DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. Information disclosure statements (IDS), submitted April 16, 2024 and June 9, 2025, have been received and considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
4. All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
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.
5. Claim 3 is 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 2 recites “a plurality of first coated sub-regions” and then Claim 3 limits to “the first coated sub-region” but this limitation is unclear because it lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear which of the plurality of first coated sub-region is being further limited in Claim 3.
Claim 3 is further indefinite because it lacks articles. For example, the claim recites “wherein size of the first coated sub-region in the width direction of the current collector is equal to width of the current collector” but it is not clear what “size” and “width” are being recited.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claims 1-5 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shao US PG Publication 2020/0313196.
Regarding Claims 1 and 17-18, Shao discloses a battery comprising a battery cell comprising an electrode assembly 200, wherein the electrode assembly 200 comprises a positive electrode plate 201 and a negative electrode plate 202 (Fig. 9 and para 0053, meeting Claim 18), at least one of which is an electrode plate comprising a composite current collector 10 (para 0035, meeting Claim 17), comprising a coated region coated with an active substance layer 20 (they coincide) and an uncoated region (receiving groove) 52 not coated with the active substance layer 20, wherein in a width direction of the current collector 10, the uncoated region 21 does not surpass the coated region, and a tab 30 connected to the uncoated region (see annotated fig below and entire disclosure and especially Figs 1-9, paras 0035-0039).
Regarding Claim 2, Shao discloses wherein the coated region 20 comprises a plurality of first coated sub-regions that are spaced apart along a length direction of the electrode plate, and the uncoated region is located between adjacent two of the first coated sub-regions (see annotated Fig below).
PNG
media_image1.png
608
839
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Shao discloses wherein “size of the first coated sub-region in the width direction of the current collector is equal to width of the current collector” because these elements overlap, and lacking further definition in the claim of which size and which width are claimed, the skilled artisan would see that any portion of one of the first coated sub-regions can be assigned as coincident with its overlapping portion of current collector, resulting in the “size of … subregion in the width direction” being equal to “width of the current collector”. There is no requirement that, for example, the size of the first coated sub-region in the width direction is the same as the total width of the current collector.
Regarding Claim 4, the annotated figure above shows wherein the coated region further comprises a second coated sub-region, the two adjacent first coated sub-regions are connected through the second coated sub-region, and the second coated sub-region and the uncoated region are arranged in the width direction of the current collector since they all extend in the width direction of the current collector.
Regarding Claim 5, Shao discloses wherein the tab comprises a first sub-tab 60 and a second sub-tab 30 which are respectively connected to two sides of the uncoated region in thickness direction thereof, and the first sub-tab 60 is connected to the second sub-tab 30 via welding (see Fig 5 and paras 0044-0045).
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
7. Claims 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shao US PG Publication 2020/0313196, as applied to Claim 5, and further in view of Zhang CN210897473.
Regarding Claim 6, Shao discloses the claimed electrode plate as described in the rejection of Claim 1, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Shao discloses wherein the first electrode tab is soldered to the collector (para 0020) (which forms a first soldered region) and that tabs are soldered or brazed with an external tab (para 0054) but does not specifically disclose wherein the first sub-tab and the uncoated region are welded to form a first welded region and the first sub-tab and second sub-tab are welded to form a second welded region. However, in the same field of endeavor of battery electrode assembly design, Zhang discloses wherein it is known that welding is an effective way to connecting tabs 21/22 together and to their respective attachment areas on current collector plate connecting regions (which would be welded regions if the connection is welded (see entire disclosure and especially highlighted portions) and so it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to weld together the first sub-tab and the uncoated region to form a first welded region and to weld the first sub-tab and second sub-tab to form a second welded region because Zhang teaches that this is a known and effective way to attach these elements and the use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Regarding Claims 7 and 8, Shao modified by Zhang fails to specifically disclose wherein area S1 of the first welded region and area S2 of the second welded region satisfy 0.1 ≤ S2/S1 ≤ 1 or 0.2 ≤ S2/S1 ≤ 0.8. However, the skilled artisan could assign any “area” of each of the welded regions such that they have any size since the claim does not specify what such an area represents in a meaningful, structural way. Therefore, the skilled artisan could e.g. draw a boundary around any part of each welded area to arrive at the claimed size relationship. Zhang does discuss the size of the connection areas where the welding occurs and that the areas should be designed with specific sizes for area S1 of the first welded region and area S2 of the second welded region satisfy 0.1 ≤ S2/S1 ≤ 1 or 0.2 ≤ S2/S1 ≤ 0.8.
Regarding Claim 9, Shao modified by Zhang discloses wherein the electrode plate further comprises an avoidance region (slots) 141 which would avoid the second welded region and wherein the avoidance region and the uncoated region are arranged in the width direction of the current collector since they extend in the width direction. See e.g Fig. 6.
Regarding Claims 10 and 11, Shao discloses the size of the avoidance region 141 is less than the size of the uncoated region 21/51 (see e.g. para 0049 and Fig. 6) and does not discuss a numerical relationship between the two. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the size W2 of the avoidance region and size W1 of the uncoated region such that the ratio of the size of the avoidance region relative to that of the uncoated region (both in the length direction) is 0.6 ≤ W2/W1 ≤ 1.5 or even because this is a large range that encompasses the uncoated region being twice as large as the avoidance region all the way to the avoidance region being 50% larger than the avoidance region. In other words, there is no real criticality in the claimed size relationship and the skilled artisan would look at e.g. Fig 6 of Shao and see that the avoidance region and uncoated region are similarly sized, which is within the scope of the claimed range in Claim 11, 0.8 ≤ W2/W1 ≤ 1.2. The size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04). A change in proportion or relative dimension is obvious in the absence of unexpected results. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding Claims 12 and 13, Shao teaches that the size L of the uncoated region in the width direction of the current collector is just a little bit larger than the size D of the avoidance region in the width direction of the current collector (the difference being circled in the clip from Fig 6, below, and so the skilled artisan would understand that the size difference would satisfy 0.1 ≤ D/L ≤ 1 and 0.2 ≤ D/L ≤ 0.8. The size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04). A change in proportion or relative dimension is obvious in the absence of unexpected results. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image2.png
178
293
media_image2.png
Greyscale
8. Claims 14-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shao US PG Publication 2020/0313196 in view of Zhang CN210897473, as applied to Claim 9, and further in view of EO US PG Publication 2016/0260998.
Regarding Claim 14, Shao modified by Zhang discloses the claimed electrode plate as described in the rejection of Claim 9, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Shao modified by Zhang fails to specifically disclose a first insulating layer and a second insulating layer that respectively cover the uncoated region from two sides of the uncoated region in the thickness direction thereof, the first sub-tab is located between the first insulating layer and the uncoated region, and the second sub-tab is located between the second insulating layer and the uncoated region. However, in the same field of endeavor of electrode plate design, Eo discloses wherein insulating tape is used as a protective measure by forming a cover on the electrode tabs 14 present on opposing sides of an electrode plate 11 such that the tape covers the uncoated region 113b and that this removes or reduces the possibility of the positive electrode tab penetrating an insulating wall of the separator and being short-circuited from the negative electrode (see at least Fig. 4 and para 0059). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the electrode plate of Shao and Zhang such that the plate includes a first insulating layer and a second insulating layer that respectively cover the uncoated region from two sides of the uncoated region in the thickness direction thereof, the first sub-tab being located between the first insulating layer and the uncoated region, and the second sub-tab being located between the second insulating layer and the uncoated region, because Eo teaches that this configuration this removes or reduces the possibility of the positive electrode tab penetrating an insulating wall of the separator and being short-circuited from the opposing electrode.
Regarding Claim 15, Eo discloses wherein the first and second insulating layers are formed from an integrated layer (of first and second layers) that wraps around the tab (Fig 2) but Shao modified by Zhang and Eo does not teach that the first and second insulating layers are adhered to each other in the avoidance region. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the electrode plate of Shao modified by Zhang and Eo such that the first and second layers are separately formed and place on the tabs because this allows for different sized layers to be used as needed, since the Courts have held that making known elements separable is within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Dulberg, 129 USPQ 348 (CCPA 1961) (see MPEP § 2144.04). Further, if separate elements were used, it would have been obvious to adhere the first and second insulating layers to each other, at least indirectly, in order to still provide complete coverage around the tab as provided by the unitary element. The Office notes that the claim does not require direct adherence between the first and second insulating layers.
Regarding Claim 16, modified Shao discloses wherein the first sub-tab is connected to the uncoated region at one end, and surpasses the current collector, the first insulating layer, and the second insulating layer at the other end along the width direction of the current collector, necessarily, because the tabs all extend out of the electrode assembly (see e.g. Figs 1-6 of Shao; Fig 2 of Eo).
Regarding Claims 19-20, Shao modified by Zhang discloses a battery cell (see rejection of Claim 18) that will necessarily end up as a battery but does not specifically disclose a box to accommodate the battery cell and does not disclose that the battery is in, and provides power to, an electric device. However, Eo teaches that a battery cell is housed in a box such as a case 120 (para 0025, Fig 2) and that the technology relevant to the type of disclosed battery involves using the battery to power an electric device (paras 0005-0006) and so it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to enclose the electrode plate and battery cell of Shao modified by Zhang in a box to form a battery and to use the battery of Shao, Zhang, and Eo to provide energy to an electric device because Eo teaches that these components are used together to form a battery that is applicable to powering an electric device, and the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA S PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-3597. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30a to 3p Eastern Time.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached on 5712721481. 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.
/LISA S PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights