layer on the opposite side of the current collector in order to have facilitated improved electrochemical apparatus performance and safety.
The rejection of claims 3-5, 7, 9, 13-15, 17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kim is maintained as set forth below.
Regarding claim 3, Kim further teaches that the width of the portion of the outer edge of the insulating layer that extends beyond the outer edge of the negative electrode active substance layer, A, corresponds to A ≤ 3 mm, in this case the width, T3, corresponds to 1 mm ≤ T3 ≤ 20 mm (¶ [0026]). A prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05. Additionally, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device where the only difference is a recitation of relative dimensions. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A.
Regarding claim 4, Kim further teaches that the width of the insulating layer, A’, corresponds to 0.2 mm ≤ A ≤ 10 mm, in this case the width, T3, corresponds to 1 mm ≤ T3 ≤ 20 mm (¶ [0026]). A prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05. Additionally, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device where the only difference is a recitation of relative dimensions. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A.
Regarding claim 5, Kim is silent as to the width of the negative electrode active substance layer. However, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device where the only difference is a recitation of relative dimensions. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to size the negative electrode active substance layer appropriately in order to ensure a functioning negative electrode and battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the width of the outer edge of the negative electrode active substance layer that extends beyond the outer edge of the positive electrode active substance layer, B, to correspond to 0.2 mm ≤ B ≤5 in order to yield a functioning negative electrode and battery.
Regarding claim 7, Kim further discloses that the thickness of the insulation layer is 1 μm to 100 μm (¶ [0026]) and that both the insulation layer and the positive electrode active substance layer extend between and are in contact with both the positive electrode current collector and the separator (see Fig. 3, ref. nos. 110, 120, 130, & 160). In other words, the thickness of the insulating layer is equal to that of the positive electrode active substance layer, which in turn results in Tp = Ti. Furthermore, the claimed thickness of 10 μm falls within the disclosed thickness range. A prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 9, Kim further teaches that the weight percentage of the inorganic material ranges from 60% to 93%, in this case 10% to 90% (¶ [0029]), and the weight percentage of the binder ranges from 7% to 40%, in this case the polymer would make up the balance of 90% to 10% of the insulating layer (see ¶ [0029]-[0030]). A prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 13, Kim further teaches that the width of the portion of the outer edge of the insulating layer that extends beyond the outer edge of the negative electrode active substance layer, A, corresponds to A ≤ 3 mm, in this case the width, T3, corresponds to 1 mm ≤ T3 ≤ 20 mm (¶ [0026]). A prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05. Additionally, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device where the only difference is a recitation of relative dimensions. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A.
Regarding claim 14, Kim further teaches that the width of the insulating layer, A’, corresponds to 0.2 mm ≤ A ≤ 10 mm, in this case the width, T3, corresponds to 1 mm ≤ T3 ≤ 20 mm (¶ [0026]). A prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05. Additionally, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device where the only difference is a recitation of relative dimensions. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A.
Regarding claim 15, Kim is silent as to the width of the negative electrode active substance layer. However, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device where the only difference is a recitation of relative dimensions. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to size the negative electrode active substance layer appropriately in order to ensure a functioning negative electrode and battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the width of the outer edge of the negative electrode active substance layer that extends beyond the outer edge of the positive electrode active substance layer, B, to correspond to 0.2 mm ≤ B ≤5 in order to yield a functioning negative electrode and battery.
Regarding claim 17, Kim further discloses that the thickness of the insulation layer is 1 μm to 100 μm (¶ [0026]) and that both the insulation layer and the positive electrode active substance layer extend between and are in contact with both the positive electrode current collector and the separator (see Fig. 3, ref. nos. 110, 120, 130, & 160). In other words, the thickness of the insulating layer is equal to that of the positive electrode active substance layer, which in turn results in Tp = Ti. Furthermore, the claimed thickness of 10 μm falls within the disclosed thickness range. A prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 19, Kim further teaches that the weight percentage of the inorganic material ranges from 60% to 93%, in this case 10% to 90% (¶ [0029]), and the weight percentage of the binder ranges from 7% to 40%, in this case the polymer would make up the balance of 90% to 10% of the insulating layer (see ¶ [0029]-[0030]). A prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claimed apparatus is not disclosed by the cited prior art.
In response to Applicant’s arguments regarding the duplicate claims warning, Applicant relies on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claims 11-20. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “electronic apparatus” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claims is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see also M.P.E.P. § 2111.02. Furthermore, Applicant’s reliance on the headings in the specification that merely repeat “electrochemical apparatus” and “electronic apparatus” offer nothing to support Applicant’s position that the claims somehow differ in scope. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
In response to Applicants argument regarding the thickness limitation of claims 1 and 11, “0 μm ≤ Tp – Ti ≤ 10 μm,” the Office notes that Kim explicitly discloses that both the cathode active material and the insulation layer contact and fully extend between the cathode current collector and separator (Fig. 3, ref. nos. 120, 160, 110, & 130, reproduced below). While the drawings are not indicated as being to scale, they are informative as to the position of components relative to each other, including which components are in contact with each other. Here, the battery would not function if the cathode active material layer did not contact both the separator and the cathode current collector. Likewise, the insulator would fail in its purpose if any gaps existed between it and the separator and/or the cathode current collector. Both the insulator and cathode active material must possess the same thickness in order to avoid gaps with the separator or current collector that would render the battery unsuitable for its purpose. Therefore, Kim discloses difference in the thicknesses of the insulator and the cathode active material as 0, which anticipates the claim. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
PNG
media_image1.png
271
433
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In response to Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 3 and 13, Applicant misconstrues the Office’s rejection. Claims 3 and 13 are clearly rejected as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, not anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as Applicant alleges. Furthermore, Applicant’s “findings” appear to be predictable results rather than “unexpected ones.” First, burr and debris reduction does not necessarily follow from insulator sizing. Pre-formed insulators or insulators formed by curing or solidifying liquids or gels would require no cutting or resizing and thus would provide no added safety benefit. Secondly, one with ordinary skill in the art would have understood that extending or widening the separator solely to support components uninvolved with the battery’s electrochemical reaction would reduce ion transport efficiency and reduce energy density. Likewise, one with ordinary skill in the art would not expect increased or improved lithium precipitation simply by extending or widening a component that is uninvolved with the battery’s electrochemical reaction, such as the insulator. Lastly, the relative dimensions of the battery components, including the insulator, depend largely on the size of battery in question. Applicant’s recited dimensions would not likely yield the same benefits in large batteries suitable for automotive applications as they would in smaller batteries designed for hand-held electronics. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See M.P.E.P. § 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 SCOTT J CHMIELECKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5 pm.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/SCOTT J. CHMIELECKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights