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 .
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.
Claim 8 is 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 8 defines “size D1” and “size D2” of the middle and edge coating regions. However, it is not known what “size” is a reference to, e.g., area, volume, etc. Correction is required.
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.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka et al (US 20220006128).
Regarding claim 1, the reference is directed to a negative electrode plate comprising a negative electrode current collector (52) and a negative electrode film layer (54) on one surface of the collector. The film layer comprises a middle coating region (54b) and edge coating regions (54a) on two opposite sides of the middle coating region (Figs. 3 and 4). Figure 3 shows a high-SOC (e.g., fully charged) configuration and Figure 4 shows a low-SOC (fully discharged) configuration ([0068]). The fully charged edge regions are thicker than the fully charged middle region (B1>B2) (Fig. 3).
The reference does not expressly teach the thickness relationship (B1-A1)/A1 > (B2-A2)/A2 as recited in claim 1 (“B” is fully charged, “A” is fully discharged, “1” is edge portions and “2” is middle portion).
However, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing because the reference provides sufficient guidance for the artisan to ascertain that this relationship would be true. Throughout the disclosure, it is discussed that the edge regions contain active material with a much higher ratio of expansion/contraction (50-350%, see [0076]) than the middle region (5-20%, see [0073]). The purpose of this is to seal the edges to retain electrolyte in a fully charged configuration (Fig. 3) and the open the edges in a fully discharged configuration (Fig. 4). The skilled artisan would readily be able to ascertain that the difference in edge thickness would have been greater than a difference in middle thickness, normalized to the fully discharged thickness of each respective section (which is represented by the claimed inequality). This is because the edges expand and contract at a much higher rate than the middle (see above). Therefore, the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 6, and 7, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to select values of A1, A2, B1 and B2 that meet the claimed relationships, therefore rendering the claims obvious. As noted above, the reference discusses the rationale for the thickness difference in the charged and discharged states of the battery. It would have been obvious to optimize the respective thicknesses at the different charge states in order to optimize the functioning of the battery, specifically the electrolyte retention or flow to and from the electrode. It has been held that the discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Claim 6 further limits the relationship of claim 1 with specific values. It would have been obvious to select thicknesses that meet these values. Similar rationale applies to claims 2, 3, and 7.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, the reference does not appear to teach absolute layer thicknesses as claimed. However, the claimed ranges for A1 and A2 (30-300 microns) encompass standard electrode layer thicknesses and it would have been well within the skill of the art to select such a thickness as the respective fully discharged thicknesses.
Regarding claim 8, this claim recites sizes D1 and D2 of the edge and middle regions and that 0.05<=D2/(D1+D2)<=0.95; in other words, the “size” of the middle region is 5-95% of the sum of the sizes of both regions. In [0066], the reference teaches that the width of edge portions 54a is preferably between 5-10% of the coated electrode width. This is suggestive of the claimed ratio (note 112(b) rejection above).
Regarding claim 9, the edge region comprises a first active material and the middle region comprises a second active material, and the volume swelling rate of the first material is greater than the swelling rate of the second material ([0073], [0076]).
Regarding claim 11, the first active material is selected from Si, Sb, Sn, or Bi ([0077]). In an Example, graphite + Si was used (Sample 1). The second active material is a carbon material such as graphite, hard carbon, or soft carbon ([0073]). Note: the last clause of claim 11, in addition to claim 12, are considered to be optionally recited because they further limit optional components of claim 11. Therefore, the limitations are met.
Regarding claim 10, which recites that the active material in the edge region is “completely” the first material, such limitation is obvious on the grounds that: a) the graphite + Si of Sample 1 is considered the “first material”, or the use of metal (Si) alone as the “first material” based on the disclosure in [0076] would be well within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 13, the electrode is contained in a secondary battery ([0044]). Regarding claims 14-16, the battery can be configured as a module or pack and used in an apparatus such an electric vehicle ([0003]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan Crepeau whose telephone number is (571) 272-1299. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Nicole Buie-Hatcher, can be reached at (571) 270-3879. The phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 272-1700. Documents may be faxed to the central fax server at (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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Jonathan Crepeau/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
June 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights