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 § 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9-14 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murai (US 20200075920 A1) in view of Miyamoto et al. (US 20040202928 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Murai discloses electrochemical device (para 1, “energy storage device”), comprising an electrode plate (para 27, “electrode 10”; fig.1), wherein the electrode plate comprises: a first current collector (para 27, “electrode substrate 11”; fig.1); a first tab protruding from the first current collector (para 27, “a tab 15”; fig.1); a first active material layer disposed on at least one surface of the first current collector (para 27, “an electrode mixture layer 12”; fig.1); and an insulation layer disposed along a side edge of the first current collector towards the first tab and abutted against the first active material layer (para 27, “insulating layer 13”; fig.1); wherein the insulation layer comprises a first region and a second region, the first region is disposed towards the first tab, the second region is disposed away from the first tab and abutted against the first active material layer, and a thickness of the first region of the insulation layer is less than a thickness of the second region of the insulation layer (fig. 1-3, see annotated fig.1 below) wherein the second region is disposed between the first region and the first active material layer and is abutted against the first region and the first active material layer (fig. 1-3, see annotated fig.1 below). Murai discloses the first active material layer (electrode mixture layer 12) has an optimum thickness (thickness L) ranging from 1 μm
PNG
media_image1.png
272
595
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 1: Annotated figure 3 from Murai)]to and 100 μm (para 38).
Murai fails to explicitly disclose second region has thickness of H, and the thickness H of the second region and a thickness L of the first active material layer satisfy a following relationship: 0.3 ≤ H/L ≤ 0.8.
Miyamoto discloses second region has a thickness of H (fig. 5A) where H is “equal to or greater than 10 μm to equal to or less than 200 μm" (para 56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the thicknesses disclosed by Murai and Miyamoto such that the ratio H/L falls within the claimed range. The combined teachings of Murai and Miyamoto includes values that would inherently satisfy the claimed ratio. For example, selecting the thickness L of 70 (within range disclosed by Murai) and the thickness H of 50 (within range disclosed by Miyamoto), results in ratio H/L of approximately 0.71, which falls within the claimed range of 0.3 to 0.8.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to optimize the relative thicknesses of the first active material layer and second region as both thicknesses are result effective variables. Varying the thicknesses of can “effectively prevent electrically conductive micro particles from causing internal short circuits" (Miyamoto; para 29). A skilled artisan would have selected values within these known ranges to arrive at claimed ratio through routine experimentation which would have yielded only the predictable results.
Regarding claim 2 and 11, Murai discloses the first region comprises a first surface (fig. 3; see annotated figure above). Murai does not explicitly disclose a plane where the first surface is located intersects a plane where the first current collector is located to form an acute angle α, and the insulation layer has a width of W, wherein W/H ≥ cot α.
Miyamoto, drawn also to the battery art, discloses the insulation layer (44) having a first region forming an acute angle (α) and a second region which abuts the active material layer (42). A height (H) of the second region and a width (W) of the insulation layer form two sides of a triangle which includes the acute angle (α) (fig. 5A, see annotated fig.2 below). By definition, the cotangent of α is equal to W/H, which satisfies the claim. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the energy storage device of Murai such that the first surface is located intersects a plane where the first current collector is located to form an acute angle α, and the insulation layer has a width of W, wherein W/H ≥ cot α. as taught by Miyamoto as doing such ensures there is “no gap between the insulating layer and the active material mixture layer and a part of the metallic [AltContent: textbox (Figure 2: Annotated Figure 5A from Miyamoto)]
PNG
media_image2.png
279
426
media_image2.png
Greyscale
collector between two adjacent insulating layers is exposed” (para 33).
Regarding claim 3 and 12, Murai fails to disclose the acute angle α. Miyamoto discloses the acute angle α (fig. 5A, see annotated fig. 2 above). Although Murai and Miyamoto do not expressly disclose the acute angle α ranges from 5 degree to 75 degree, Miyamoto discloses the tapered insulation at the edge of the electrode (fig. 5A). Miyamoto also discloses the thickness of the insulation layer can be varied (para 56). The acute angle α is a function of the dimensions of tapered edge. Varying the height (thickness of the insulation layer) results in a variation of angle α. The angle α is a result effective variable.
A skilled artisan would have found it obvious, in view Miyamoto, to optimize the thickness of the insulation layer, and therefore angle α, through routine experimentation to achieve an insulation layer that “can effectively prevent electrically conductive micro particles from causing internal short circuits” (para 21). The MPEP notes that finding workable or optimum ranges for an art recognized result effective variable generally do not amount a patentable distinction (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 4 and 13, Murai discloses the thickness of insulation layer (T2, fig.3). Murai fails to disclose thickness H of the second region ranges from 20 μm to 100 μm, and the width W of the insulation layer ranges from 1 mm to 10 mm.
Miyamoto discloses thickness of insulating layer ranging from equal to or greater than 10 μm to equal to or less than 200 μm (para 56). The range disclosed by Miyamoto overlaps with instant application’s range of 20 μm to 100 μm. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the thickness of the insulation layer in energy storage device of Murai as taught by Miyamoto as doing such “can effectively prevent electrically conductive micro particles from causing internal short circuits" (para 21).
Although Murai or Miyamoto fail expressly disclose the width W of the insulation layer ranges from 1 mm to 10 mm, Miyamoto discloses the width of the insulating layer should be predetermined “such that there is no gap between the insulating layer and the active material mixture layer” (para 33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for the width to between 1 mm to 10 mm, as one would have achieved such by performing routine experimenting to achieve only the expected results. MPEP 2144.05
Regarding claim 5 and 14, Murai discloses the thickness of the electrode mixture layer 12 (thickness L) ranges from 1 μm to 100 μm (para 38). The range disclosed by Murai overlaps with instant application’s range of 30 μm to 200 μm. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the thickness of the active material layer in energy storage device of Murai as taught by Miyamoto as varying the thickness is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art absent criticality demonstrated by the applicant (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 9, Murai discloses the insulation layer comprises an inorganic particle and a binder (para 48); the inorganic particle comprises at least one of boehmite, aluminum oxide, zirconium oxide, boron oxide orhexagonal boron nitride (para 49), and the binder comprises at least one of polyvinylidene fluoride, a vinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene copolymer, polyamide, polyacrylonitrile, polyacrylate, polyacrylic acid, polyacrylate or sodium carboxymethylcellulose (para 50).
Regarding claim 10, Murai discloses electronic device (para 77), wherein the electronic device comprises an electrochemical device (para 1, “”energy storage device”), the electrochemical device comprises an electrode plate (para 27, “electrode 10”; fig.1), wherein the electrode plate comprises: a first current collector (para 27, “electrode substrate 11”; fig.1); a first tab protruding from the first current collector (para 27, “a tab 15”; fig.1); a first active material layer disposed on at least one surface of the first current collector (para 27, “an electrode mixture layer 12”; fig.1); and an insulation layer disposed along a side edge of the first current collector towards the first tab and abutted against the first active material layer (para 27, “insulating layer 13”; fig.1); wherein the insulation layer comprises a first region and a second region, the first region is disposed towards the first tab, the second region is disposed away from the first tab and abutted against the first active material layer, and a thickness of the first region of the insulation layer is less than a thickness of the second region of the insulation layer (fig. 1-3, see annotated fig.1 above) ) wherein the second region is disposed between the first region and the first active material layer and is abutted against the first region and the first active material layer (fig. 1-3, see annotated fig.1 above). Murai discloses the first active material layer (electrode mixture layer 12) has an optimum thickness (thickness L) ranging from 1 μm to and 100 μm (para 38).
Murai fails to explicitly disclose second region has thickness of H, and the thickness H of the second region and a thickness L of the first active material layer satisfy a following relationship: 0.3 ≤ H/L ≤ 0.8.
Miyamoto discloses second region has a thickness of H (fig. 5A) where H is “equal to or greater than 10 μm to equal to or less than 200 μm" (para 56). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the thicknesses disclosed by Murai and Miyamoto such that the ratio H/L falls within the claimed range. The combined teachings of Murai and Miyamoto includes values that would inherently satisfy the claimed ratio. For example, selecting the thickness L of 70 (within range disclosed by Murai) and the thickness H of 50 (within range disclosed by Miyamoto), results in ratio H/L of approximately 0.71, which falls within the claimed range of 0.3 to 0.8.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to optimize the relative thicknesses of the first active material layer and second region as both thicknesses are result effective variables. Varying the thicknesses of can “effectively prevent electrically conductive micro particles from causing internal short circuits" (Miyamoto; para 29). A skilled artisan would have selected values within these known ranges to arrive at claimed ratio through routine experimentation which would have yielded only the predictable results.
Regarding claim 18, Murai discloses the insulation layer comprises an inorganic particle and a binder (para 48); the inorganic particle comprises at least one of boehmite, aluminum oxide, zirconium oxide, boron oxide orhexagonal boron nitride (para 49), and the binder comprises at least one of polyvinylidene fluoride, a vinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene copolymer, polyamide, polyacrylonitrile, polyacrylate, polyacrylic acid, polyacrylate or sodium carboxymethylcellulose (para 50).
Claim(s) 7-8 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murai (US 20200075920 A1) and Miyamoto et al. (US 20040202928 A1), as applied to claim 1 and 10 above, in view of Wei et al. (CN109638212A, see machine translation of record).
Regarding claim 7 and 16, Murai discloses first active material layer (para 27). Murai fails to disclose the first active material layer has a coating weight ranging from 0.06 mg/mm2 to 0.35 mg/mm2.
Wei, also drawn to lithium-ion battery art, discloses the “positive electrode active material has a coating weight of 10 to 30 mg/cm2” which corresponds to 0.1 to 0.3 mg/mm2 (para 15). Wei teaches that coating weight is areal density: higher density increases capacity but excessive density increases impedance and polarization which reduces the performance (para 15). The range disclosed by Wei lies inside the range of 0.06 mg/mm2 to 0.35 mg/mm2 claimed in the instant application. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the coating weight through routine experimentation to achieve desired capacity and performance, absent evidence of critically or unexpected results.
Regarding claim 8 and 17, Murai discloses first active material layer (para 27). Murai fails to disclose the first active material layer has a compacted density ranging from 2 g/cc to 6 g/cc.
Wei discloses the positive electrode active material layer has a “compact density of 3.2 to 4.0 g/cm3“ which corresponds to 3.2 to 4.0 g/cc (para 14). Wei teaches that small compaction density decreases capacity and high compaction density decreases the charge and discharge performance (para 14). The range disclosed by Wei lies inside the range of 2 g/cc to 6 g/cc claimed in the instant application. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the compacted density through routine experimentation to achieve desired capacity and performance, absent evidence of critically or unexpected results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 7/09/2026, have been fully considered but they are either not persuasive or moot in light of the new grounds of rejection.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1,9,10 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. §102, the arguments are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection.
Regarding the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. §103 on page 9 of the Remarks, the applicant argues “even if Murai is relied on for a thickness of electrode mixture layer 12, Murai does not disclose or suggest the amended first-region/second-region arrangement and the claimed H/L relationship discussed above”. This argument is not persuasive. First, the claimed first region and second region are interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation. The claim does not prescribe a particular boundary, shape or lateral extent for the first region and second region within the insulating layer. Under the BRI, the terms “first region” and “second region” therefore encompass the respective portions of the disclosed insulating layer. Second, Murai is not relied upon for the claimed H/L relationship. The claimed H/L relationship is disclosed by Murai in in view of Miyamoto. Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
On page 10 of the Remarks, the applicant states “Miyamoto's insulating layer is described in relation to an uncoated portion of a metallic collector” and “Although Miyamoto's FIG. 5(A) shows insulating layer 44 having a slope shape and spreading over positive electrode active material mixture layer 42, Miyamoto explains that the portion spread over positive electrode active material mixture layer 42 is very thin”. This argument is not persuasive. The insulating layer described by Miyamoto is in relation to an uncoated portion of a metallic collector (tab). This discloses the claimed insulation layer is disposed towards the first tab. Additionally, the rejection relies on the claimed arrangement of the “insulating layer disposed along a side edge of the first current collector towards the first tab and abutted against the first active material layer”. The rejection is not relied on a requirement that a particular portion of the insulating layer extending over the active material layer have a particular thickness. As such, the disclosure that such portion is thin by Miyamoto does not distinguish the claimed arrangement.
The applicant subsequently asserts “Miyamoto does not identify a first region and a second region arranged such that the second region is disposed between a first region and an active material layer and is abutted against both the first region and the active material layer. Nor does Miyamoto define a thickness H of such a second region or disclose that the thickness H of the second region and a thickness L of the active material layer satisfy 0.3 ≤ H/L≤0.8”. This argument is not persuasive.
Miyamoto discloses an insulation layer having a sloped configuration abutted against the active material mixture layer (42) . A sloped configuration necessarily includes regions having different thickness along the slope. One such region may reasonably correspond to the claimed first region having thickness less than that of the second region and being abutted against second region. The claim also does not require that the reference expressly label or identify such portions as “first region” and “second region”. Additionally, Miyamoto discloses the insulating layer has thickness of 10-200 µm (para 56). Miyamoto is not relied upon for disclosing a thickness L of the active material layer or the relationship that satisfies 0.3 ≤ H/L≤0.8. The claimed H/L relationship is disclosed by Murai in in view of Miyamoto. Accordingly, the arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
On page 11 of the Remarks, the applicant states “Wei does not disclose or suggest the added second-region positioning/abutment language of amended independent claims 1 and 10, and does not disclose or suggest the claimed H/L relationship between the thickness H of the second region and the thickness L of the first active material layer”. This argument is not persuasive because it is not germane to the basis of the rejection. Wie is not relied upon to disclose second region positioning/abutment language or the claimed H/L relationship between the thickness H of the second region and the thickness L of the first active material layer. Applicant is reminded that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually and in a vacuum of each other as a rejection under 35 U.S.C.103 is a consideration relating to the combined teachings of the references (and not each reference in a vacuum of the others).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ARTI KHANAL whose telephone number is (571)272-8608. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00am-5pm.
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, Michael N Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1746
/MICHAEL N ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights