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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. This application is a CON of PCT/CN2022/107647 (7/25/2022).
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.
Claims 1, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ido et al., (WO2019059121A1), hereinafter Ido.
Regarding claim 1, Ido teaches a current collector,
comprising a stainless steel current-collecting portion for collecting a current, ([0026] current collector plate 20 is made of stainless steel)
wherein the stainless steel current-collecting portion comprises a blank area and a coating area that are arranged adjacent to each other in a preset direction, (Figure 1a, [0025] current collector plate 20 with coating area 30, adjacent to uncoated blank areas 22, 25a, and 25b)
the coating area is configured to be coated with an active material, and ([0026] electrode portion 30 is coated with active material)
the blank area has a hardness less than that of the coating area. ([0038] describes the annealing process to form an austenitic structure to reduce hardness of the blank portions 25a and 25b)
PNG
media_image1.png
449
764
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Ido teaches a current collector according to claim 1, wherein
the current collector is formed wholly by the stainless steel current-collecting portion. ([0026] the current collector plate 20 is made of stainless steel)
Regarding claim 12, Ido teaches the current collector according to claim 1, wherein
the coating area is located between two blank areas in the preset direction. ([0025], Figure 1a shows a coating area 30 is disposed between blank areas 25a and 25b)
Regarding claim 13, Ido teaches an electrode plate, comprising:
an active material layer; and (Figure 1b, [0026] electrode portion 30 contains silicon as an active material)
the current collector according to claim 1, wherein the active material layer is applied in the coating area. (Figure 1a, 1b, [0068] active material is coated onto the electrode arrangement area of the current collector plate)
Regarding claim 15, Ido teaches a battery, comprising:
the battery cell according to claim 14; and a case, wherein the battery cell is accommodated in the case. (Figure 7, [0100] the energy storage device 201 is housed in an energy storage package 290)
Regarding claim 16, Ido teaches an electric device, comprising
the battery cell according to claim 14, wherein the battery cell is configured to supply electric energy. (Figure 7, [0100] describes an energy storage device 201)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2, 3, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ido et al., (WO2019059121A1), hereinafter Ido as applied to the claims above, in view of Uchiyama et al., (US 2024/0322217A1), hereinafter Uchiyama.Regarding claim 2, Ido teaches the current collector according to claim 1, wherein
the coating area has a tensile strength δb1≥ 800 MPa, and ([0034] tensile strength of current collector plate 20 is 300 to 1500 MPa.)
Ido teaches a current collector tensile strength range of 300 to 1500 MPa as a preferable range [0034]. The claimed tensile strength range of ≥ 800 MPa overlaps the upper end of the range taught in Ido. Ido also describes a process for heating stainless steel to transform a martensitic structure into an austenitic structure which has sufficiently high toughness, but is less rigid than a martensitic structure and is less prone to breaking [0037-0038].
Ido does not teach:
the coating area has ductility D1≤ 1%.
Uchiyama teaches:
the coating area has ductility D1≤ 1%. (Table 1, E1 shows a 1% breaking elongation for a stainless steel current collector)
Uchiyama discloses a 1% breaking elongation for a stainless steel current collector with 55% austenite in Table 1, E1, which overlaps he claimed ductility range of ≤ 1%. Uchiyama also discloses a breaking strength of 1500 MPa for E1 in Table 1, which also lies within the claimed tensile strength range. Uchiyama notes that the rupture occurrence in the electrode current collector was suppressed ([0101], Table 1, E1-E6]. Uchiyama also teaches heat treating austenitic stainless steel foil to obtain the desired breaking strength and breaking elongation ranges, where the strength tends to decrease, and the breaking elongation tends to improve. [0034]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to obtain a stainless steel current collector with the strength and ductility properties shown in Uchiyama such that the current collector is less prone to rupture. Absent any additional and more specific information, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP § 2144.05)
Regarding claim 3, Ido teaches the current collector according to claim 1, wherein
the blank area has a tensile strength δb2 ≤ 450 MPa, and ([0034] tensile strength of current collector plate 20 is 300 to 1500 MPa.)
Ido teaches a current collector tensile strength range of 300 to 1500 MPa as a preferable range [0034] and overlaps the claimed tensile strength range of ≤ 450 MPa. Ido also describes a process for heating stainless steel to transforms a martensitic structure into an austenitic structure which still has sufficiently high toughness, but is less rigid than a martensitic structure and is less prone to breaking [0037-0038].
Ido does not teach:
the blank area has a ductility D2 ≥3%.
Uchiyama teaches:
the blank area has a ductility D2 ≥3%. ([0034] current collector preferably has a breaking elongation of 3% or more)
Uchiyama teaches a stainless steel current collector with a preferred breaking elongation of 3% or more and a breaking strength of 850 MPa or less to obtain an electrode current collector having favorable strength and flexibility and resistant to the stress generated in the electrode. Uchiyama also teaches heat treating austenitic stainless steel foil to obtain the desired breaking strength and breaking elongation ranges, where the strength tends to decrease and the breaking elongation tends to improve. [0034]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to utilize the heat treating processes of Ido and Uchiyama to create a stainless steel current collector with the desired strength and ductility properties shown in Uchiyama such that the current collector is less prone to breaking. Absent any additional and more specific information, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP § 2144.05)
Regarding claim 6, the teachings of Ido in claim 5 are incorporated herein. Ido does not teach the current collector according to claim 5, wherein
a tensile strength δb22 of the second area and a tensile strength δb1 of the coating area meet δb22 =δb1> 450 MPa; and
a ductility D22 of the second area and a ductility D1 of the coating area meet D22=D1<3%.
Uchiyama teaches:
a tensile strength δb22 of the second area and a tensile strength δb1 of the coating area meet δb22 =δb1> 450 MPa (Table 1, E1 and E2 show a breaking strength range of 1200 MPa to 1500 MPa);
a ductility D22 of the second area and a ductility D1 of the coating area meet D22=D1<3%. (Table 1, E1 shows a 1% breaking elongation a stainless steel current collector example)
Uchiyama discloses a 1% breaking elongation for a stainless steel current collector with 55% austenite in Table 1, E1, which is within the claimed ductility range of ≤ 3%. Uchiyama also discloses a breaking strength of 1500 MPa for E1 and 1200 MPa for E2 in Table 1, which lie within the claimed tensile strength range (>450 MPa). Uchiyama teaches heat treating austenitic stainless steel foil to obtain the desired breaking strength and breaking elongation ranges, where the strength tends to decrease and the breaking elongation tends to improve. [0034]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to utilize heat treating processes of Ido and Uchiyama to obtain a stainless steel current collector with the strength and ductility properties shown in Uchiyama such that the current collector is less prone to breaking. Absent any additional and more specific information, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP § 2144.05)
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ido et al., (WO2019059121A1), hereinafter Ido.
Regarding claim 4, Ido teaches the current collector according to claim 1, wherein
the blank area comprises a first area and a second area that are arranged adjacent to each other in the preset direction, and (Figure 1a shows shaded blank areas 25a and 25b adjacent to an unshaded outer edge)
the first area is connected between the coating area and the second area; and (Figure 1a – shows shaded blank areas 25a and 25b located between the electrode placement area 21 and the unshaded outer edge)
wherein the first area has a hardness different from that of the second area, and ([0038] describes the annealing process to form an austenitic structure in the shaded blank portions 25a and 25b and has a reduced hardness)
the first area has a hardness less than that of the coating area. ([0038] describes the annealing process to form an austenitic structure in the shaded portions 25a and 25b that has a reduced hardness than that of the electrode placement area 21)
Ido describes the heat treatment process for transforming the martensitic structure to an austenitic structure in the portion of the stainless steel collector plate and is represented by the shaded portions 25a and 25b in Figure 1 [0038]. The austenitic structure of 25a and 25b in the collector plate has less hardness and makes it less prone to breaking [0037]. Figures 1a and 1b also show an unshaded outer edge of the plate collector that has not been heat treated, and therefore has a different hardness from the shaded portions 25a and 25b. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to heat treat the current collector to transform an area of the current collector with a reduced hardness to make it less prone to breaking.
Regarding claim 5, Ido teaches the current collector according to claim 4, wherein
the second area has a same hardness as the coating area. (Figure 1a shows the unshaded second area that has not been heat treated and has the same hardness as the electrode placement area 21)
Ido describes the heat treatment process for transforming the martensitic structure to an austenitic structure in the portion of the stainless steel collector plate and is represented by the shaded portions 25a and 25b in Figure 1 [0038]. The austenitic structure of 25a and 25b in the collector plate has less hardness and makes it less prone to breaking [0037]. Figures 1a and 1b also show an unshaded outer edge of the plate collector that has not been heat treated, and therefore has the same hardness as the unshaded portions of the collector plate 20. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to heat treat the current collector to transform an area of the current collector with a reduced hardness to make it less prone to breaking.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ido et al., (WO2019059121A1), hereinafter Ido, as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Kang et al., (US2022/0149491A1), hereinafter Kang.
Regarding claim 7, Ido does not teach the current collector of claim 4, wherein
the hardness of the first area < the hardness of the second area < the hardness of the coating area.
Kang teaches:
the hardness of the first area < the hardness of the second area < the hardness of the coating area.
Kang discloses an electrode that may be divided or partitioned into an area of the electric collector on which the slurry is coated, and a remaining area. The electrode may include a coated and an uncoated part. The coated part may include the slurry, and the uncoated part may include the of the electric collector on which the slurry is not coated [0029-0031]. Kang further teaches that heating the uncoated areas prior to the rolling process can be used to reduce the tensile strength and can suppress the deformation and/or fracture of the electric collector. [0034-0035]. Kang also discloses in Table 1, the tensile strength of the uncoated part 50 before heating the uncoated part 50 is 25 kgf/mm2. In Table 1, the tensile strength of the uncoated part 50 before heating may be the same as a tensile strength of the electric collector 20 of the coated part 40 before heating. [0064]. Kang further discloses the wrinkle state of the uncoated part 50 may be good when the tensile strength of the first uncoated part 51 is within a range greater than 16.5 kgf/mm2 and less than 20.5 kgf/mm2. ([0080], Claim 3); and it can be seen that a condition in which the tensile strength of the tab connection portion 52a is equal to or less than 18.5 kgf/mm2 is advantageous in terms of fracture. ([0085], Claim 4). It can be seen that:
the untreated coated area 40 will have the highest tensile strength (25 kgf/mm2) [0064],
the tensile strength range of the first uncoated area 51 after treatment is (16.5-20.5 kgf/mm2) [0080, 0086]
the tensile strength range of the second uncoated area 52 after treatment is 14.5 - 18.5 kgf/mm2 [0085, 0086]
The overlapping ranges show that the tensile strength of the first treated uncoated area 51 < second treated uncoated area 52 < untreated coated area 40. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to heat treat the localized areas of the current collector to the different tensile strengths in order to suppress the deformation and/or fracture of the electric collector. Absent any additional and more specific information, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP § 2144.05)
Regarding claim 9, Ido does not teach the current collector according to claim 4, wherein in the preset direction,
a width W1 of the first area and a width W2 of the second area meet 1/10 ≤ W1/W2 ≤ 1.
Kang teaches
a width W1 of the first area and a width W2 of the second area meet 1/10 ≤ W1/W2 ≤ 1.
Kang also teaches an electrode with a current collector with uncoated first and second areas with different tensile strengths [0043-0048]. Kang shows an example where the ratio of the first length L1 (51) to the sum of the second L2 plus third length L3 (52) is 0.5 [0063]. Kang further discloses the second length L2 (52a) may be greater than the first length L1 (51) [0089]. The ratio of 0.5 of the example and L1 < L2 in Kang is within the claimed range of 0.1 to 1. Kang states when the second length is greater than first length, mainly heat treating the cut portion (52b) of tab enables the effective formation of a different tensile strengths in the first (51) and second (52) uncoated portions of the tab [0089]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to create tabs with where the second area length is greater than the first area length enable the creation of tab areas with different tensile strengths.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ido et al., (WO2019059121A1), hereinafter Ido, as applied to the claims above, and in view of Kang et al., (US2022/0149491A1), hereinafter Kang, and in further view of Uchiyama et al., (US 2024/0322217A1), hereinafter Uchiyama.
Regarding claim 8, the teachings of Ido in claim 7 as modified by Kang are incorporated herein. Ido teaches the current collector according to claim 7, wherein
the tensile strength δb1 of the coating area, the tensile strength δb21 of the first area and the tensile strength δb22 of the second area meet δb1>δb22 >δb21, wherein δb1≥ 800 MPa, and δb21 ≤ 450 MPa; and ([0034] tensile strength of current collector plate 20 is 300 to 1500 MPa. Collector plate 20 includes the coated area 21 and electrode free area 22.)
Ido teaches a stainless steel current collector tensile strength range of 300 to 1500 MPa as a preferable range [0034], which overlaps the claimed range of >450 MPa and <800 MPa. For the claimed stainless steel tensile strength range limitations for the different areas of the current collector:
The upper range of Ido (1500 MPa) falls within the claimed range coated area δb1 ≥800 MPa.
The lower range of Ido (300 MPa) falls with the claimed range first area δb21 ≤450 MPa
The preferred range of Ido (300 MPa – 1500 MPa) overlaps the claimed range second area: 450 MPa< δb21 < 800
Ido also describes a process for heating stainless steel to transform a martensitic structure into an austenitic structure which still has sufficiently high toughness, but is less rigid than a martensitic structure and is less prone to breaking [0037-0038].
Ido does not teach:
the ductility D1 of the coating area, the ductility D21 of the first area and the ductility D22 of the second area meet D21 > D22 > D1, wherein D21 ≥ 3%, and D1≤ 1%.
Uchiyama teaches:
the ductility D1 of the coating area, the ductility D21 of the first area and the ductility D22 of the second area meet D21 > D22 > D1, wherein D21 ≥ 3%, and D1≤ 1%.
Uchiyama discloses a stainless steel current collector that preferably has a breaking strength of 850 MPa or less and has a breaking elongation of 3% or more as having favorable strength and flexibility and being excellent in resistance to the stress generated in the negative electrode. [0034] Uchiyama also discloses a breaking strength of 1500 MPa and a breaking elongation of 1% in Table 1 where the rupture occurrence was suppressed. [0101]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to heat treat the different areas of the current collector to the claimed tensile strength and ductility for favorable strength and flexibility and reduce breaking and/or fracturing. 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. Absent any additional and more specific information, a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ido et al., (WO2019059121A1), hereinafter Ido as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liang, et al., (US 2022/0052349A1), hereinafter Liang.
Regarding claim 11, Ido does not teach:
the current collector further comprises a supporting portion; and the supporting portion is arranged on a side of the stainless steel current-collecting portion in a thickness direction
Liang teaches:
the current collector further comprises a supporting portion; and the supporting portion is arranged on a side of the stainless steel current-collecting portion in a thickness direction
In Figure 1 and paragraphs [0008] and [0034], Liang teaches a current collector arranged on a support layer, which is beneficial to increasing the weight energy density of the battery, and to reduce the risk of internal short-circuits from occurring. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to arrange a support layer onto the current collector to improve the performance and safety of the battery.
Regarding claim 14, Ido teaches
wherein at least one of the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate is the electrode plate according to claim 13. (Figure 7, [0100] Energy storage device 201 comprises a positive electrode 250, a negative electrode 280, and a separator 260 that separates the positive electrode and the negative electrode.)
Ido does not teach a battery cell, comprising: a shell;
and an electrode assembly accommodated in the shell, wherein the electrode assembly comprises a positive electrode plate, a separator and a negative electrode plate, and the separator is arranged between the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate;
Liang teaches a battery cell, comprising: a shell;
and an electrode assembly accommodated in the shell, wherein the electrode assembly comprises a positive electrode plate, a separator and a negative electrode plate, and the separator is arranged between the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate;
Liang discloses a positive electrode plate including a positive current collector and a positive active material layer arranged on the positive current collector [0107], and negative electrode plate including a negative current collector and a negative active material arranged on the negative current collector [0119]. Liang teaches an electrode assembly comprising a positive electrode plate, a separator, and a negative electrode plate that can be accommodated in a hard case, such as an aluminum case [00129-0130]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to accommodate the electrode assembly into a hard case structure, which is a common embodiment in the battery field.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mario Gamboa whose telephone number is (571)272-9213. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 8:00 -5:00, Fri 8:00- 12:00 EST.
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.
/MARIO R GAMBOA/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights