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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/04/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
In response to the amendments received 09/04/2026:
Claims 1,3-8, and 10-16 are pending in the current application. Claim 1 has been amended.
The previous rejections have been overcome in light of the amendments.
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, 3-8, 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Zhou et al. (US 20200006776) in view of Nishinaka et al. (US 20130022865) and Jian et al. (CN 112820853 A).
Regarding claim 1, Zhou teaches an electrode plate, comprising:
a current collector 11 comprising a support layer, or insulating layer 111 and an electrically conductive layer 112 arranged on one surface of the support layer 111 (P35-36; Fig. 12);
an active material layer 12 arranged on one surface of the current collector; and an electrical connection member, or conductive structure 13 electrically connected to the current collector 11 (P35; Fig. 5-12);
wherein the active material layer 12 is arranged at a main body portion, or main body portion 1121 of the current collector 11 (P35), the electrical connection member 13 is connected to the current collector 11 by welding at an edge of the current collector on the electrically conductive layer 112, wherein the welding connection region is referred to as a transfer welding region, or welded zone W (P35; Fig. 5-12);
wherein the electrode plate further comprises a first insulation layer, or third protective layer 16 arranged on another surface of the current collector 11 insulating support layer 111 (on other side wherein arranged on and via indirect contact) and covering at least the entirety of the transfer welding region, or welded zone W when viewed in a thickness direction of the electrode plate (P49-50; Fig. 12),
and the width direction is perpendicular to the thickness direction, and the transfer soldering area, when viewed along the thickness direction of the electrode sheet, is located outside the edge of the active material laver in the width direction (Fig. 5-12).
Zhou teaches the support layer is composed of an insulating material, but is silent in teaching this as a fibrous pore structure; however, Nishinaka, in a similar field of endeavor, also teaches a current collector with a support layer, or insulating resin layer 13 and an electrically conductive layer, or metal layer 14 (P48-49; Fig 8).
Nishinaka teaches the insulating support as a fibrous pore structure as a known structure of an insulating support layer leading to a reliable and safe cell (P151; Fig. 13)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have the insulating support layer of Zhou as a fibrous support layer, as taught by Nishinaka as a known insulation support layer of a conductor.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143 C
Furthermore, with respect to the above combination of overall element, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Modified Zhou is silent in teaching a continuous primer layer consisting of conductive carbon particles dispersed in binder and arranged between a main body portion of the electrically conductive layer and the active material layer wherein the width of the primer layer in the width direction is 1mm to 3mm smaller than that of the active material layer in the width direction, however, Jian, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a continuous primer layer, or carbon-coated layer 2 consisting of conductive carbon particles dispersed in binder and between an active material layer 3 and collector 1 to improve the bonding between the current collector and the electrode layer (P26-31; Fig. 1)
The width a of the primer coating layer, or carbon coating layer 2 in a width direction of the electrode plate is 0 to 3 mm smaller than the width of the active material layer, , wherein the width direction is perpendicular to the thickness direction and the welding region for the tab is located outside an edge of the active material layer 3 to and improve safety and cycling (P26-33.37; Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to form a primer layer between the active material layer and the current collector of modified Zhou, wherein the overall width is 0 to 3 mm smaller than that of the active material layer in the width direction, as taught by Jian to improve safety, bonding, and cycling. A change in proportion or relative dimension is obvious in the absence of unexpected results. MPEP 2144.04 In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05- I
Regarding claim 3, modified Zhou in view of Nishinaka teaches the support layer, or insulating resin layer, can be a polyethylene film (P50-53).
Regarding claim 4, modified Zhou teaches when viewed in the thickness direction of the electrode plate, the side of the first insulating layer perpendicular to the thickness direction coincides with a side of the active material layer perpendicular to the thickness, wherein the first insulating layer comprises third and second protective layer (P49-50; Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 5, modified Zhou teaches for example the first insulating layer formed of an insulating glue (P39.50), and in view of Nishinaka, teaches the insulating support layer formed from an adhesive resin material that forms a strong bond and improves safety (P23-24.48-59.75-76).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have the first insulation layer of modified Zhou formed of the same resin material as the support layer, as both are used as an insulating adhesive protection member preventing deterioration. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143 C
Furthermore, with respect to the above combination of overall element, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 6, modified Zhou teaches the first insulation layer is a binder, or a glue/paste (P39.50).
Regarding claim 7, modified Zhou teaches a second insulation layer arranged on one side of the electrical connection member and covering at least the entirety of the transfer welding region when viewed in the thickness direction of the electrode plate (P49-51; Fig. 6-7.12 – wherein insulation layer 14/16 formed on both sides).
Regarding claim 8, modified Zhou teaches the second insulation layer is a binder, or a glue/paste (P39.50).
Regarding claim 10, modified Zhou teaches an electrode assembly comprising a first electrode plate and a second electrode plate wherein one of the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate are the electrode plate according to claim 1 (i.e. first electrode plate comprising 12/112/111 and second electrode plate comprising layers on opposing side of 111); and a support layer 111 of the one of the first electrode plate arranged in close contact with the second electrode plate, or the second conductive layer 112 as the collector of the second electrode plate (Fig. 12)
Regarding claim 11, modified Zhou teaches an electrode assembly comprising a first electrode plate and a second electrode plate wherein each of the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate are the electrode plate according to claim 1, wherein the support layer 111 is the support layer of both electrode plates; and a support layer 111 of the first electrode plate is arranged in close electrical contact with the active material layer of the second electrode plate via the second conductive layer 112 , and support layer 111 of the second electrode plate is arranged in close electrical contact with the active material layer of the first electrode plate via the second conductive layer 112 (Fig. 12)
Regarding claim 12, modified Zhou teaches a secondary battery comprising the electrode assembly according to claim 10 (P14).
Regarding claim 13, modified Zhou teaches a secondary battery comprising the electrode assembly according to claim 11 (P14).
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Zhou as applied to at least claim 12 above, and further in view of Zeng et al. (US 20200144585)
Regarding claim 14, modified Zhou teaches a secondary battery comprising the claimed electrode assembly for improved safety and energy density (P4).
Modified Zhou is silent in teaching a battery module comprising the secondary battery; however, Zeng, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the known structure of a battery module comprising a secondary battery for protection (P3-5.20-22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have the secondary battery in a battery module as taught by Zeng as a well-known structure for a battery.
Regarding claim 15, modified Zhou in view of Zeng teaches a battery pack comprising the battery module (P3-5.21.45).
Regarding claim 16, modified Zhou in view of Zeng teaches an electrical device that consumes power, such as a vehicle, uses such a battery pack with the secondary battery (P3.90-92).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues the new claim limitations overcome the previous showing of obviousness. New and amended grounds of rejection are above set forth. New and amended grounds of rejection are necessitated by the claim amendments.
Examiner notes that “continuous primer coating” may still be interpreted as a plurality of continuous strips provided in one direction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amanda Rosenbaum whose telephone number is (571)272-8218. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5 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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/Amanda Rosenbaum/ Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/Helen Oi K CONLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
