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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received August 24, 2026:
Claim 18 has been added as per Applicant’s request. Claims 1-18 are pending.
The previous 112 rejections have been withdrawn in light of the amendment.
The core of the previous prior art rejection is maintained. However, a new prior art rejection is relied upon to render obvious the newly cited claim limitations.
All changes to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment. Thus, the action is final.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed August 24, 2026 has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: having “the” before ‘two’ (line 9). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: not having the word “two” before ‘adjacent’ (line 2). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: using “the” before ‘third’ when ‘a’ should be used instead (line 2). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: having “the” before ‘two’ (line 17). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 5-13 are 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 5 reads ‘the positive electrode sheet’ (lines 1-2), wherein “a positive electrode sheet of the discrete positive electrode sheets” should be used instead (to align with antecedent basis with the amendment). It is unclear what the positive electrode sheet refers to, given the recitation of a plurality (in claim 1). Since claims 6-11 are dependent upon claim 5, they are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 12 reads ‘the positive electrode sheet’ (lines 2-3) wherein “the plurality of discrete electrode sheets” should be used instead (to align with antecedent basis with the amendment). It is unclear what the positive electrode sheet refers to, given the recitation of a plurality (in claim 1). Since claims 13 is dependent upon claim 12, it is rejected for the same reason.
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) 1-5, 8-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0344718 / CN 213340434 (Jin et al.) in view of JP 2007149349 (Atsumi et al.) (machine translation provided herein). (Note: For Jin et al., both references are applicable under different dates. The US version is being relied upon as the English translation for the CN document. Additionally, the machine translation provided with the June 5, 2026 Office Action is relied upon for Atsumi et al.)
As to claim 1, Jin et al. teach an electrode assembly (figs. 5, 12-17, 19-21), comprising a plurality of discrete positive electrode sheet (second electrode sheet [12]) and a negative electrode sheet (first electrode sheet [11]) (para 0064), each of the discrete positive electrode sheets comprising a positive electrode current collector and a positive electrode active material layer coated on a surface of the positive electrode current collector (para 0067), and the negative electrode sheet comprising a negative electrode current collector (electricity-conducting layer [11b]) and a negative electrode active material layer (active material layer [11c]) coated on a surface of the negative electrode current collector (para 0065), wherein
the negative electrode sheet is continuously bent and comprises a plurality of laminated segments arranged in a laminated manner (thin, stacked layers) and a plurality of bent segments, each of the plurality of bent segments being used to connect the two adjacent laminated segments; the plurality of discrete positive electrode sheets are alternately laminated with the plurality of laminated segments in a first direction, each of the plurality of laminated segments being disposed between the two adjacent discrete positive electrode sheets (up and down) (figs. 5, 12-17, 19-21);
each of the plurality of bent segments is connected to an end of the laminated segment in a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction; in the second direction, the positive electrodes do not extend beyond one of the plurality of bent segments adjacent thereto (left to right) (figs. 5, 12-17, 19-21).
Jin et al. do not teach an outermost electrode sheet is one of the plurality of discrete positive electrode sheets, which is an outermost positive electrode sheet is configured as a unilateral electrode, the unilateral electrode having the positive electrode active material layer coated on an inner side, but not on an outer side, of the positive electrode current collector of the unilateral electrode.
However, Atsumi et al. teach of using a discrete outermost electrode sheet configured as a unilateral electrode, the unilateral electrode having the active material layer coated on an inner side, but not on an outer side, of the current collector (electrode [1] of fig. 1; fig. 3; para 0006). The motivation for making the outermost discrete electrode sheet a unilateral electrode, the unilateral electrode having the active material layer coated on an inner side, but not on an outer side, of the current collector is to remove a layer that does not participate in battery capacity and to reduce cost and thickness of the battery (para 0004, 0011). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to make the outermost discrete electrode sheet a unilateral electrode, the unilateral electrode having the active material layer coated on an inner side, but not on an outer side, of the current collector is to remove a layer that does not participate in battery capacity and to reduce cost and thickness of the battery.
(Note: The combination would yield the relationship of the substituted unilateral electrode having the same relationship regarding the bent segment.
Note: Although Atsumi et al. is drawn to the negative electrode, the teaching is still applicable to the outermost positive electrode of Jin et al. for the same reasons, as it has to do with the structure of the stack, and would have the same effect.)
As to claim 2, the combination renders the limitation obvious, as Jin et al. teach that the outermost positive electrode does not extend in the second direction beyond an end of the laminated segment adjacent thereto that faces away from the one of the plurality of the bent segments (left to right) (figs. 5, 12-17, 19-21). The unilateral electrode is rendered obvious by Atsumi et al.; see the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake.
As to claim 3, the combination renders the limitation obvious, as Jin et al. teach the outermost positive electrode does not extend in the second direction beyond an end of the laminated segment adjacent thereto that faces the one of the plurality of bent segments (left to right) (figs. 5, 12-17, 19-21). The unilateral electrode is rendered obvious by Atsumi et al.; see the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake.
As to claim 4, although Jin et al. do not specifically show a third direction, and thus do not show that in a third direction that is perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction, both ends of the laminated segment extend beyond the positive electrode active material layer of the unilateral electrode, this limitation would be obvious. Specifically, the structure is meant to help stacking and prevent deviation of the electrodes from one another that could effect battery performance and lithium deposition (para 0004-0006). The motivation for having a third direction that is perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction, two opposing ends of the laminated segment extend beyond the positive electrode active material layer of the unilateral electrode is to prevent electrode deviation, lithium dendrite formation, and bad battery performance (as if this were not the case, the positive electrode would extend past the separators, which would lead short-circuiting and thus a decrease in battery performance. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have a third direction that is perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction, both ends of the laminated segment extend beyond the positive electrode active material layer of the unilateral electrode in order to prevent electrode deviation, lithium dendrite formation, and bad battery performance (as if this were not the case, the positive electrode would extend past the separators, which would lead short-circuiting and thus a decrease in battery performance).
As to claim 5, Jin et al. teach the positive electrode sheet disposed between the adjacent laminated segments is configured as a bilateral electrode, the bilateral electrode having the positive electrode active material layer coated on two opposing sides of the positive electrode current collector of the bilateral electrode (figs. 5, 12-17, 19-21; para 0067 (symmetrical electrode)).
As to claim 8, Jin et al. do not teach a thickness of the positive electrode current collector of the unilateral electrode is greater than a thickness of the positive electrode current collector of the bilateral electrode.
However, Atsumi et al. renders the limitation obvious, as Atsumi et al. teach that the outermost negative electrode (unilateral electrode) should have a thicker current collector than the other electrodes (bilateral electrodes) (para 0017). The motivation for having the thickness of the positive electrode current collector of the unilateral electrode be greater than a thickness of the positive electrode current collector of the bilateral electrode is to avoid problems during the compression process (para 0017). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have a thickness of the positive electrode current collector of the unilateral electrode is greater than a thickness of the positive electrode current collector of the bilateral electrode in order to avoid problems during the compression process.
(Note: Although Atsumi et al. is drawn to the negative electrode, the teaching is still applicable to the outermost positive electrode of Jin et al. for the same reasons, as it has to do with the structure of the stack, and would have the same effect.)
As to claim 9, Jin et al. do not teach a compaction density of the positive electrode active material layer of the unilateral electrode is less than a compaction density of the positive electrode active material layer of the bilateral electrode.
However, Atsumi et al. sets forth that the compression (compaction) applied to the electrodes is done to improve packing density (para 0017). Thus, compression/compaction density of the active material layers (unilateral and bilateral) is/are result effective variable(s), as it effects packing density. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a compaction density of the positive electrode active material layer of the unilateral electrode is less than a compaction density of the positive electrode active material layer of the bilateral electrode, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It has been held that discovering that general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller,105 USPQ 233. Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). Also, see MPEP §2144.05(II)(B).
As to claim 10, Jin et al. do not teach a weight per unit area of the positive electrode active material layer of the unilateral electrode is less than a weight per unit area of the positive electrode active material layer of the bilateral electrode.
However, Atsumi et al. sets forth that the compression (which would affect the weight per unit area of the electrodes) applied to the electrodes is done to improve packing density (para 0017). Thus, compression/compaction density of the active material layers (unilateral and bilateral) is/are result effective variable(s), as it effects packing density. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a weight per unit area of the positive electrode active material layer of the unilateral electrode is less than a weight per unit area of the positive electrode active material layer of the bilateral electrode, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It has been held that discovering that general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller,105 USPQ 233. Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). Also, see MPEP §2144.05(II)(B).
As to claim 11, the combination renders the limitation obvious, as Atsumi et al., relied upon to render obvious a unilateral electrode and bilateral electrode teaches a thickness of the positive electrode active material layer of the unilateral electrode is greater than a thickness of the positive electrode material layer of the bilateral electrode (70 µm for the outermost electrode (unilateral electrode) versus 10 µm for the other electrodes (bilateral electrode) (para 0023). See the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake.
(Note: Although Atsumi et al. is drawn to the negative electrode, the teaching is still applicable to the outermost positive electrode of Jin et al. for the same reasons, as it has to do with the structure of the stack, and would have the same effect.)
As to claim 12, Jin et al. teach a first separator and a second separator [13], which are used for insulating and separating the positive electrode sheet from the negative electrode sheet, wherein
the first separator (one of [13]) comprises a plurality of first separator segments arranged in the first direction, at least one of the plurality of first separator segments being disposed at an outer side of the outermost positive electrode (fig. 5).
(Note: The combination with Atsumi et al. renders obvious that the outermost positive electrode is the unilateral electrode. See the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake.)
As to claim 13, Jin et al. teach the second separator (the other [13] comprises a plurality of second separator segments arranged in the first direction, at least one of the plurality of second separator segments being disposed at an outer side of the outermost electrode positive electrode (fig. 5).
(Note: The combination with Atsumi et al. renders obvious that the outermost positive electrode is the unilateral electrode. See the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake.)
As to claim 14, Jin et al. teach a battery cell, comprising: the electrode assembly according to claim 1 (set forth in the rejection to claim 1, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake); and a shell (housing [20]) for housing the electrode assembly (fig. 4; para 0058).
As to claim 15, Jin et al. teach a battery, comprising a plurality of the battery cells according to claim 14 (set forth in the rejection to claim 14, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake) (figs. 2-3; para 0055-0057).
As to claim 16, Jin et al. teach an electrical device (e.g. vehicle), comprising the battery according to claim 15 (set forth in the rejection to claim 15, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake), the battery being used for providing electrical energy (fig. 1; para 0053-0054).
As to claim 17, Jin et al. teach a method of manufacturing an electrode assembly (figs. 5, 12-17, 19-21), the method comprising:
providing a plurality of discrete positive electrode sheets (second electrode sheet [12]) and a negative electrode sheet (first electrode sheet [11]) (para 0064), each of the plurality of discrete positive electrode sheets comprising a positive electrode current collector and a positive electrode active material layer coated on a surface of the positive electrode current collector (para 0067);
providing a negative electrode current collector (electricity-conducting layer [11b]) and a negative electrode active material layer (active material layer [11c]) coated on a surface of the negative electrode current collector (para 0065),
continuously bending the negative electrode sheet and assembling the bend negative electrode sheet with a plurality of the positive electrode sheets (figs. 5, 8-17, 19-21; para 0062, 0068-0084),
wherein the negative electrode sheet comprises a plurality of laminated segments arranged in a laminated manner (thin, stacked layers) and a plurality of bent segments, each of the plurality of bent segments being used to connect the two adjacent laminated segments; the plurality of the discrete positive electrode sheets are alternately laminated with the plurality of laminated segments in a first direction, each of the plurality of laminated segments being disposed between the two adjacent discrete positive electrode sheets (up and down) (figs. 5, 12-17, 19-21);
the bent segment is connected to an end of the laminated segment in a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction; in the second direction, the positive electrodes do not extend beyond the bent segment adjacent thereto (left to right) (figs. 5, 12-17, 19-21).
Jin et al. do not teach an outermost electrode sheet is one of the plurality of discrete positive electrode sheets, which is an outermost positive electrode sheet is configured as a unilateral electrode, the unilateral electrode having the positive electrode active material layer coated on an inner side, but not on an outer side, of the positive electrode current collector of the unilateral electrode.
However, Atsumi et al. teach of using a discrete outermost electrode sheet configured as a unilateral electrode, the unilateral electrode having the active material layer coated on an inner side, but not on an outer side, of the current collector (electrode [1] of fig. 1; fig. 3; para 0006). The motivation for making the outermost discrete electrode sheet a unilateral electrode, the unilateral electrode having the active material layer coated on an inner side, but not on an outer side, of the current collector is to remove a layer that does not participate in battery capacity and to reduce cost and thickness of the battery (para 0004, 0011). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to make the outermost discrete electrode sheet a unilateral electrode, the unilateral electrode having the active material layer coated on an inner side, but not on an outer side, of the current collector is to remove a layer that does not participate in battery capacity and to reduce cost and thickness of the battery.
(Note: The combination would yield the relationship of the substituted unilateral electrode having the same relationship regarding the bent segment.
Note: Although Atsumi et al. is drawn to the negative electrode, the teaching is still applicable to the outermost positive electrode of Jin et al. for the same reasons, as it has to do with the structure of the stack, and would have the same effect.)
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. in view of Atsumi et al, as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, further in view of WO 2018-180599 (Kawai et al.) (machine translation provided with the June 6, 2026 Office Action).
As to claim 6, Jin et al. in view of Atsumi et al. do not teach a dimension of the unilateral electrode in the second direction is less than a dimension of the bilateral electrode in the second direction.
However Kawai et al. teach a dimension of the bilateral electrode in the second direction (left to right) (figs. 1-2). The motivation for having a dimension of the bilateral electrode in the second direction is to prevent warping and separation from the separator (due to different elongation) (para 0007-0012, 0040-0050, 0055-0061). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have a dimension of the bilateral electrode in the second direction is to prevent warping and separation from the separator (due to different elongation).
As to claim 7, Jin et al. in view of Atsumi et al. do not teach a dimension of the unilateral electrode in the third direction is less than a dimension of the bilateral electrode in the third direction, the third direction being perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction.
However Kawai et al. teach a dimension of the bilateral electrode in the second direction (left to right) (figs. 1-2). The motivation for having a dimension of the bilateral electrode in the second direction is to prevent warping and separation from the separator (due to different elongation) (para 0007-0012, 0040-0050, 0055-0061). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications).
Although the third dimension is not shown, substituting the aforementioned dimensional relationship between the unilateral electrode and the bilateral electrode in the second dimension with having the relationship in the third dimension would yield the predictable result of providing the same result of warping prevention, as the substituted components and their functions were known (prevent warping via dimensions). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to substitute a dimension of the unilateral electrode in the third direction is less than a dimension of the bilateral electrode in the third direction, the third direction being perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction for a dimension of the unilateral electrode in the second direction is less than a dimension of the bilateral electrode in the second direction, as the substitution components and their functions were known (prevent warping via dimensions, as this would be a result regardless of the dimension providing the limitation). “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. in view of Atsumi et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2009/0029259 (Okazai et al.).
As to claim 18, Jin et al. in view of Atsumi et al. do not teach wherein a part of a separator of the electrode assembly is disposed at an outer side of the unilateral electrode.
However, Okazaki et al. teach the disposal of a separator [7] of the electrode assembly is disposed at an outer side of the unilateral electrode (electrode plate [18, 19]) (figs. 1, 22, 23). The motivation for having a part of a separator of the electrode assembly is disposed at an outer side of the unilateral electrode is to hold the electrode for alignment as well as preventing short circuiting (para 0012, 0049, 0058). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) for having a part of a separator of the electrode assembly disposed at an outer side of the unilateral electrode in order to hold the electrode for alignment as well as preventing short circuiting.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0407118 (Wang et al.) in view of JP 2007149349 (Atsumi et al.). (The machine translation provided with the June 5, 2026 Office Action is relied upon for Atsumi et al)
As to claim 1, Wang et al. teach an electrode assembly (figs. 6, 7, 17-18), comprising a plurality of discrete positive electrode sheets and a negative electrode sheet (first electrode plate [51], second electrode plate [52] (para 0071),each of the discrete positive electrode sheets comprising a positive electrode current collector and a positive electrode active material layer coated on a surface of the positive electrode current collector, and the negative electrode sheet comprising a negative electrode current collector and a negative electrode active material layer (active material layer [11c]) coated on a surface of the negative electrode current collector (para 0072-0074), wherein
the negative electrode sheet is continuously bent and comprises a plurality of laminated segments arranged in a laminated manner (thin, stacked layers) and a plurality of bent segments, each of the plurality of bent segments being used to connect the two adjacent laminated segments; the plurality of discrete positive electrode sheets are alternately laminated with the plurality of laminated segments in a first direction, each of the plurality of laminated segments being disposed between the two adjacent positive electrode sheets (up and down) (figs. 6, 7, 17-18);
each of the plurality of bent segments is connected to an end of the laminated segment in a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction; in the second direction, the positive electrodes do not extend beyond one of the plurality of bent segments adjacent thereto (left to right) (figs. 6, 7, 17-18).
Wang et al. do not teach an outermost electrode sheet is one of the plurality of discrete positive electrode sheets, which is an outermost positive electrode sheet configured as a unilateral electrode, the unilateral electrode having the positive electrode active material layer coated on an inner side, but not on an outer side, of the positive electrode current collector of the unilateral electrode.
However, Atsumi et al. teach of using a discrete outermost electrode sheet configured as a unilateral electrode, the unilateral electrode having the active material layer coated on an inner side, but not on an outer side, of the current collector (electrode [1] of fig. 1; fig. 3; para 0006). The motivation for making the discrete outermost electrode sheet a unilateral electrode, the unilateral electrode having the active material layer coated on an inner side, but not on an outer side, of the current collector is to remove a layer that does not participate in battery capacity and to reduce cost and thickness of the battery (para 0004, 0011). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to make the discrete outermost electrode sheet a unilateral electrode, the unilateral electrode having the active material layer coated on an inner side, but not on an outer side, of the current collector is to remove a layer that does not participate in battery capacity and to reduce cost and thickness of the battery.
(Note: The combination would yield the relationship of the substituted unilateral electrode having the same relationship regarding the bent segment.
Note: Although Atsumi et al. is drawn to the negative electrode, the teaching is still applicable to the outermost positive electrode of Wang et al. for the same reasons, as it has to do with the structure of the stack, and would have the same effect.)
As to claim 2, the combination renders the limitation obvious, as Wang et al. teach that the outermost positive electrode does not extend in the second direction beyond an end of the laminated segment adjacent thereto that faces away from the one of the plurality of the bent segments (left to right) (figs. 6, 7, 17-18). The unilateral electrode is rendered obvious by Atsumi et al.; see the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake.
As to claim 3, the combination renders the limitation obvious, as Wang et al. teach the outermost positive electrode does not extend in the second direction beyond an end of the laminated segment adjacent thereto that faces the one of the plurality of bent segments (left to right) (figs. 6, 7, 17-18). The unilateral electrode is rendered obvious by Atsumi et al.; see the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake.
As to claim 4, although Wang et al. do not specifically show a third direction, and thus do not show that in a third direction that is perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction, both ends of the laminated segment extend beyond the positive electrode active material layer of the unilateral electrode, this limitation would be obvious. Specifically, the structure is meant to help stacking and prevent deviation of the electrodes from one another that could effect battery performance and lithium deposition (para 0004-0006). The motivation for having a third direction that is perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction, two opposing ends of the laminated segment extend beyond the positive electrode active material layer of the unilateral electrode is to prevent electrode deviation, lithium dendrite formation, and bad battery performance (as if this were not the case, the positive electrode would extend past the separators, which would lead short-circuiting and thus a decrease in battery performance. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have a third direction that is perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction, both ends of the laminated segment extend beyond the positive electrode active material layer of the unilateral electrode in order to prevent electrode deviation, lithium dendrite formation, and bad battery performance (as if this were not the case, the positive electrode would extend past the separators, which would lead short-circuiting and thus a decrease in battery performance).
As to claim 5, Wang et al. teach the positive electrode sheet disposed between the adjacent laminated segments is configured as a bilateral electrode, the bilateral electrode having the positive electrode active material layer coated on two opposing sides of the positive electrode current collector of the bilateral electrode (figs. 6, 7, 17-18; para 0055-0057, 0072-0074).
As to claim 8, Wang et al. do not teach a thickness of the positive electrode current collector of the unilateral electrode is greater than a thickness of the positive electrode current collector of the bilateral electrode.
However, Atsumi et al. renders the limitation obvious, as Atsumi et al. teach that the outermost negative electrode (unilateral electrode) should have a thicker current collector than the other electrodes (bilateral electrodes) (para 0017). The motivation for having the thickness of the positive electrode current collector of the unilateral electrode be greater than a thickness of the positive electrode current collector of the bilateral electrode is to avoid problems during the compression process (para 0017). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have a thickness of the positive electrode current collector of the unilateral electrode is greater than a thickness of the positive electrode current collector of the bilateral electrode in order to avoid problems during the compression process.
(Note: Although Atsumi et al. is drawn to the negative electrode, the teaching is still applicable to the outermost positive electrode of Wang et al. for the same reasons, as it has to do with the structure of the stack, and would have the same effect.)
As to claim 9, Wang et al. do not teach a compaction density of the positive electrode active material layer of the unilateral electrode is less than a compaction density of the positive electrode active material layer of the bilateral electrode.
However, Atsumi et al. sets forth that the compression (compaction) applied to the electrodes is done to improve packing density (para 0017). Thus, compression/compaction density of the active material layers (unilateral and bilateral) is/are result effective variable(s), as it effects packing density. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a compaction density of the positive electrode active material layer of the unilateral electrode is less than a compaction density of the positive electrode active material layer of the bilateral electrode, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It has been held that discovering that general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller,105 USPQ 233. Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). Also, see MPEP §2144.05(II)(B).
As to claim 10, Wang et al. do not teach a weight per unit area of the positive electrode active material layer of the unilateral electrode is less than a weight per unit area of the positive electrode active material layer of the bilateral electrode.
However, Atsumi et al. sets forth that the compression (which would affect the weight per unit area of the electrodes) applied to the electrodes is done to improve packing density (para 0017). Thus, compression/compaction density of the active material layers (unilateral and bilateral) is/are result effective variable(s), as it effects packing density. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a weight per unit area of the positive electrode active material layer of the unilateral electrode is less than a weight per unit area of the positive electrode active material layer of the bilateral electrode, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It has been held that discovering that general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller,105 USPQ 233. Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). Also, see MPEP §2144.05(II)(B).
As to claim 11, the combination renders the limitation obvious, as Atsumi et al., relied upon to render obvious a unilateral electrode and bilater electrode teaches a thickness of the positive electrode active material layer of the unilateral electrode is greater than a thickness of the positive electrode material layer of the bilateral electrode (70 µm for the outermost electrode (unilateral electrode) versus 10 µm for the other electrodes (bilateral electrode) (para 0023). See the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake.
(Note: Although Atsumi et al. is drawn to the negative electrode, the teaching is still applicable to the outermost positive electrode of Wang et al. for the same reasons, as it has to do with the structure of the stack, and would have the same effect.)
As to claim 12, Wang et al. teach a first separator and a second separator [53], which are used for insulating and separating the positive electrode sheet from the negative electrode sheet, wherein
the first separator comprises a plurality of first separator segments arranged in the first direction, at least one of the plurality of first separator segments being disposed at an outer side of the outermost positive electrode (figs.6-7; para 0079).
(Note: The combination with Atsumi et al. renders obvious that the outermost positive electrode is the unilateral electrode. See the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake.)
As to claim 13, Wang et al. teach the second separator (another [53]] comprises a plurality of second separator segments arranged in the first direction, at least one of the plurality of second separator segments being disposed at an outer side of the outermost electrode positive electrode (fig. 5).
(Note: The combination with Atsumi et al. renders obvious that the outermost positive electrode is the unilateral electrode. See the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake.)
As to claim 14, Wang et al. teach a battery cell, comprising: the electrode assembly according to claim 1 (set forth in the rejection to claim 1, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake); and a shell (housing [20]) for housing the electrode assembly (fig. 4; para 0066).
As to claim 15, Wang et al. teach a battery, comprising a plurality of the battery cells according to claim 14 (set forth in the rejection to claim 14, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake) (figs. 2-3; para 0063-0065).
As to claim 16, Wang et al. teach an electrical device (e.g. vehicle), comprising the battery according to claim 15 (set forth in the rejection to claim 15, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake), the battery being used for providing electrical energy (fig. 1; para 0061-0062).
As to claim 17, Wang et al. teach a method of manufacturing an electrode assembly (figs. 6, 7, 17-18), the method comprising:
providing a plurality of discrete positive electrode sheets, each of the plurality of discrete positive electrode sheets comprising a positive electrode current collector and a positive electrode active material layer coated on a surface of the positive electrode current collector;
providing a negative electrode current collector (electricity-conducting layer [11b]) and a negative electrode active material layer (active material layer [11c]) coated on a surface of the negative electrode current collector (para 0065),
continuously bending the negative electrode sheet and assembling the bend negative electrode sheet with a plurality of the positive electrode sheets (figs. 5, 8-17, 19-21; para 0062, 0068-0084),
wherein the negative electrode sheet comprises a plurality of laminated segments arranged in a laminated manner (thin, stacked layers) and a plurality of bent segments, each of the plurality of bent segments being used to connect the two adjacent laminated segments; the plurality of the discrete positive electrode sheets are alternately laminated with the plurality of laminated segments in a first direction, each of the plurality of laminated segments being disposed between the two adjacent discrete positive electrode sheets (up and down) (figs. 6, 7, 17-18);
each of the plurality of bent segments is connected to an end of the laminated segment in a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction; in the second direction, the positive electrodes do not extend beyond one of the plurality of bent segments adjacent thereto (left to right) (figs. 6, 7, 17-18).
Wang et al. do not teach an outermost electrode sheet is one of the plurality of discrete positive electrode sheets, which is an outermost positive electrode sheet is configured as a unilateral electrode, the unilateral electrode having the positive electrode active material layer coated on an inner side, but not on an outer side, of the positive electrode current collector of the unilateral electrode.
However, Atsumi et al. teach of using an outermost discrete electrode sheet configured as a unilateral electrode, the unilateral electrode having the active material layer coated on an inner side, but not on an outer side, of the current collector (electrode [1] of fig. 1; fig. 3; para 0006). The motivation for making the outermost discrete electrode sheet a unilateral electrode, the unilateral electrode having the active material layer coated on an inner side, but not on an outer side, of the current collector is to remove a layer that does not participate in battery capacity and to reduce cost and thickness of the battery (para 0004, 0011). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to make the outermost electrode sheet a unilateral electrode, the unilateral electrode having the active material layer coated on an inner side, but not on an outer side, of the current collector is to remove a layer that does not participate in battery capacity and to reduce cost and thickness of the battery.
(Note: The combination would yield the relationship of the substituted unilateral electrode having the same relationship regarding the bent segment.
Note: Although Atsumi et al. is drawn to the negative electrode, the teaching is still applicable to the outermost positive electrode of Wang et al. for the same reasons, as it has to do with the structure of the stack, and would have the same effect.)
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. in view of Atsumi et al, as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, further in view of WO 2018-180599 (Kawai et al.).
As to claim 6, Wang et al. in view of Atsumi et al. do not teach a dimension of the unilateral electrode in the second direction is less than a dimension of the bilateral electrode in the second direction.
However Kawai et al. teach a dimension of the bilateral electrode in the second direction (left to right) (figs. 1-2). The motivation for having a dimension of the bilateral electrode in the second direction is to prevent warping and separation from the separator (due to different elongation) (para 0007-0012, 0040-0050, 0055-0061). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have a dimension of the bilateral electrode in the second direction is to prevent warping and separation from the separator (due to different elongation).
As to claim 7, Wang et al. in view of Atsumi et al. do not teach a dimension of the unilateral electrode in the third direction is less than a dimension of the bilateral electrode in the third direction, the third direction being perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction.
However Kawai et al. teach a dimension of the bilateral electrode in the second direction (left to right) (figs. 1-2). The motivation for having a dimension of the bilateral electrode in the second direction is to prevent warping and separation from the separator (due to different elongation) (para 0007-0012, 0040-0050, 0055-0061). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications).
Although the third dimension is not shown, substituting the aforementioned dimensional relationship between the unilateral electrode and the bilateral electrode in the second dimension with having the relationship in the third dimension would yield the predictable result of providing the same result of warping prevention, as the substituted components and their functions were known (prevent warping via dimensions). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to substitute a dimension of the unilateral electrode in the third direction is less than a dimension of the bilateral electrode in the third direction, the third direction being perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction for a dimension of the unilateral electrode in the second direction is less than a dimension of the bilateral electrode in the second direction, as the substitution components and their functions were known (prevent warping via dimensions, as this would be a result regardless of the dimension providing the limitation). “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. in view of Atsumi et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2009/0029259 (Okazai et al.).
As to claim 18, Jin et al. in view of Atsumi et al. do not teach wherein a part of a separator of the electrode assembly is disposed at an outer side of the unilateral electrode.
However, Okazaki et al. teach the disposal of a separator [7] of the electrode assembly is disposed at an outer side of the unilateral electrode (electrode plate [18, 19]) (figs. 1, 22, 23). The motivation for having a part of a separator of the electrode assembly is disposed at an outer side of the unilateral electrode is to hold the electrode for alignment as well as preventing short circuiting (para 0012, 0049, 0058). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) for having a part of a separator of the electrode assembly disposed at an outer side of the unilateral electrode in order to hold the electrode for alignment as well as preventing short circuiting
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that neither Jin and Wang teach an outermost electrode sheet as part of the continuous electrode sheet, rather one of the plurality of discrete electrode sheets, where Atsumi and Kawai does not cure the deficiency (as applied to claim 1 and claim 17, similar to claim 1).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Atsumi et al. has been relied upon to render the limitation obvious, as it is particularly relied upon to add a unilateral electrode at the outermost portion (see figs. 1, 3; para 0006). Thus, the argument is not persuasive, and the rejection of record is maintained.
Applicant argues that the dependent claims are distinct from the prior art of record for the same reason as the independent claim.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection with respect to the independent claim has been maintained, and thus the rejections to the dependent claims are maintained as well.
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 EUGENIA WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4942. The examiner can normally be reached a flex schedule, generally Monday-Thursday 5:00 -7:30 (AM) and 9:45-3:15 ET.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/EUGENIA WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights