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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-17 and 20-24 are pending in the application. Claims 18 and 19 are withdrawn from consideration pursuant to the restriction requirement. Claims 1, 3, 10, and 12 have been amended and claims 20-24 have been added.
Applicant's arguments filed August 7, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Based on applicant’s amendments the rejection below has been updated to address the amendments. The amendment necessitates modification of the grounds of rejection.
Applicant argues that Zhu does not disclose the claimed tab slot and notch as two distinct structures because the previous Office Action relied on Zhu's notch portion 402 for both limitations. Applicant further argues that Zhu's notch portion 402 is located at the edge of the electrode plate rather than being a tab slot apart from the edge, and that Zhu does not disclose an arc-shaped surface between two adjacent inner wall faces of an individual notch.
Applicant's arguments regarding the particular mapping of Zhu in the previous Office Action are acknowledged. Accordingly, the rejection is modified below to rely principally upon Guo et al. (US 11329352) for the separately formed tab-receiving groove and electrode-plate notch.
Guo expressly teaches an electrode plate comprising a current collector and an active material layer disposed on a surface of the current collector. Guo further teaches a first electrode tab receiving groove defined by the active material and exposing the current collector, and a separate electrode plate die-cut notch disposed on a side edge of the electrode tab receiving groove and extending through the current collector (Abstract; col. 4 and Figs. 2-5; claims 1, 2, 9, and 10). Guo therefore expressly provides the two distinct structures Applicant contends were absent from Zhu.
More particularly, Guo teaches that the first active substance is disposed on a surface of the first current collector and that the electrode tab receiving groove is defined by the exposed portion of the current collector and the active substance located around the periphery of the groove. Guo further teaches a separate electrode-plate notch located on the side edge of the electrode-tab receiving groove and extending through the electrode plate/current collector. Guo explains that the notch removes burrs formed on the current collector at the edge of the tab-receiving groove, thereby preventing internal short circuits and improving battery safety.
Thus, unlike the mapping disputed by Applicant, the modified rejection does not rely upon one structure as both the tab slot and the notch. Guo's electrode tab receiving groove corresponds to the claimed tab slot, while Guo's separate electrode plate die-cut notch corresponds to the claimed notch.
Guo does not expressly teach that the junction between the adjacent inner wall faces of the notch is arc-shaped. However, Han et al., (US 20200313222), teaches electrode-plate receiving grooves having arc transitions at the corners thereof. Han expressly explains that an arc or polygonal transition is provided at each corner of an electrode-plate receiving groove to avoid accumulation of stress (paragraphs corresponding to the description of Figs. 4-5 and the disclosure that “to avoid accumulation of stress at the second receiving groove 111 and the first receiving groove 121, an arc or a polygonal transition is provided at each corner” of the receiving grooves; claim 19).
Guo and Han are analogous art because both concern lithium-battery electrode plates having grooves/cutouts associated with electrode tabs and both address structural configurations intended to reduce defects and improve battery safety. Guo expressly identifies burr removal and prevention of internal short circuits as the purpose of its die-cut notch, while Han teaches rounding the corners of electrode-plate grooves to avoid stress accumulation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inner corner of Guo's die-cut notch with the known arc transition taught by Han. Doing so would predictably reduce stress concentration at the intersection of the adjacent notch walls, reduce sharp corners susceptible to deformation or burr formation, and thereby further Guo's expressly stated objective of reducing defects and preventing internal short circuits. The use of a rounded rather than right-angle internal corner is additionally a predictable geometrical modification of a known electrode-plate cutout yielding the known mechanical benefit taught by Han.
Applicant's discussion of the advantages of an arc-shaped surface—reduced stress concentration, reduced burr formation, improved yield, and reduced risk of short circuit—does not establish nonobviousness. Rather, these are consistent with the known reasons in the prior art for providing rounded or arc transitions at corners of battery-electrode cutouts. Han expressly identifies avoidance of stress accumulation as the reason for its arc transition, while Guo expressly identifies removal of burrs and prevention of internal short circuits as objectives associated with the notch adjacent the tab-receiving groove.
Accordingly, Applicant's arguments have been considered, but the prior-art rejection is maintained in modified form as set forth below.
Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not disclose a tab slot in a membrane that exposes an underlying current collector.
This argument is not persuasive against the modified rejection. Guo expressly teaches an active substance disposed on the current collector and an electrode-tab receiving groove defined by the exposed current collector and active substance located around the groove. Thus, the active substance corresponds to the claimed membrane, and removal or absence of the active substance at the receiving groove exposes the underlying current collector.
Applicant argues that the tab slot must be apart from the edge of the electrode plate. The modified rejection relies on Guo's embedded electrode-tab receiving groove rather than Zhu's edge notch 402. Guo's receiving groove is formed in the active-material region of the electrode plate for reception and electrical connection of the electrode tab to the exposed current collector. The separate die-cut notch is formed at the side edge of that groove. Accordingly, Applicant's argument concerning the position of Zhu's notch 402 does not overcome the modified rejection.
Applicant further argues that the claims require two distinct structures, a tab slot and a notch, and that a single prior-art feature cannot satisfy both limitations. The Examiner agrees that the limitations are separately recited and has treated them as separate structures in the modified rejection. Guo's electrode-tab receiving groove is relied upon for the claimed tab slot, while Guo's electrode-plate die-cut notch is separately relied upon for the claimed notch.
Applicant further argues that Zhu does not disclose an arc-shaped surface between adjacent inner wall faces of an individual notch. This argument does not overcome the modified rejection because Han is relied upon for the arc-shaped transition. Han expressly teaches providing arc transitions at corners of electrode-plate receiving grooves to avoid stress accumulation. One of ordinary skill would have recognized that the same known rounded-corner geometry would predictably reduce stress concentration when applied to the inner corner of Guo's die-cut notch. Guo itself teaches that the notch is provided to remove burr-containing portions of the current collector and prevent internal short circuit. The combination therefore provides an express technical reason for employing the known rounded transition in Guo's notch.
Applicant's asserted benefits of the arc-shaped configuration are therefore consistent with, rather than contrary to, the teachings of the prior art.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (US 20180190963), hereinafter Guo, in view of Han et al. (US 20200313222), hereinafter Han.
Regarding claim 1, Guo teaches an electrode plate comprising a current collector and membranes disposed of on a surface of the current collector. Specifically, Guo teaches first and second electrode plates having respective current collectors and active substance layers disposed of on surfaces of the current collectors (Abstract; Figs. 2-3; claims 1-3 and 9-10). Guo further teaches that at least one of the membranes is provided with a tab slot exposing a surface of the current collector. In particular, Guo's electrode tab receiving groove 1013/1033 is defined by an exposed portion of the current collector and active substance disposed around the periphery of the groove (Claims 1, 2, 9 and 10; Figs. 2-3).
Guo further teaches a notch separate from the tab slot. Guo's electrode plate die-cut notch 1014/1034 is disposed on a side edge of the electrode tab receiving groove and extends through the electrode plate/current collector. Guo explains that the die-cut notch removes burrs formed on the current collector at the edge portion of the electrode-tab receiving groove, thereby preventing internal short circuits and improving safety. Thus, Guo teaches the claimed current collector, membrane/active layer, tab slot exposing the current collector, and a separate notch extending through the current collector.
Guo does not expressly teach that the notch has an arc-shaped surface between two adjacent inner wall faces.
Han teaches electrode-plate receiving grooves having arc transitions at their corners. Han expressly teaches that an arc or polygonal transition is provided at each corner of the receiving grooves to avoid accumulation of stress. (paragraphs corresponding to Figs. 4-5, particularly the teaching concerning receiving grooves 111 and 121; claim 19).
Guo and Han are analogous because each relates to battery electrode plates having openings or grooves associated with electrode tabs and each addresses battery safety. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the inner corner between adjacent wall faces of Guo's die-cut notch to include the arc transition taught by Han in order to reduce stress concentration at the corner, reduce susceptibility to cracking or burr formation, and improve the mechanical reliability and safety of the electrode plate. Such modification merely applies Han's known rounded-corner configuration to Guo's known electrode-plate notch according to its established function.
Regarding claim 2, Guo and Han teach all limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Guo further teaches an electrode plate having opposite side faces extending generally parallel to and spaced apart from one another (Figs. 2-5).
Guo's tab-receiving groove is positioned closer to one side of the electrode plate than the opposite side, such that a distance from the center of the tab-receiving groove to the first side face is less than the distance from the center of the groove to the opposite side face. Guo further teaches its die-cut notch at the side edge of the tab-receiving groove toward the corresponding side of the electrode plate ( Figs. 2, 3 and 5).
Regarding claim 3, Guo and Han teach all limitations of claim 2 as stated above. Guo teaches the exposed current collector within the tab-receiving groove and the adjacent die-cut notch but does not expressly disclose the claimed perpendicular distance D0 of 1 mm to 6 mm. The particular distance between the exposed portion of the current collector and the side face of the electrode plate is a result-effective dimensional variable dependent upon the size of the electrode plate, the required tab-welding area, structural integrity, and manufacturing tolerances.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a distance within the claimed 1 mm to 6 mm range through routine optimization in order to provide sufficient material for mechanical integrity while positioning the tab-receiving groove and notch sufficiently near the plate edge for tab connection and manufacturing. The claimed range has not been shown to produce a critical or unexpected result relative to the known configuration.
Regarding claim 4, Guo and Han teach all limitations of claim 3 as stated above. Guo expressly teaches dimensional relationships for its electrode-tab receiving groove and die-cut notch and provides exemplary tab-receiving grooves having dimensions selected according to the size of the electrode and tab. Guo further teaches, for example, tab receiving grooves approximately 12 mm in length in an exemplary embodiment. Guo does not expressly disclose every endpoint of the claimed width W1 of 5 mm to 30 mm and length L1 of 2 mm to 20 mm.
The width and length of a tab-receiving groove are result-effective variables selected according to tab dimensions, desired welding area, electrode size, energy density, and manufacturing tolerances. It would have been obvious to optimize those dimensions through routine experimentation, and selection of dimensions falling within the broad claimed ranges would have been an obvious matter of design choice absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results.
Regarding claim 5, Guo and Han teach all limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Guo expressly teaches that the length of its electrode plate die-cut notch may be 0.9-1.2 times the length of the corresponding electrode-tab receiving groove. Thus, Guo expressly encompasses a notch having the same length as the tab-receiving groove when the ratio is 1.0. See Guo, claims directed to the 0.9-1.2 length ratio and the corresponding discussion of Figs. 2-5. Han teaches providing arc transitions at the corners of electrode-plate grooves.
Accordingly, the combination renders obvious a notch having the same length as the tab slot and an arc-shaped surface formed at the side face of the current collector.
Regarding claim 6, Guo and Han teach all limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Guo teaches that the notch length may be as much as 1.2 times the length of the tab-receiving groove, expressly teaching embodiments in which the notch is longer than the tab slot. Where the notch extends beyond the longitudinal extent of the tab-receiving groove, the notch necessarily intersects portions of the electrode plate containing both the active-material membrane and the underlying current collector. Han teaches use of arc transitions at electrode-plate cutout corners.
It therefore would have been obvious to provide the arc-shaped transition at the side face formed by the membrane and current collector when Guo's notch extends beyond the tab-receiving groove, in order to obtain the known stress-reduction benefit taught by Han.
Regarding claim 7, Guo and Han teach all limitations of claim 6 as stated above. Guo teaches dimensional relationships between the tab, tab-receiving groove, and die-cut notch. Guo does not expressly disclose the claimed difference of 0.5 mm to 6 mm between notch length L2 and tab width Wt. The difference between the notch length and tab width is a result-effective dimensional variable affecting clearance, manufacturability, removal of burr-containing material, welding access, and preservation of active electrode area.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize this clearance through routine experimentation and to select a value within the claimed 0.5 mm to 6 mm range as a matter of ordinary engineering design.
Regarding claim 8, Guo and Han teach all limitations of claim 7 as stated above. Guo expressly teaches insulating adhesive tape associated with the electrode-tab receiving groove and electrode plate. Guo teaches, for example, first insulating adhesive tape T1 disposed at the cathode electrode-tab receiving groove and additional insulating tapes positioned over corresponding portions of the electrode plates (Fig. 3 and the discussion of insulating adhesive tapes T1-T4; claims 5-8).
Guo and Han are analogous in the field of battery electrode structures. It would have been obvious to extend Guo's insulating film over the tab slot and adjacent notch because both structures expose conductive portions and/or cut edges of the electrode plate, and covering the region with insulating material predictably prevents undesired electrical contact and short circuit while improving battery safety.
Regarding claim 9, Guo and Han teach all limitations of claim 8 as stated above. Guo teaches insulating adhesive tapes dimensioned to cover the relevant electrode structures but does not expressly disclose that the difference between insulating-film length L3 and notch length L2 is 0.5 mm to 10 mm. The amount by which an insulating film extends beyond the underlying notch is a result-effective variable affecting insulation coverage, tolerance to placement error, adhesive area, material usage, and electrode thickness.
It would have been obvious to optimize the overlap through routine experimentation and to select an overlap within the claimed range to ensure reliable coverage of the notch while avoiding unnecessary insulating material. No criticality or unexpected result for the claimed range has been established.
Claims 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Han and further in view of Kim et al. (WO 2019235749), hereinafter Kim.
Regarding claim 10, Guo and Han teach the claimed electrode plate for the reasons stated above regarding claim 1. Guo does not expressly teach the claimed electronic apparatus comprising a housing and a battery cell disposed in the housing. Kim teaches an electronic apparatus comprising a housing and a battery cell disposed in the housing.
Guo, Han, and Kim are analogous because each relates to batteries and the incorporation of battery cells into battery-powered structures or devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the battery cell employing the electrode plate taught by Guo as modified by Han into the electronic apparatus taught by Kim because rechargeable battery cells were conventionally used to supply electrical power to electronic apparatuses. The combination merely uses a known battery structure in its known environment to obtain the predictable result of powering an electronic device.
Regarding claim 11, Guo, Han, and Kim teach all limitations of claim 10 as stated above. Guo further teaches the relative electrode-plate geometry and positioning of the tab-receiving groove and notch for the reasons discussed regarding claim 2. Accordingly, claim 11 would have been obvious for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 12, Guo, Han, and Kim teach all limitations of claim 11 as stated above. Guo does not expressly disclose the claimed D0 range of 1 mm to 6 mm. For the reasons stated regarding claim 3, the distance is a result-effective variable that would have been routinely optimized according to electrode dimensions, tab placement, mechanical integrity, and manufacturing tolerances. Selection of a value within the claimed range would therefore have been obvious.
Regarding claim 13, Guo, Han, and Kim teach all limitations of claim 12 as stated above. For the reasons stated regarding claim 4, the width and length of the tab slot are result-effective dimensional variables selected according to tab size, welding requirements, electrode dimensions, and manufacturing considerations. It would have been obvious to select dimensions within the claimed 5 mm to 30 mm width range and 2 mm to 20 mm length range through routine optimization.
Regarding claim 14, Guo, Han, and Kim teach all limitations of claim 10 as stated above. Guo teaches a notch length of 0.9-1.2 times the tab-receiving groove length and therefore expressly encompasses a notch length equal to the tab-slot length. Han teaches an arc transition at electrode-plate groove corners. Accordingly, claim 14 would have been obvious for the reasons stated regarding claim 5.
Regarding claim 15, Guo, Han, and Kim teach all limitations of claim 10 as stated above. Guo expressly encompasses notch lengths greater than the tab-receiving groove length by teaching a notch-to-groove length ratio up to 1.2. Han teaches arc transitions for reducing stress at electrode-plate cutout corners. Accordingly, claim 15 would have been obvious for the reasons stated regarding claim 6.
Regarding claim 16, Guo, Han, and Kim teach all limitations of claim 15 as stated above. Guo does not expressly disclose the claimed 0.5 mm to 6 mm difference between notch length L2 and tab width Wt. For the reasons stated regarding claim 7, this difference represents an ordinary dimensional clearance and result-effective variable that would have been optimized based upon tab dimensions, manufacturing tolerance, welding access, and preservation of active electrode area. Selection of a difference within the claimed range therefore would have been obvious through routine experimentation.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Han and Kim.
Regarding claim 17, Guo, Han, and Kim teach all limitations of claim 16 as stated above. Guo expressly teaches insulating adhesive tapes associated with the electrode-tab receiving groove and electrode plate, including insulating tape T1 disposed at the electrode-tab receiving groove. Guo explains that the insulating tape prevents undesired electrical contact and internal short circuit.
It would have been obvious to extend the insulating film over both the tab slot and adjacent notch because the structures are contiguous regions of the electrode plate and because insulating the exposed and cut portions predictably reduces the risk of electrical short circuit.
Claims 20 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Han, and further in view of Liu et al. (US 20190198934), hereinafter Liu.
Regarding claim 20, Guo and Han teach all limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Guo teaches an active-substance membrane disposed on a current collector but does not expressly require the membrane to comprise silicon.
Liu teaches battery electrodes having an active layer disposed on a current collector and expressly teaches that the active material may comprise silicon, silicon nanoparticles, silicon-containing alloys, and combinations thereof. Liu further teaches use of such silicon-containing active layers in battery anodes.
Guo and the silicon-electrode reference are analogous because both concern active-material layers disposed on battery-electrode current collectors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ a known silicon-containing active material as Guo's active-material membrane when a silicon-based negative electrode was desired because silicon was a known high-capacity lithium-storage active material suitable for deposition in an active layer on a current collector. The substitution constitutes use of one known electrode active material for another according to its established function.
Regarding claim 23, Guo, Han, and Kim teach the electronic apparatus of claim 10 as stated above. The silicon-electrode reference teaches an active electrode layer comprising silicon disposed on a current collector. It would have been obvious to employ that known silicon-containing active material in the membrane of the electrode plate incorporated into Kim's electronic apparatus for the same reasons stated regarding claim 20.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Han.
Regarding claim 21, Guo and Han teach all limitations of claim 2 as stated above. Guo teaches positioning an electrode-tab receiving groove within an electrode plate and provides specific dimensions for electrode plates and tab-receiving grooves. Guo does not expressly disclose that the distance from the first edge to the edge of the tab slot adjacent the second side face ranges from 4.5 mm to 15 mm. The location of the tab slot relative to an electrode edge is a result-effective dimensional variable governed by the electrode dimensions, tab dimensions, required active-material area, mechanical strength of the remaining current collector, and manufacturing tolerances.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the spacing between the electrode edge and the tab slot through routine experimentation. Selection of a spacing within the broad claimed range of 4.5 mm to 15 mm represents an ordinary engineering choice absent evidence that the claimed range is critical or produces unexpected results.
Claims 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Han, and further in view of Kim.
Regarding claim 22, Guo and Han teach all limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Guo expressly teaches that its die-cut notch is disposed on the side edge of the electrode-tab receiving groove. Guo's tab-receiving groove is defined by the exposed current collector and the surrounding active-material layer, such that the notch is formed on the same side/region of the active-material membrane in which the tab-receiving groove is located. (Figs. 2-5 and claims 1-3, 9-10). Accordingly, Guo teaches or at least renders obvious that the notch is provided on a side face of the membrane on which the tab slot is located.
Regarding claim 24, Guo, Han, and Kim teach all limitations of claim 10 as stated above.
Guo further teaches or renders obvious that the notch is provided on the side face of the active-material membrane on which the electrode-tab receiving groove is located for the reasons stated regarding claim 22.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tamara Orduna whose telephone number is (571)431-1457. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/TAMARA ORDUNA/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights