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 § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 8-9, 11, 13, 17-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (CN-109980177-A; see English equivalent US-20200313186-A1 for citations).
Regarding Claims 1 and 13, Wang discloses an electronic device [0123-0124] as required by Claim 13 comprising an electrochemical device (battery cell; [0059, 0130]), comprising (the Examiner notes that the following limitations apply to both Claims 1 and 13):
a positive electrode (cathode; [0081, 0126, 0136, 0139-0140]),
the positive electrode comprising a positive electrode current collector (aluminum foil; [0126, 0140]).
Wang discloses that the positive electrode comprises a second cathode region / edge region [0081-0082, 0140]. The second cathode region / edge region reads on a protective coating since it is capable of alleviating accumulation of lithium ions from the cathode to the anode, thus reducing probability of lithium dendrites on the anode and enhancing the safety of the cell [0082]. Additionally, the second cathode region / edge region would inherently provide some degree of protection against physical impact to the positive electrode current collector. The protection coating (second cathode region / edge region) is directly disposed on a surface of one side of the positive electrode current collector towards a tab portion (see annotation of Wang Fig. 2, below; [0055]). Although some embodiments include the use of an undercoat layer [0094-0098], Wang discloses the undercoat layer as an optional layer [0094], and thus anticipates “directly” disposing the protective coating on the current collector.
Wang further discloses that the positive electrode comprises:
a positive electrode active material layer (first cathode region / body region; [0081, 0140]) directly disposed on a surface of at least one side of the positive electrode current collector (see Wang Fig. 2); wherein
the protective coating comprises a first active material (Table 1; [0089, 0140]), and
the positive electrode active material layer comprises a second active material (Table 1; [0089, 0140]).
PNG
media_image1.png
356
1085
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Wang Fig. 2.
Regarding Claims 5-6 and 17-18, Wang anticipates all of the limitations as set forth above. Wang further discloses that the protective coating comprises a conductive agent (Super-P) and a binder (PVDF) [0136]. The ratio of the first active material to the conductive agent to the binder is 97% : 1.5% : 1.5% [0136, 0140], which falls within the claimed range of (85% to 99%) : (greater than 0% and less than or equal to 10%) : (1% to 12%) recited in Claims 5 and 17. The use of Super-P, a well-known form of conductive carbon black, and PVDF reads on the recited limitations of Claims 6 and 18, wherein the conductive agent comprises conductive carbon black (i.e. Super-P) and the binder comprises polyvinylidene fluoride (i.e. PVDF).
Regarding Claims 8 and 20, Wang anticipates all of the limitations as set forth above. Wang further discloses that the width of the protective coating is 10 mm [0140], which is within the claimed range of “greater than or equal to 0.5 mm, and less than or equal to 10 mm”.
Regarding Claim 9, Wang anticipates all of the limitations as set forth above. Wang further discloses a specific example (Embodiment 5) wherein the first active material is selected to be LiFePO4 (Table 1), and is mixed with a conductive agent (Super-P) and binder at a weight ratio of 97% : 1.5% : 1.5% [0136, 0140].
Therefore, although Wang does not explicitly disclose the resistance of the protective coating in a full charge state, it is understood by the Examiner that the protective coating disclosed would inherently have a resistance of “greater than or equal to 30 Ω” in a full charge state of the electrochemical device, as evidenced by the instant specification (MPEP 2112.01) which demonstrates that the resistance of the protective coating depends on the identity of the active material [instant specification: 0028, 0064, 0078] and the content of conductive agent [instant specification: 0024]. When the active material is selected to be lithium iron phosphate, and the content of the conductive agent falls within the range of 0% to 10% (see instant specification: Table 3; Embodiments 32-37, 39, 41-56), the protective coating inherently has a resistance of greater than or equal to 30 Ω [instant specification: 0024, 0028, 0064, 0073, 0078] (MPEP 2112.01).
Regarding Claim 11, Wang anticipates all of the limitations as set forth above, including that the protective coating is adjacent to or partially coincident with the positive electrode active material layer (see Wang, Fig. 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 2-4, 10, 12 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN-109980177-A; see English equivalent US-20200313186-A1 for citations).
Regarding Claims 2 and 14, Wang anticipates all of the limitations as set forth above. Wang does not explicitly disclose that “m1xq1xl1 ≤ 90%xm2xq2xl2”. However, Wang discloses the following in regards to each of the claimed variables:
In regards to the variable “m”, the Examiner notes that the coating weight per unit area (i.e. m1 and m2) will necessarily depend on at least the thickness of the protective coating. Wang discloses that the thickness of the protective coating can be reduced in comparison to the thickness of the positive electrode active material layer [0008, 0022, 0060, 0081]. A smaller thickness results in less coating per unit area (i.e. m1<m2). Therefore, Wang necessarily possesses m1 and m2 values which enable the claimed relationship.
In regards to the variable “q”, Wang generally discloses that the first active material and second active material can be selected from a list of compounds which include materials such as lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4) and lithium cobalt oxide (LiCoO2) [0085]. Accordingly, although not disclosed in a specific example, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to have selected the first active material to be LiFePO4 and to have selected the second active material to be LiCoO2 with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would have resulted in a successful positive electrode. As such, Wang renders obvious q1 and q2 values wherein q1<q2, since these materials are indicated in the instant specification as being suitable for use as the first and second active material, respectively [instant specification: 0012, 0019, 0021].
In regards to the variable “l”, Wang generally discloses that the mass content of the first active material in the protective coating is 97 wt%, and the mass content of the second active material in the positive electrode active material layer is also 97 wt% [0136, 0140]. Therefore, Wang necessarily possesses l1 and l2 values which enable the claimed relationship, since these mass contents are within contents (i.e. 85%-99%) of the first and second active materials within their respective layers which the instant specification evidences as enabling the claimed relationship [instant specification: 0006, 0020].
Therefore, although Wang does not explicitly disclose the claimed relationship “m1xq1xl1 ≤ 90%xm2xq2xl2”, the inherent relationship of “m1xq1xl1 ≤ xm2xq2xl2” rendered obvious by Wang necessarily closely encompasses the scope of the claim, as set forth above. Coupled with Wang’s disclosure that the protective coating is designed to deintercalate lithium ions slower than the cathode body region [0082], as well as Wang’s disclosure of variables including thicknesses of each region, active materials, and active material contents, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to have arrived within the encompassed portion of the range by way of routine experimentation of the variables which control the claimed m1 and m2; q1 and q2; l1 and l2; etc. as discussed above, with a reasonable expectation of success in doing so (MPEP 2144.05, I and II).
Regarding Claims 3 and 15, Wang renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth, above. Wang further discloses a specific embodiment wherein the mass content of the first active material (l1) in the protective coating is 97%, and the mass content of the second active material (l2) in the positive electrode active material layer is 97% (Embodiment 1; [0136, 0140]). Therefore, both l1 and l2 are within the claimed ranges of 85% ≤ l1 ≤ 99% and 85% ≤ l2 ≤ 99%.
Regarding Claims 4 and 16, Wang anticipates all of the limitations as set forth above. In example embodiments (e.g. Embodiment 1), Wang discloses the use of a ternary material as the second active material and LiCoO2 as the first active material [0136, 0140]. However, Wang does not limit the active materials, and further teaches LiFePO4 as an alternative active material (see Embodiment 5, Table 1; [0085]). Wang further discloses that an object of the invention is to ensure that the kinetic performance of the edge region is weakened compared to the kinetic performance of the body region [0039, 0081-0084, 0090-0092, 0145]. Although one method to achieve this effect includes selecting particular active materials for each region, other ways of achieving this effect include altering the active material’s crystal structure or particle diameter, including a carbon coating, including different contents of conductive agents, or including a carbon undercoat layer [0083, 0089, 0145, 0147]. Although Wang does not teach a specific embodiment wherein the first active material is selected from a group comprising ferrous lithium phosphate and the second active material is selected from a group comprising lithium cobalt oxide, Wang generally discloses that the first active material and second active material can be selected from a group of materials which include ferrous lithium phosphate (i.e. LiFePO4) and lithium cobalt oxide (i.e. LiCoO2) (Table 1; [0085]).
Therefore, although not disclosed in a specific embodiment, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the first active material to comprise LiFePO4 and the second active material to comprise LiCoO2, with a reasonable expectation that such a selection would result in a successful positive electrode. The Examiner notes that other properties (crystal structure, particle diameter, etc.) can be altered in order to ensure that the kinetic performance of the edge region is weakened compared to the kinetic performance of the body region.
Regarding Claim 10, Wang anticipates all of the limitations as set forth above. Wang discloses that the Dv50 of the first active material may be in a range of about 2 µm to about 40 µm [0084]. In a specific embodiment (Embodiment 5), the Dv50 of the first starting material is 2 µm (Table 1). Wang discloses that the Dv50 of the first active material can be selected to be larger than the Dv50 of the second active material in order to weaken the kinetic performance of the edge region [0084].
Therefore, although Wang does not specifically disclose “wherein a Dv50 of the first active material is less than or equal to 5 µm, and a Dv99 of the first active material is less than or equal to 10 µm”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the Dv50 of the first active material to be 2 µm and to have selected the Dv99 of the first active material to be less than or equal to 10 µm with a reasonable expectation that such a particle size would result in a successful first active material for use in an positive electrode (MPEP 2144.05, I).
Regarding Claim 12, Wang anticipates all of the limitations as set forth above. Wang discloses that the electrochemical device further comprises:
a negative electrode [0127, 0134];
the negative electrode comprises a negative electrode current collector and a negative electrode active material layer located on at least a part of a surface of the negative electrode current collector [0127, 0134].
Wang discloses that the electrochemical device can be formed in a stacked structure [0130]. Therefore, although Wang does not explicitly disclose the location of an orthographic projection of the protective coating on the negative electrode, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have positioned the stacked structure such that “an orthographic projection of the protective coating on the negative electrode active material layer partially or wholly falls on the negative electrode active material layer” with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful electrochemical device.
Claim(s) 7 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN-109980177-A; see English equivalent US-20200313186-A1 for citations) as applied to Claims 1 and 13 above, and in view of Liu et al. (CN-111916664-A; see also English translation provided 05/01/2026 for citations).
Regarding Claims 7 and 19, Wang anticipates all of the limitations as set forth above. Wang discloses that an object of the invention is to reduce the possibility of an electrochemical short circuit and to enhance the safety of a cell [0039]. Wang does not teach the porosity of the protective coating.
Liu teaches an electrode which can prevent a short circuit when a battery is impacted [0007, 0010-0011, 0028, 0030]. The electrode includes a protective layer (reads on protective coating) [0010-0011, 0030]. Liu teaches that the porosity of the protective layer is 12% to 30%, preferably 14% to 22% [0021, 0049]. Advantageously, the pores accommodate electrolyte, which improves diffusion of the electrolyte between particles, thereby improving cycle performance of the cell, reducing capacity loss the battery, and reducing the energy density loss of the lithium-ion battery [0049].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the porosity of the protective coating of Wang to be 14% to 22%, as taught by Liu, with a reasonable expectation that such a porosity would result in a successful protective coating for use in a positive electrode. This range overlaps the claimed range of 15% to 50%. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected any portion of the range disclosed in the prior art, including the overlapping portion of the range, with a reasonable expectation that such a porosity would result in a successful electrochemical device with improved cycle performance, reduced capacity loss, and reduced energy density loss (MPEP 2144.05, I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/24/2026 have been carefully considered, but are moot because the new grounds of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejections of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 DREW C NEWMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9873. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 10:00 AM - 6:00 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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1292. 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.
/D.C.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights