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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-7, in the reply filed on 07/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 07/23/2026.
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) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2016/208686 (Goda) in view of WO 2020/026649 (Tsushima) (citations from US 2021/0351484).
Regarding claims 1, and 6, Goda discloses cutting an electrode for use in a secondary battery using a pulsed wave laser beam (PW). The electrode comprises a metal foil (M) (considered a current collector) and an active material layer (A) where the active material forms a coated portion and the remaining area of M is an uncoated portion as shown in Figure 1. The PW is used to cut a notch in the uncoated portion of the metal foil as also shown in Figure 1. The laser uses a pulse width of 10ps which falls within the claimed range [0025].
Goda discloses a protective layer, such as a ceramic, that protects the active material and that this protective layer would also be cut by the pulse laser. Goda does not expressly disclose that the protective layer would be laminated on the non-coating portion. Tsushima discloses an electrode having coated and non-coated portions. Part of the non-coated region has an insulating (protective) layer (28) and active material layer (22) forms a coated region. As shown in Figure 3 of Tsushima, a cutout (25) is formed that cuts part of the insulating layer (28) away. Tsushima discloses that this protective layer may be cut using a laser [0060]. The insulating layer is provided at the root of each positive-electrode tab portion to prevent short circuiting as explained in [0036]. It would have been obvious to provide a protective portion as disclosed by Tsushima on the uncoated region of the tab formed in Goda to prevent short circuiting. As noted above, Goda also discloses a protective layer and that the protective layer may also be cut by the pulse laser. As shown in Tsushima Figure 3 the tab (24) is formed where some of the protective layer is provided on the tab. It would have been obvious to provide some of the protective layer in a similar location in Goda and to cut the insulating layer and current collector using the pulse laser as Goda discloses the pulse laser can cut both the foil and protective layer and the location of Tsushima is such that short circuiting is prevented. Moreover, Tsushima also discloses cutting the area having the protective layer with a laser.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Goda discloses power of 25 W for the pulsed laser and speed is several tens of meters per minute. For example, 10 meters/min converts to 166 mm/s, which falls within the claimed range and several tens of meters/min, for example, 20 meters/min, converts to 333 mm/s also falls within the claimed range of 100-2000 mm/s [0029].
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Tsushima discloses that the protective layer is made of a resin and may also include inorganic particles such as alumina, titania, magnesium oxide and silica [0037]. An example of polyvinylidene fluoride is given as a protective layer [0069].
Regarding claim 7, the electrode may be a positive or negative electrode [0018].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Prior art of DE 102021205500, US 20220093903 and WO 2020192845 disclose cutting electrode with a pulse laser using picosecond pulse widths.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER C MCNEIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1540. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at 5712723066. 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.
JENNIFER C. MCNEIL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1723
/Jennifer McNeil/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights