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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I and Species A1 in the reply filed on 05/21/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 9-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. And further, claim 4 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/21/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/24/2026, 07/07/2025, 01/21/2025, and 08/31/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they are not in compliance with 37 C.F.R 1.84(p)(1), which requires that reference characters, sheet numbers, and view numbers must not be used in association with brackets. Figures 1-5 of the drawings submitted on 08/31/2023 present view numbers that are surrounded by brackets.
Additionally, Figures 2 and 3 are not in compliance with 37 C.F.R 1.84(m), which indicates that solid black shading areas are not permitted, except when used to represent bar graphs or color. Figures 2 and 3 represent anode current collector 210 with a solid black shaded bar.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification is objected to in view of specification page 22-line 22, which identifies pentaerythritol tetraacrylate as a trifunctional acrylate. As a trifunctional acrylate is a compound which comprises exactly three acrylate functional groups, a tetraacrylate compound is not a trifunctional acrylate. Additionally, page 22 identifies pentaerythritol tetraacrylate with the acronym PETA, which is previously used in the specification to refer to pentaerythritol triacrylate on specification page 7. Based on this, it is not clear what the acronym PETA represents within the scope of the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-8 are 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 1 presents the indefinite language “wherein a thickness of the coating layer”. Here, where a coating layer is present, it inherently has a thickness. Accordingly, it is unclear if the thickness introduced in said language is referring to the whole thickness of the coating layer, or if it is referring to another thickness of the coating layer, such as a subsection’s thickness. For the purpose of this office action “a thickness” was treated as the entire thickness of the coating layer.
Additionally, claim 1 presents the indefinite language “a thickness of the active material layer”. Where an active material layer is present, in inherently has a thickness. Accordingly, it is unclear if the thickness introduced in said language is referring to the whole thickness of the active material layer, or if it is referring to another thickness of the active material layer, such as a subsection’s thickness. For the purpose of this office action “a thickness” was treated as the entire thickness of the active material layer.
Claim 2 presents the indefinite language “the thickness of the coating layer”. It is unclear if the thickness referred to here is the thickness of the coating layer which is inherent, or if it is referring to the second instance of a thickness of the coating layer introduced in claim 1.
Additionally, Claim 2 presents the indefinite language “the thickness of the active material layer”. It is unclear if the thickness referred to here is the thickness of the active material layer which is inherent, or if it is referring to the second instance of a thickness of the active material layer introduced in claim 1.
Claim 3 recite(s) the limitation(s) “a group consisting of: a monofunctional acrylate, a bifunctional acrylate, or a trifunctional acrylate”, line(s) 3-4. Said claim(s) is/are indefinite, as the alternative expression(s) is/are in a form of improper Markush group. Proper Markush group recites its members as being "selected from the group consisting of: A, B, and C". See MPEP 2173.05(h).
Claim 4 presents the indefinite language “a coating composition” in line 2 of the claim. Claim 4 depends upon claim 3 which previously presents “a coating composition”. Accordingly, it is unclear if the coating composition of claim 4 is the same coating composition or a new coating composition.
Additionally, Claim 4 recites “the coating composition” in lines 4, 6, and 8 of the claim. Here, there is no proper antecedent basis for these coating compositions, as they are preceded by “a coating composition” recited in line 2 of claim 3 and line 2 of claim 4. Accordingly, it is unclear which coating composition is being referred to in each of lines 4, 6, and 8 of claim 4.
Additionally, Claim 4 presents the indefinite language “a content of the trifunctional acrylate”. As a trifunctional acrylate inherently has a content in the coating composition, it is unclear if the content of the trifunctional acrylate referred to in said language is referring to the same content which is inherently present, or if it is referring to a second content of the trifunctional acrylate, such as a content within a subsection of the coating composition. For the purpose of this office action “a content” has been interpreted as the entire content of the trifunctional acrylate.
Additionally, Claim 4 presents the indefinite language “a total weight of the coating composition”. As the coating composition can only have one singular total weight, it therefore inherently present. Accordingly, it is unclear if the total weight referred to in said language is referring to the inherently present total weight, or a new second total weight, the bounds of which are not defined by the claim. For the purpose of this office action “a total weight” has been interpreted as the entire weight of the coating composition.
Additionally, Claim 4 presents the indefinite language “a content of the monofunctional acrylate and the bifunctional acrylate”. As a monofunctional acrylate and the bifunctional acrylate inherently has a content in the coating composition, it is unclear if the content of the monofunctional acrylate and the bifunctional acrylate referred to in said language is referring to the same content which is inherently present, or if it is referring to a second content of the monofunctional acrylate and the bifunctional acrylate, such as a content within a subsection of the coating composition. For the purpose of this office action “a content” has been interpreted as the entire content of the monofunctional acrylate and the bifunctional acrylate.
Additionally, Claim 4 presents the indefinite language “a content of the glass fiber”. As a glass fiber inherently has a content in the coating composition, it is unclear if the content of the glass fiber referred to in said language is referring to the same content which is inherently present, or if it is referring to a second content of the glass fiber, such as a content within a subsection of the coating composition. For the purpose of this office action “a content” has been interpreted as the entire content of the glass fiber.
Claim 7 presents the indefinite language “a content of the initiator”. As the initiator inherently has a content as a result of being present, it is unclear if the content referred to in said language is referring to the inherently present content, or a new second content, the bounds of which are not defined by the claim. For the purpose of this office action “a content” has been interpreted as the entire content of the initiator.
Additionally, Claim 7 presents the indefinite language “a total weight of the initiator”. As the initiator can only have one singular total weight, it therefore inherently present. Accordingly, it is unclear if the total weight referred to in said language is referring to the inherently present total weight, or a new second total weight, the bounds of which are not defined by the claim. For the purpose of this office action “a total weight” has been interpreted as the entire weight of the initiator.
Additionally, Claim 7 presents the indefinite language “a content of the additive”. As the additive inherently has a content as a result of being present, it is unclear if the content referred to in said language is referring to the inherently present content, or a new second content, the bounds of which are not defined by the claim. For the purpose of this office action “a content” has been interpreted as the entire content of the additive.
Additionally, Claim 7 presents the indefinite language “a total weight of the coating composition”. As the coating composition can only have one singular total weight, it therefore inherently present. Accordingly, it is unclear if the total weight referred to in said language is referring to the inherently present total weight, or a new second total weight, the bounds of which are not defined by the claim. For the purpose of this office action “a total weight” has been interpreted as the entire weight of the coating composition.
Additionally, Claim 7 presents the language “the total weight of the coating composition”. This language lacks proper antecedent basis as it is unclear if the total weight being referred to is the entire total weight that is inherent to the coating composition as discussed above, or if it is the total weight presented in line 4 of claim 7. For the purpose of this office action “a total weight” has been interpreted as the entire total weight of the coating composition.
Claim 8 presents the language “a degree of curling of the single-sided electrode”. This language is indefinite as a degree of curling is a dimension that is inherently present in any single-sided electrode. Accordingly, it is unclear if the degree referred to here is directed towards this inherently present dimension, or if it is referring to another degree, such as a subsection of the inherently present dimension. For the purposes of this office action “a degree” has been interpreted to refer to the inherently present dimension of curling of the single-sided electrode.
Additionally, Claim 8 recites “a deviation of a degree of curling”. The terms “deviation” and “degree of curling” are both known in the art, but it is not clear what is meant in the claim by “a deviation of a degree of curling” and how this recitation differs from “degree of curling”, which is understood as bing the amount of curvature (in milimeters or inches) at a given point along the length of a material, or from deviation, which is understood as departing from the accepted standard of a material with no curve. For the purpose of this office action “a deviation of a degree of curling” is interpreted as having the same meaning as “a degree of curling”.
Additionally, dependent claims 2-4 and 6-8 are rejected as the result of their dependence on the indefinite claim(s), as set forth above, as they include all the limitations of said indefinite claim(s) and as they do not resolve the issues identified in rejections set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 2, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oh (US 20200014031 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Oh discloses a single sided electrode comprising an electrode current collector and an active material layer located on a first surface of the electrode current collector (Abstract, “The present invention provides a one-sided electrode for a secondary battery comprising a current collector, an electrode mixture layer applied to one surface of the current collector,”) as well as a coating layer located on a second surface of the electrode current collector opposite from the first surface, which is a distortion preventing layer (Abstract, “and an electrode distortion-preventing layer formed on the other surface of the current collector to which no electrode mixture is applied.”) where the distortion preventing layer can be applied as an insulating polymer (Paragraph 0039, “The material of the electrode distortion-preventing layer may be a metal or an insulating polymer”) and be applied as a coating (Paragraph 0057, “The insulating polymer layer may be formed on the current collector or the electrode distortion-preventing layer by a known method. Specifically, a polymer solution may be applied, or a polymer sheet may be purchased and attached.”). Additionally, Oh discloses structure where the thickness of the coating layer is smaller than a thickness of the active material layer, the active material layer having a thickness of 40 microns (Paragraph 0086, “Thereafter, the electrode slurry was coated to have a thickness of 40 μm, followed by drying and rolling to produce a one-sided electrode sheet.”) and the coating layer has a thickness of 12 microns (Paragraph 0086, “A polypropylene solution was applied to a copper foil having a thickness of 8 μm as a current collector to have a thickness of 12 μm and dried to form an electrode distortion-preventing layer.”)
Regarding Claim 2, Oh discloses the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, in regards to the limitation which requires that the thickness of the coating layer is from 26% to 49% of the thickness of the active material layer, disclosing a coating layer thickness of 12 microns and an active material layer thickness of 40 microns (See paragraph 0086). Where 12/40 is equal to 0.3, Oh’s coating layer thickness is therefore 30% of the thickness of the active material layer.
Regarding Claim 8, Oh discloses the invention of claim 1 as discussed above. Additionally, in regards to the limitation of the instant claim which requires that a deviation of the degree of curling of the single-sided electrode is from 0 to 5 millimeters, Oh discloses an example embodiment 3 which has a radius of curvature of 51 millimeters, in their table 1, where a 51 millimeter long sample of their electrode deviates by 1 mm (Paragraph 0092, “The specimen was measured for the degree of vertical rise from the ground (floor), and the radius of curvature of 1 mm was calculated from the ground.”). Here, where the claim requires that a deviation of a degree of curling of the single-sided electrode is from 0 to 5 millimeters, the claim does not specify the length of the sample over which the deviation is measured. Accordingly, as Oh discloses a sample which has a deviation of 1 mm, it satisfies the limitation of the instant claim. Additionally, Oh recites a material which has no curling (Paragraph 0036, “layer having a tensile strength similar to a tensile strength of an electrode mixture is added to the current collector in order to prevent the electrode sheet from being distorted or curled after the rolling process when preparing a one-sided electrode”), thereby having a deviation of 0 mm, satisfying the limitation of the instant claim.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (US 20200014031 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, in view of Hellring (US 20200136146 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Oh discloses the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Oh discloses that their coating layer is made from a coating composition (Paragraph 0015, “the electrode distortion-preventing layer may be made of an insulating polymer material,”), through disclosing that their electrode distortion-preventing layer is made of an insulating polymer material, where said polymer material is a coating composition.
Additionally, in regards to the limitation which wherein the coating layer composition comprises at least one acrylate selected from the group consisting of a monofunctional acrylate, a bifunctional acrylate, and a trifunctional acrylate. Oh discloses that their composition may comprise an insulating polymer (Paragraph 0042), but fails to specifically identify polymeric monofunctional, bifunctional, and trifunctional acrylates as possible components, therefore we look to Hellring, which is an analogous art to the claimed invention being directed towards electrode structure (Abstract, “The present invention also provides electrodes and electrical storage devices.”), disclosing a coating composition that is disposed on a current collector (Paragraph 0074, “an electrical current collector and a film formed on the electrical current collector,”).
Hellring discloses that the use of acrylates as adhesion promoters in the coating film formed on their current collector, specifically discussing the use of bifunctional and monofunctional acrylates, through discussing methacrylic acid and ethyl methacrylate (Paragraph 0047).
Here, where the promotion of adhesion is a desirable attribute for the attachment of the coating layer to the current collector, it would therefore be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention in to make use of the adhesion promoters of Hellring in the composition of Oh. As Hellring identifies monofunctional acrylates and bifunctional acrylates as adhesion promoters, this therefore reads upon and makes obvious the limitation of the instant claim which requires that the coating composition comprise at least one acrylate selected from the group consisting of a monofunctional acrylate, a bifunctional acrylate, and a trifunctional acrylate.
Additionally, in regards to limitation of the instant claim which requires that the coating layer composition comprises a glass fiber or an epoxy-based resin, Oh fails to disclose said structure. Therefore we look to Hellring, which is an analogous art to the claimed invention, being directed towards electrode structure (Abstract, “The present invention also provides electrodes and electrical storage devices.”), disclosing a coating composition that is disposed on a current collector (Paragraph 0074, “an electrical current collector and a film formed on the electrical current collector,”).
Hellring discloses the use of an addition polymer in their coating which has the function of acting as a dispersant to assist in dispersing components of the composition (Paragraph 0041), specifically indicating the use of epoxy resins as the addition polymer (Paragraph 0050). Hellring further teaches that the dispersant component acts to disperse both the polymer components of the composition, as well as other additives present within (Paragraph 0041, “The dispersant may assist in dispersing the fluoropolymer, and/or, if present, the electrically conductive agent and/or the electrochemically active material in the liquid medium.”).
As the promotion of adhesion is a desirable attribute for the attachment of the coating layer to the current collector, it would therefore be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention in to make use of the epoxy resin dispersant of Hellring in the composition of Oh thereby reading upon and making obvious the feature of claim 3.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (US 20200014031 A1), in view of Hellring (US 20200136146 A1) as applied to claim 3 above, further in view of Pan (US 20180301707 A1) and further in view of Jiang (US 10014518 B2).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Oh makes obvious the invention of Claim 3 as discussed above. Additionally, in regards to the limitation of the claim which requires that the coating composition further comprises an initiator and an additive, and that the initiator is a photo-initiator or a mixture of a photo-initiator and a thermal initiator, modified Oh fails to disclose said structure, disclosing a group of possible initiators (See paragraph 0055). Therefore, we look to Pan, which is an analogous art to the instant application, being directed towards the art of protective layers disposed on anode current collectors (Abstract, “a thin layer of a high-elasticity polymer disposed between the foil/coating and the electrolyte”). Here, Pan discloses that their polymer protective layer comprises a polymer mixed with an initiator (Paragraph 0082, “the ETPTA monomer/solvent/initiator solution”). Specifically, Pan discloses the use of a benzoyl peroxide initiator (Paragraph 0101, “benzoyl peroxide”), where benzoyl peroxide is a photo initiator to achieve a crosslinking between polymer units (Paragraph 0101, “was added as a radical initiator to allow for thermal crosslinking reaction”) and would therefore work as an initiator for the polymer of modified Oh, which comprises polymer units (See paragraph 0055). Accordingly, based on routine and expected results for an initiator comprising benzoyl peroxide, it would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to make use of an initiator consisting of benzoyl peroxide, which is a photo-initiator.
Additionally, in regards to the limitation which requires that the coating composition further comprise an additive, modified Oh fails to teach said structure, being silent in regards to the addition of additives into their coating composition. Therefore we look to Jiang, which is an analogous art to the instant application, being directed towards the art of polymer mixtures in battery component slurries (Abstract). Here, Jiang discloses that their mixture of polymers includes a surfactant additive (Column 9 lines 49-50, “One example of such an additive is a surfactant.”) which prevents agglomeration of solids (Column 11 lines 60-62). Jiang further discloses that a surfactant minimizes roughness of the coating (Column 13 lines 13-16, “Indeed, it may be desirable to prevent bubble formation and other deformations or irregularities in order to provide a smooth coating on the collector during electrode formation.”). Accordingly, where Oh’s invention is directed towards a uniform polymer coating layer on a current collector which prevents distortion of the current collector (Abstract, “an electrode distortion-preventing layer formed on the other surface of the current collector to which no electrode mixture is applied”), it would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to make use of a surfactant additive in Oh’s composition, to thereby promote a uniform coating layer, to uniformly apply the distortion-preventing effects of Oh’s invention, thereby making obvious the addition of Jiang’s surfactant additive to the composition of Oh.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Oh makes obvious the invention of Claim 3 as discussed above. Additionally, in regards to the limitation which requires that a content of the initiator is from 1% by weight to 4% by weight based on a total wight of the coating composition, wherein the photo-initiator is from 30% by weight to 100% by weight based on a total weight of the initiator, where Pan makes obvious the use of a benzoyl peroxide photo-initiator as discussed above, they further disclose that it is present as a sole initiator, in a content of 1% by weight in their coating composition (Paragraph 0101, “Subsequently, benzoyl peroxide (BPO, 1.0 wt. % relative to the ETPTA content) was added as a radical initiator”). Here, the ETPTA content is the polymer content of Pan’s composition, and where Oh’s composition is purely polymer content, the ETPTA content is therefore equivalent to the total coating composition of Oh. Based on Pan making obvious the use of benzoyl peroxide, it would further be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to make use of Pan’s disclosed content, thereby making obvious a content of the initiator which is 1% by weight based on a total weight of the coating composition, as well as structure where the photo-initiator is 30% by weight to 100% by weight based on a total weight of the initiator, as the sole initiator is benzoyl peroxide, which is therefore 100% by weight the photo-initiator.
Though modified Oh does not teach the claimed range of 0.1% by weight to 1% by weight, Jiang discloses range of 0.05% to 0.1% which overlaps the claimed range. Jiang teaches that this range presents benefits in regards to minimizing roughness of a coating (Column 13 lines 13-16, “Indeed, it may be desirable to prevent bubble formation and other deformations or irregularities in order to provide a smooth coating on the collector during electrode formation.”) which prevents deformations and irregularities in the coating comprising the surfactant. When the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I). It therefore follows that a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to select the overlapping portions of the ranges for the XXX of modified Oh, with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in a smooth coating, minimizing bubbles, defects, and irregularities in the distribution of the coating comprising the surfactant.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: It is found that dependent claim 4 comprises allowable subject matter.
Here, the prior art makes obvious the limitations of claim 3, as discussed above, and further makes obvious structure wherein a trifunctional acrylate is from 41% by weight to 69% by weight in view of Ohsawa (US 20170279113 A1), which is an analogous art to the instant application, being directed towards the art of coated current collectors for electrodes (Abstract, “at least one of the positive electrode current collector and the negative electrode current collector includes a resin layer having conductivity,”). Here, Ohsawa discloses a conductive resin layer which contains 60 to 90 parts by mass of a polymer material (Paragraph 0069) relative to 100 parts by mass of a total amount of the material of their coating layer. Here, Ohsawa further discloses the use of a trifunctional acrylate as the polymer component of their coating layer, specifically trimethylol propane triacrylate (Paragraph 0273) included at a content of 70 parts by mass. Here Ohsawa further discloses that the trimethylol propane triacrylate demonstrates a reduced contact resistance, shown in their table 1. Based on this, it would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to include trimethylol propane triacrylate in the composition of Oh. Further, where Ohsawa discloses a conent range of 60 to 90 parts by mass relative to a total content of 100 parts by mass of their coating, this is an overlapping range with the range of the instant claim, which requires 41 to 69 percent by weight based on a total weight of the coating composition, thereby representing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Additionally, the prior art makes obvious structure wherein a content of the monofunctional acrylate is from 41% by weight to 69% by weight based on the total weight of the coating composition, as discussed above in view of Hellring, where their addition polymer, which is cited above as making obvious the monofunctional acrylate component is present in a content ratio of 20 percent by weight (Paragraph 0048, “may comprise at least 20% by weight,”). As Hellring makes obvious the inclusion of their adhesion promotion polymer polymer components which include monofunctional acrylates, it would further be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to make use of the weight percentage values disclosed by Hellring, as said values represent a range of values with an expectation of success. Accordingly, where the range of 20 weight percent falls within the range of 16-30 weight percent, Hellring makes obvious the scope of the claimed limitation.
The allowable distinguishing feature of claim 4 is the limitation which requires that the coating layer comprise a glass fiber content of 13 to 29 weight percent based on a total weight of the coating composition.
The distinguishing feature is allowable as the prior art does not teach the feature. Prior art to the instant application does not recognize the inclusion of glass fibers in a coating layer for a current collector, and further fails to motivate the specific weight range of 16-29 percent by weight. Though the prior art does recognize glass fibers as a material in batteries, this is in regards to glass fibers in separators, as disclosed in Pan (US 20210336254 A1), where they are present in the forms of sheets which are combined with electrolytes to form separators (Paragraph 0249) or as a material for inhibiting expansion in an active material, as disclosed by Oh (Paragraph 0070). As glass fibers are noted as being unable to cause a chemical change in the battery by Oh (Paragraph 0070) there would be no motivation to substitute any of the components disclosed by modified Oh which provide positive benefits in regards to achieving the goals of the invention. Accordingly, it would not be obvious to modify the invention of modified Oh to ma
Additionally, there is nothing that would specifically motivate the selection of a weight range of 13 to 29 weight percent of glass fibers in the coating composition for a current collector. Accordingly, the distinguishing feature of Claim 4 is allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN W ESTES whose telephone number is (571)272-4820. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 5:30.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 5712721453. 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.
/J.W.E./ Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights