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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 2 which is encompassed in Claims 1, 3- 5, and 8-10 in the reply filed on 07/21/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that First, the three embodiments share the same inventive concept and the same technical problem to be solved. Second, the three embodiments differ only in the relative positions and coverage areas of the conductive coating layer and the metal plating layer, which are obvious variants that a person skilled in the art would conceive without exercising inventive effort. Third, the three species are substantially interrelated and do not impose a significant search and/or examination burden. This is not found persuasive because examiner disagrees as outlined in the original restriction the three mutually exclusive species elements. The examiner would require employing different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries). The prior art applicable to one invention would likely not be applicable to another invention and/or the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues (i.e., under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and/or 112).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 11-12, 14 -16, and 19-20 further limit the already elected claims to include a “cell” and “a lithium battery” both of which are taught by Liang. Accordingly, claims 11-12, 14 -16, and 19-20 are considered part of the elected Species 2 and included in the examination
Examined claims (Elected Species 2): that claims 1, 3-5, 8-12, 14-16, and 19-20 are examined as being drawn to elected species 2.
Withdrawn Claims (Non-Elected Species 1 &3): claims 2, 6-7, 13, and 17-18 are withdrawn as being drawn to non-elected species 1 and 3.
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 3-5 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 3 recite “the conductive coating layer partially covers a side corresponding to the support layer” however, claim 1 from which claim 3 depend from defines “at least one side of the support layer” it is unclear if the side corresponding to the support layer is one of the sides of the at least one side defined in claim 1 or defining a different surface feature of the support layer.
Claim 4 recites “on the same side of the support layer”, identifying “side of the support layer” as a singular side. This is followed by “two conductive coating layers are separately coated on two opposite sides of the support layer”. This could be interpreted to recite the feature of the top half of the electrode plate where two conductive layers 120 are provided on opposite left right section of a surface of the support layer. However, this reading interchange the definition of “side of the support layer” between a side being a plane of a 3-dimentional object, the singular side identified as the same side, and a side being a section of a 2-dimentional plane, the opposite sides of the support layer. Claim 1 from which claim 4 depends recites “at least one side of the support layer”, defining “side of the support layer” as being a particular labeled face having a surface. Applicant specification recites “The conductive coating layers 120 were partially coated on the surface of both sides of the support layer 110, and the metal plating layers 150 were laid on the area on the surface of both sides of the support layer 110 which was not covered by the conductive coating layer 120” corresponding to fig. 2. Since layer 150 is shown as a single layer provided on the top and bottom of the support layer 110, the specification appears to support a “side” being a plane of a 3-dimentional object, the object being the support layer. As a result, it unclear what is encompassed by the features labeled “side(s) of the support layer” in claim 4. and it is unclear if applicant intends claim 4 to limit two opposite sections of the same side, as in only the top half of the electrode plate shown in fig. 2, or opposite sides of the 3-dimentional support layer, as in the entire electrode plate shown in figure 2.
Claim 5 is rejected as being dependent on an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 9, 10-12 and, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Liang US20210296654A1.
Regarding claim 1, Liang discloses an electrode plate [Para. 0036], comprising
a support layer, a conductive coating layer and an active material layer, wherein at least part of the area of the surface of at least one side of the support layer is coated with the conductive coating layer (an electrode plate is provided, comprising a current collector and an electrode active material layer disposed on at least one surface of the current collector wherein the current collector comprises a support layer and a conductive layer disposed on at least one surface of the support layer [Para. 0036]);
at least part of the area of the surface of a side of the conductive coating layer away from the support layer is coated with the active material layer (FIG 9 shows the active material 12 disposed on the side of conductive coating 102 away from the support layer 101. Although Liang discloses an intermediate conductive primer layer 11, the claim uses the open-ended term “comprising” which permits additional unrecited layers between the conductive coating layer and the active material layer [Para 0131])
Regarding claim 8, The electrode plate of claim 1, wherein
the conductive coating layer comprises a conductive material and an adhesive, the mass ratio of the conductive material is 45%-90%, and the mass ratio of the adhesive is 10%-55% (the weight percentage of the first conductive material is from 10% to 99%, preferably from 20% to 80%, more preferably from 50% to 80%; and the weight percentage of the binder is from 1% to 90%, preferably from 20% to 80%, and more preferably from 20% to 50%. [Para. 0107];
the conductive material comprises a carbon-containing material and a metal powder (The conductive layer comprises at least one material selected from metal conductive materials and carbon-based conductive materials [Para. 0044];
the mass ratio of the carbon-containing material in the conductive material is 55%-90%, and the mass ratio of the metal powder in the conductive material is 10%-45%. (based on the total weight of the first conductive material, the first conductive material comprises 5 wt %-50 wt % of at least one of one-dimensional conductive material and two-dimensional conductive material, and 50 wt %-95 wt % of other conductive materials (for example zero-dimensional conductive carbon or metal materials, preferably zero-dimensional conductive carbon) [Para 0117])
Regarding claim 9, The electrode plate of claim 1, wherein the support layer is a polymeric material, and the surface of the support layer is nano-treated. (The conductive polymer composite material is for example selected from composite materials formed by insulating polymer materials and a second conductive material. The second conductive material is at least one selected from conductive carbon materials, metal materials, and composite conductive materials. The conductive carbon material is at least one selected from carbon black, carbon nanotube, graphite, acetylene black, and graphene. [Para. 0061] Incorporating nano -dimensional materials such as carbon nanotube onto insulating polymer support layer inherently constitutes “nano treating” the surface of the support layer)
Regarding claim 10, The electrode plate of claim 1, wherein the thickness of the support layer is in the range of 2 μm to 10 μm (The support layer has a thickness D1, and D1 preferably satisfies: 1 μm≤D1≤30 μm [Para 0064]; and the thickness of the conductive coating layer is in a range of 0.5 μm to 15 μm ( the conductive layer has a single-sided thickness D2 that satisfies: 30 nm≤D2≤3 μm [Para 0038])
Regarding claim 11, A cell, comprising the electrode plate of claim 1 (electrode plate according to the present application may effectively reduce the direct current internal resistance (DCR) of battery cell [Para 0040])
Regarding claim 12, A lithium battery, comprising the cell of claim 11 (thus may ensure that the battery cell is not prone to large polarization and lithium precipitation during long-term cycling. That is to say, the long-term reliability of battery cell is effectively improved [Para 0040] FIG. 14 is a perspective view of a lithium-ion battery)
Regarding claim 19, A cell, comprising the electrode plate of claim 8 (electrode plate according to the present application may effectively reduce the direct current internal resistance (DCR) of battery cell [Para 0040])
Regarding claim 20, A cell, comprising the electrode plate of claim 9 (thus may ensure that the battery cell is not prone to large polarization and lithium precipitation during long-term cycling. That is to say, the long-term reliability of battery cell is effectively improved [Para 0040] FIG. 14 is a perspective view of a lithium-ion battery)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 3, 4, 14 , and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang US20210296654A1
Regarding claim 3, Liang discloses the electrode plate of claim 1, wherein the conductive coating layer partially covers a side corresponding to the support layer (The conductive layer is preferably formed on the support layer [Para 0054]);
Liang does not explicitly teach the electrode plate further comprises a metal plating layer, and the metal plating layer is laid on the area of the surface on at least one side of the support layer not covered by the conductive coating layer
However, Liang teaches that conductive layer of the current collector comprises at least one material selected from metal conductive materials and carbon-based conductive materials [0043]-[0044]
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a metal plating layer on the uncovered area on the same side of the support layer alongside the conductive coating layer because both materials perform known, equivalent function for current collection. Furthermore, it would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, (i.e. forming the conductive layer with metal conductive materials only, carbon-based conductive materials only, both metal and carbon-based conductive layers that are distinct, or metal and carbon-based conductive layer where the materials are mixed), with a reasonable expectation of success [See MPEP 2143].
Regarding claim 4, Modified Liang teaches the electrode plate of claim 3,
Liang does not explicitly teach The electrode plate of claim 3, wherein on the same side of the support layer, two conductive coating layers are separately coated on two opposite sides of the support layer, and the metal plating layer is laid on the area between the two conductive coating layers, (Liang the positive electrode current collector 10 comprises a positive electrode current collector support layer 101 and positive electrode current collector conductive layers 102 disposed on two opposite surfaces of the positive electrode collector support layer 101 [Para. 0131, FIG. 9])
However, as established in the rejection of claim 3, Liang teaches that the conductive layer comprises at least one material selected from metal conductive materials and carbon-based conductive materials [Para. 0044], and that placing metallic and conductive coating layers on the same side of the support layer for current collection is known in the art.
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have to dispose two conductive coating layers separately on the same side of the support layer and layer a metal plating layer in the region between the conductive coating layers to ensure continuous current collection coverage across the entire surface of the support layer. Furthermore, it would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, (i.e. arranging conductive and metallic materials on a substrate surface to provide current collection across the support layer), with a reasonable expectation of success [See MPEP 2143].
Regarding claim 14, Modified Liang teaches the electrode plate of claim 3,
Liang further teaches a cell, comprising the electrode plate of claim 3 (electrode plate according to the present application may effectively reduce the direct current internal resistance (DCR) of battery cell [Para 0040])
Regarding claim 15, Modified Liang teaches the electrode plate of claim 4,
Liang further teaches a cell, comprising the electrode plate of claim 4 (electrode plate according to the present application may effectively reduce the direct current internal resistance (DCR) of battery cell [Para 0040])
Claim 5 and 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang US20210296654A1 in view of Liu US20230282838A1.
Regarding claim 5, Liang teaches the electrode plate of claim 4, wherein the active material layers completely cover a side of the metal plating layer away from the support layer y(active material layer is more firmly disposed on the surface of the composite current collector. [Para 0040]);
Liang fails to teach active material layer partially covered two conductive coating layers and the electrode plate further comprises metal tabs are laid on the area which is not covered by the active material layer on a side of each of the two conductive coating layers away from the support layer
Liu to teach the electrode active material layer partially covered two conductive coating layers (e.g. welding area) and the metal tabs are laid on the area which is not covered by the active material layer on a side of each of the two conductive coating layers away from the support layer (The conductive layer 80 includes a first metal portion 81 configured to connect to a tab. [Para 0059] FIG 4 shows welding area which is not covered by the active material layer on a side of each of the two conductive coating layers away from the support layer)
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the electrode of Liang by leaving a portion of the conductive layer uncoated by the active material and securing a metal tab to the uncovered portion, as taught by Liu.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification to provide a dedicate, clean welding surface for securing the metal tabs directly to the conductive portion.
Regarding claim 16, Modified Liang teaches the electrode plate of claim 5,
Liang further teaches a cell, comprising the electrode plate of claim54 (electrode plate according to the present application may effectively reduce the direct current internal resistance (DCR) of battery cell [Para 0040]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CALEB UCHECHUKWU ORJI whose telephone number is (571)270-3370. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am- 5:00pm ET Mon-Thur.
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, Joshua Allen, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-3176. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/CALEB U ORJI/Examiner, Art Unit 1713
/ERIN F BERGNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights