CTNF 18/409,211 CTNF 84574 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 2. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 1/10/2024 and 10/2/2024 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 a copy with initials is attached herewith. Drawings 06-37 AIA 3. The drawings were received on 1/10/2024 . These drawings are acceptable . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 4. 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. 07-20-aia AIA 5. 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. 07-23-aia AIA 6. 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. 07-21-aia AIA 7. Claim (s) 1-3 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steele et al (US 20210184290 A1) in view of Nose et al (US 20230290951 A1) and Huh et al (US 20200171966 A1) . Regarding claim 1, Steele discloses a vehicle comprising an electric motor; and a battery pack having a plurality of battery cells electrically coupled to the electric motor [Abstract; paragraph 0027, 0041, 0072]. Steele remains silent about the details of the battery cell as claimed. However, Nose discloses a battery cell comprising a cathode current collector (21); a cathode active material (22) dispersed over the cathode current collector (21); and a cathode insulation coating (23), the cathode insulation coating directly on a portion of the cathode active material; wherein the cathode insulation coating comprises a porous macrostructure that is patterned [Abstract; Fig. 4-6, 17-18; paragraph 0032, 0050, 0075-0076, 0191, 0215-0216, 0377, 0379]. Nose remains silent about cathode electrode tab and providing insulating material on the electrode tab. However, it is known in the art to provide insulating coat/layer on a portion of the electrode tab in order to prevent an internal short circuit which may occur due to cell deformation or sharp edges of electrodes, which are formed during cutting of the electrodes in a preparation process of the battery, when the electrodes are stacked, or may prevent a physical short circuit between the cathode and the anode due to shrinkage of a separator in a high-temperature atmosphere as taught by Huh [Abstract; Fig. 3-5; paragraph 0011, 0013, 0022-0025, 0033-0034, 0038-0047]. So, when applied as taught, such that portions of the cathode active material underlying the cathode insulation coating are exposed, thereby providing a porous cathode insulation coating that protects against separator misalignment and slippage with a reduced loss in ion transport dynamics. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success. Regarding claims 2-3, Nose teaches that the porous macrostructure comprises a micrometer-scale pattern and the micrometer-scale pattern comprises one or more lines having line widths of less than 15 micrometers [Fig. 17-18; paragraph 0075]. Regarding claim 6, Nose teaches that the cathode insulation coating extends to an edge of the cathode current collector [Fig. 4-6, 17-18]. Regarding claim 7, Huh teaches that the cathode insulation coating extends over the cathode active material by a distance of at least 5 millimeters [Fig. 3; paragraph 0034] . 07-21-aia AIA 8. Claim (s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steele et al (US 20210184290 A1) in view of Nose et al (US 20230290951 A1) and Huh et al (US 20200171966 A1) as applied in claim 1 and further in view of Wang et al (US 20230076286 A1) . Regarding claim 4, Steele/Nose/Huh remains silent about the cathode insulation coating material as claimed. However, it is known in the art to utilize one or more of a polypropylene alcohol, sodium polyacrylate, potassium polyacrylate, lithium polyacrylate, styrene butadiene rubber, polyvinylidene fluoride, carboxymethyl cellulose and sodium carboxymethyl cellulose as a insulation coating material as taught by Wang [claim 1, 5, 6]. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success. Regarding claim 5, Steele/Nose/Huh remains silent about the cathode insulation coating material as claimed. However, it is known in the art to utilize polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) as a insulation coating material as taught by Wang [claim 1, 5, 6] . 07-21-aia AIA 9. Claim (s) 8-10 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nose et al (US 20230290951 A1) in view of Huh et al (US 20140255778 A1) . Regarding claim 8, Nose discloses a battery cell comprising a cathode current collector (21); a cathode active material (22) dispersed over the cathode current collector (21); and a cathode insulation coating (23), the cathode insulation coating directly on a portion of the cathode active material; wherein the cathode insulation coating comprises a porous macrostructure that is patterned [Abstract; Fig. 4-6, 17-18; paragraph 0032, 0050, 0075-0076, 0191, 0215-0216, 0377, 0379]. Nose remains silent about cathode electrode tab and providing insulating material on the electrode tab. However, it is known in the art to provide insulating coat/layer on a portion of the electrode tab in order to prevent an internal short circuit which may occur due to cell deformation or sharp edges of electrodes, which are formed during cutting of the electrodes in a preparation process of the battery, when the electrodes are stacked, or may prevent a physical short circuit between the cathode and the anode due to shrinkage of a separator in a high-temperature atmosphere as taught by Huh [Abstract; Fig. 3-5; paragraph 0011, 0013, 0022-0025, 0033-0034, 0038-0047]. So, when applied as taught, such that portions of the cathode active material underlying the cathode insulation coating are exposed, thereby providing a porous cathode insulation coating that protects against separator misalignment and slippage with a reduced loss in ion transport dynamics. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success. Regarding claims 9-10, Nose teaches that the porous macrostructure comprises a micrometer-scale pattern and the micrometer-scale pattern comprises one or more lines having line widths of less than 15 micrometers [Fig. 17-18; paragraph 0075]. Regarding claim 13, Nose teaches that the cathode insulation coating extends to an edge of the cathode current collector [Fig. 4-6, 17-18]. Regarding claim 14, Huh teaches that the cathode insulation coating extends over the cathode active material by a distance of at least 5 millimeters [Fig. 3; paragraph 0034] . 07-21-aia AIA 10. Claim (s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nose et al (US 20230290951 A1) in view of Huh et al (US 20140255778 A1) as applied in claim 8 and further in view of Wang et al (US 20230076286 A1) . Regarding claim 11, Nose remains silent about the cathode insulation coating material as claimed. However, it is known in the art to utilize one or more of a polypropylene alcohol, sodium polyacrylate, potassium polyacrylate, lithium polyacrylate, styrene butadiene rubber, polyvinylidene fluoride, carboxymethyl cellulose and sodium carboxymethyl cellulose as a insulation coating material as taught by Wang [claim 1, 5, 6]. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success. Regarding claim 12, Nose remains silent about the cathode insulation coating material as claimed. However, it is known in the art to utilize polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) as a insulation coating material as taught by Wang [claim 1, 5, 6] . 07-21-aia AIA 11. Claim (s) 15-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nose et al (US 20230290951 A1) in view of Huh et al (US 20140255778 A1) . Regarding claim 15, Nose discloses a coating process for a battery cell comprising providing a cathode current collector (21); dispersing a cathode active material over the cathode current collector; and forming a cathode insulation coating directly on a portion of the cathode active material; wherein the cathode insulation coating comprises a porous macrostructure that is patterned [Abstract; Fig. 4-6, 17-18; paragraph 0032, 0050, 0075-0076, 0191, 0215-0216, 0377, 0379]. Nose remains silent about cathode electrode tab and providing insulating material on the electrode tab. However, it is known in the art to provide insulating coat/layer on a portion of the electrode tab in order to prevent an internal short circuit which may occur due to cell deformation or sharp edges of electrodes, which are formed during cutting of the electrodes in a preparation process of the battery, when the electrodes are stacked, or may prevent a physical short circuit between the cathode and the anode due to shrinkage of a separator in a high-temperature atmosphere as taught by Huh [Abstract; Fig. 3-5; paragraph 0011, 0013, 0022-0025, 0033-0034, 0038-0047]. So, when applied as taught, such that portions of the cathode active material underlying the cathode insulation coating are exposed, thereby providing a porous cathode insulation coating that protects against separator misalignment and slippage with a reduced loss in ion transport dynamics. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success. Regarding claims 16-17, Nose teaches that the porous macrostructure comprises a micrometer-scale pattern and the micrometer-scale pattern comprises one or more lines having line widths of less than 15 micrometers [Fig. 17-18; paragraph 0075]. Regarding claim 20, Nose teaches that the cathode insulation coating extends to an edge of the cathode current collector and to an edge of the cathode tab [Fig. 4-6, 17-18] and Huh teaches that the cathode insulation coating extends over the cathode active material by a distance of at least 5 millimeters [Fig. 3; paragraph 0034] . 07-21-aia AIA 12. Claim (s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nose et al (US 20230290951 A1) in view of Huh et al (US 20140255778 A1) as applied in claim 8 and further in view of Wang et al (US 20230076286 A1) . Regarding claim 18, Nose remains silent about the cathode insulation coating material as claimed. However, it is known in the art to utilize one or more of a polypropylene alcohol, sodium polyacrylate, potassium polyacrylate, lithium polyacrylate, styrene butadiene rubber, polyvinylidene fluoride, carboxymethyl cellulose and sodium carboxymethyl cellulose as a insulation coating material as taught by Wang [claim 1, 5, 6]. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success. Regarding claim 19, Nose remains silent about the cathode insulation coating material as claimed. However, it is known in the art to utilize polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) as a insulation coating material as taught by Wang [claim 1, 5, 6]. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD S SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tong Guo can be reached at (571) 272-3066. 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. /MUHAMMAD S SIDDIQUEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723 Application/Control Number: 18/409,211 Page 2 Art Unit: 1723 Application/Control Number: 18/409,211 Page 3 Art Unit: 1723 Application/Control Number: 18/409,211 Page 4 Art Unit: 1723 Application/Control Number: 18/409,211 Page 5 Art Unit: 1723 Application/Control Number: 18/409,211 Page 6 Art Unit: 1723 Application/Control Number: 18/409,211 Page 7 Art Unit: 1723 Application/Control Number: 18/409,211 Page 8 Art Unit: 1723 Application/Control Number: 18/409,211 Page 9 Art Unit: 1723 Application/Control Number: 18/409,211 Page 10 Art Unit: 1723 Application/Control Number: 18/409,211 Page 11 Art Unit: 1723
Prosecution Insights