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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed July 21, 2023 & August 13, 2025 has/have been received and complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner, and an initialed copied is attached herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1,3-8, 11, 13-18 & 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAMO WO-2020184502-A1.
With respect to claims 1 & 11, KAMO teaches an electrode plate (10; Fig. 1), comprising: a current collector (current collector 11; Fig.1; DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS, paragraph 3) and an active material layer (positive electrode layer 12; Fig.1; DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS, paragraph 3) located on at least one side of the current collector (positive electrode layer 12 provided on one surface of a positive electrode current collector 11; Fig.1; DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS, paragraph 3), the active material layer comprises a first region (First region; Fig. 1 below) and a second region (Second region; Fig. 1 below), the active material layer comprises active material particles (average particle size D50 is preferably 0.5 to 50 μm; See “(Positive electrode active material layer)” section, paragraph 2), and Formula (1); wherein Dv99 is a diameter of the active material particles corresponding to a point at which a cumulative volume percentage of measured particles reaches 99% of a total volume of all the active material particles in a volume-based particle size distribution curve viewed from a small-diameter side (average particle size is preferably 0.5 to 50 μm, and more preferably 1 to 30 μm. The average particle size means the particle size (D50) when the volume integration is 50% in the particle size distribution obtained by the laser diffraction / scattering method; See “(Positive electrode active material layer)” section, paragraph 2; Examiners Note: It is reasonable to expect all particles to cluster around the median size for uniform compression of the plate), H1 is a thickness of the first region on a single side of the current collector (H1 in Fig, 1 below), and H2 is a thickness of the second region on a single side of the current collector (H2 in Fig, 1 below). Furter concerning claim 11, the electrode plate is in a secondary non-aqueous battery. See DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS, paragraph 2.
PNG
media_image1.png
288
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 3 & 13, the Dv99 ranges from 10 μm to 45 μm (average particle size is preferably 0.5 to 50 μm, and more preferably 1 to 30 μm. The average particle size means the particle size (D50) when the volume integration is 50% in the particle size distribution obtained by the laser diffraction / scattering method; See “(Positive electrode active material layer)” section, paragraph 2; Examiners Note: It is reasonable to expect all particles to cluster around the median size for uniform compression of the plate). With respect to claim 7, an active material in the second region is different from an active material in the first region (First region & Second region; Fig. 1 above). With respect to claims 8 & 18, an insulation layer exists on a surface of the second region (insulating layer 14; ; Fig.2; DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS, paragraph 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
276
669
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 14, the Dv99 ranges from 15 μm to 40 μm (average particle size is preferably 0.5 to 50 μm, and more preferably 1 to 30 μm. The average particle size means the particle size (D50) when the volume integration is 50% in the particle size distribution obtained by the laser diffraction / scattering method; See “(Positive electrode active material layer)” section, paragraph 2; Examiners Note: It is reasonable to expect all particles to cluster around the median size for uniform compression of the plate). With respect to claim 21, the secondary battery further comprises an electrolyte solution (electrolyte solution may include ethylene carbonate (EC), propylene carbonate, dimethyl carbonate (DMC), diethyl carbonate (DEC), and LiPF6, LiBF4, LiAsF6, salt; See “(electrolyte)” section paragraphs 1-2). With respect to the conductivity of the electrolyte solution being greater than or equal to 7 mS/cm, it would be reasonable to expect as the electrolyte solution is the same as set forth in the instant specification [0059]. Support for this assertion is provided in MPEP 2112.01, “[where] [p]roducts of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, since KAMO teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)..
KAMO does not expressly teach or suggest: the electrode plate satisfies a condition expressed by Formula (1): H2< Dv99< H1 (claim 1); an area ratio between the second region and the first region is 0.1 to 0.0001 (claims 4 & 15); an area density ratio between the second region and the first region is 0.1 to 0.95 (claims 5 & 16); a compaction density ratio between the second region and the first region is 0.2 to 1.2 (claims 6 & 17).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the electrode plate satisfying a condition expressed by Formula (1): H2< Dv99< H1 (claim 1); in the electrode plate of KAMO, in order to improve structural integrity of the electrode plate. The skilled artisan recognizes that the thickness, strength and compression of the material impacts long-term durability and performance. D50 to Dv99 is the average particle size is preferably 0.5 to 50 μm, as it would be obvious for all particles to cluster around the median size for uniform compression of the plate. H1 = The thickness of the positive electrode active material layer 13 and is preferably 10 to 200 μm. See “(Positive electrode active material layer)”, paragraph 9. H2 will be H1 minus the depth of the groove; wherein the depth of the groove 15 may be smaller than the thickness of the layer (positive electrode active material layer 13) ; the average depth of the specific groove 15 may be 0.05 μm or more and 4.5 μm or less. See “[groove]” section, paragraph 26. The sizes of H1, H2 and Dv99 may be optimized to enhance structural integrity. When H1 is 50, D99 is 49 and H2 is 45.5 the equation Formula (1): H2< Dv99< H1 is satisfied. Lastly, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of the H1, H2 and Dv99 components. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
With respect to claims 4 & 15, an area ratio between the second region and the first region is 0.1 to 0.0001; it would have been obvious in the electrode plate of KAMO, in order to improve structural integrity of the electrode plate. The skilled artisan recognizes that the thickness, strength and compression of the material impacts long-term durability and performance. Also, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of the H1, H2 and Dv99 components. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
With respect to claims 5 & 16, an area density ratio between the second region and the first region is 0.1 to 0.95; it would have been obvious in the electrode plate of KAMO, in order to improve structural integrity of the electrode plate. The skilled artisan recognizes that the thickness, strength and compression of the material impacts long-term durability and performance. Also, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of the H1, H2 and Dv99 components. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
With respect to claims 6 & 17, a compaction density ratio between the second region and the first region is 0.2 to 1.2; it would have been obvious in the electrode plate of KAMO, in order to improve structural integrity of the electrode plate. The skilled artisan recognizes that the thickness, strength and compression of the material impacts long-term durability and performance. Also, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of the H1, H2 and Dv99 components. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2, 9-10, 12 & 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAMO WO-2020184502-A1 in view of CHO CN-111902976-A.
KAMO teaches an electrode plate as described in the rejection recited herein above, including that the battery is a wound configuration. See the”(electrolyte)” section, paragraph 8.
KAMO does not expressly teach or suggest: the electrode plate comprises a jelly-roll electrode plate containing a bent section and a straight section, the bent section and the straight section form a jelly-roll structure, the first region is located in the straight section of the jelly-roll electrode plate, and the second region is located in the bent section of the jelly-roll electrode plate (claims 2 & 12); a width of the second region in a length direction of the electrode plate is W1, and W1 ≥ 2 × H1 (claims 9 & 19); wherein the W1 ranges from 0.5 mm to 4 mm (claims 10 & 20).
CHO teaches that it is well known in the art to employ the electrode plate comprises a jelly-roll electrode plate containing a bent section and a straight section, the bent section and the straight section form a jelly-roll structure, (claims 2 & 12). See Fig. 1.
PNG
media_image3.png
601
716
media_image3.png
Greyscale
KAMO and CHO are analogous art from the same field of endeavor, namely fabricating wound secondary lithium batteries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the electrode plate comprising a jelly-roll electrode plate containing a bent section and a straight section, the bent section and the straight section form a jelly-roll structure of CHO, as the configuration of the electrode plate of KAMO, to maximize the amount of electrode material in the cell. The skilled artisan recognizes that the shape configuration directly affect the material density in the cell. With respect to the first region being located in the straight section of the jelly-roll electrode plate, and the second region being located in the bent section of the jelly-roll electrode plate (claims 2 & 12); it would have been obvious in the cell of KAMO and CHO, as both regions are in close proximity, and thus both regions would be present in the straight and bent regions.
Also, rearrangement of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. More specifically, shifting the position of parts within a device will not render the device patentable if the position change does not alter the device’s operation. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). MPEP 2144.04. Furthermore,
since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of the first and second region components. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to a width of the second region in a length direction of the electrode plate is W1, and W1 ≥ 2 × H1 (claims 9 & 19); it would have been obvious in the cell of KAMO and CHO, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of the first and second region components. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to the W1 ranging from 0.5 mm to 4 mm (claims 10 & 20); it would have been obvious in the cell of KAMO and CHO, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of the first and second region components. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONIQUE M WILLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1309. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Tiffany Legette, may be reached at 571-270-7078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Monique M Wills/
Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723