DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 10, 15, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhai et al (CN 113097439; machine translation).
Regarding Claim 1,
Zhai teaches a battery electrode plate as shown in Figure 3 below, characterized by comprising a current collector (Figure 3, element 110), an active substance layer (Figure 3, Element 131), and a conductive structure (Figure 3, Element 300; Electrode plate or tab; Paragraph 0067); wherein the current collector comprises a main body portion (Figure 3, Element 130; Application area) and a tab portion (Figure 3, Element 140; Second empty foil area) disposed in a first direction (annotated), wherein the main body portion is covered with the active substance layer and the tab portion is not covered with the active substance layer (Figure 3 shows that the active material layer 131 is covering the main body portion); and a first region of the conductive structure is welded to a portion of the tab portion to form a welding mark zone (Figure 3, Element 310; Electrode tab welding section; Zhai teaches welding the electrode tab i.e. conductive structure, to the empty foil area i.e. tab portion), at least a portion of the welding mark zone being covered with a protective layer (Figure 3, Element 400; adhesive tape shown as covering the welding mark zone). The adhesive tape 400 covers the electrode tab welding portion 310 and a portion of the second empty foil area 140, and serves to protect the welding portions of the electrode tab welding portion 310 (Paragraph 0072). The adhesive tape is a protective layer.
PNG
media_image1.png
234
452
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2,
Zhai teaches that the current collector has a three-layer composite structure of a first conductive layer, a substrate layer, and a second conductive layer. Lighter polymer materials are used to replace some of the aluminum or copper, such as aluminum-polymer-aluminum or copper-polymer copper (Paragraph 0056, 0060). This is akin to the current collector comprising a first support layer and a metal layer provided on each of two sides of the first support layer. Zhai teaches that the electrode tab is welded to the first conductive layer of the current collector (Paragraph 0094). This is akin to the conductive structure being welded to a portion of the metal layer of the tab portion to form the welding mark zone.
Regarding Claim 10,
Zhai teaches the use of an adhesive tape 400 of an insulating type (Paragraph 0073). This is akin to the protective layer being an insulation adhesive.
Regarding Claim 15,
Zhai shows in Figure 3 that the size L7 of the welding mark zone in the second direction is less than or equal to a sum L6 of sizes of the current collector and the active substance layer in the second direction, wherein the second direction is a thickness direction of the electrode plate, and the second direction is perpendicular to the first direction. So, the thickness of the electrode tab welding section 310 is less than the sum of the thicknesses of the current collector 110 and the active substance layer 131.
PNG
media_image2.png
240
548
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 16,
Zhai teaches an electrode assembly comprising the electrode plate (electrode sheet 100 taught in Zhai; Paragraph 0088), along with a separator 600 that separates the negative and positive electrode sheet (Paragraph 0088).
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.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 5, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhai et al.
Regarding Claim 3, and Claim 4,
Zhai shows in Figure 3 the electrode tab or plate which is akin to the conductive structure. Per annotated Figure 3 below, the first, second and third regions of the conductive structure can be seen such that the second region is closer to the main body portion relative to the first region, the third region is farther away from the main body portion relative to the first region, and an edge of the second region closer to the main body portion is covered with the protective layer. Furthermore, the second region is covered with the protective layer. The claim itself does NOT provide any reference point as to where the regions start and/or stop or what defines those regions and thus, the examiner contends that the regions may be extrapolated from the prior art to anticipate or render obvious the claimed regions as recited because the examiner may determine which region is which on the conductive structure, as long as the position of the regions is maintained.
PNG
media_image1.png
234
452
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5,
Zhai shows in Figure 3 that the size L5 of the protective layer in the first direction is greater than or equal to a sum of size L3 of the welding mark zone in the first direction and size L2 of the second region in the first direction. The adhesive tape 400 akin to the protective layer has a size/length greater than the sum of the electrode tab welding section 310 and the second region of the conductive structure.
Regarding Claim 7,
The claim provides size range limitation of L2 ‘region’. A ‘region’ is any given area of the conductive structure. While Zhai may not specifically point out regions, the examiner contends that it is obvious to delineate the regions as such because the claim does not distinctly provide any boundaries for the regions (see rejection of Claim 3 above). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the size of L2 within the range from 0 mm to 1 mm in order to form arbitrary regions on the conductive structure.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhai et al in view of Peng et al (US 20240136670 A1).
Zhai does not specifically teach that L3 ranges from 2 mm to 8 mm.
However, Peng teaches an electrode assembly and welding a tab on a current collector wherein the region is uncoated with active layer (Paragraph 0061). Peng further teaches welding marks, and that the mark have different shapes (Paragraph 0112). The shape of the welding mark may be a straight line, such that the length of the line is in a range from 0.01 mm to 6 mm (Paragraph 0137, 0138). This range overlaps with the claimed range. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose an overlapping value from Peng for the welding region in Zhai in order to obtain a relatively high welding strength (Paragraph 0140).
Claim(s) 8, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhai in view of Yoshino et al (US 20020045094 A1).
Regarding Claim 8,
Zhai does not teach that the size of the protective layer in a second direction is greater than or equal to size of the conductive structure in the second direction, wherein the second direction is a thickness direction of the electrode plate, and the second direction is perpendicular to the first direction.
However, Yoshino teaches that the positive electrode terminals have a thickness of 70 µm, and then insulating tapes whose thickness were 100 µm were laminated to cover the positive electrode terminals (Paragraph 0066). Using these thicknesses would result in an electrode that meets the limitation of the size of the protective layer in a second direction is greater than or equal to size of the conductive structure in the second direction. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the thickness as shown in Yoshino into the electrode of Zhai in order to increase manufacturing yields, and improve discharge capabilities (Paragraph 0013).
Regarding Claim 9,
In figure 3 of Zhai it can be seen that in the second direction, a surface of the protective layer farther away from the current collector does not exceed beyond a surface of the active substance layer farther away from the current collector.
PNG
media_image2.png
240
548
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 11, 13-15, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhai in view of Mizawa et al (US 20210111465 A1).
Regarding Claim 11,
Zhai does not teach that a second insulation layer is applied between the conductive structure and the active substance layer. Zhai teaches an adhesive insulation tape 400 used to cover the conductive structure as shown in Figure 3.
However, Mizawa teaches an insulating tape used to cover a negative electrode lead (Paragraph 0045) such that the insulating tape can be a three -layer tape in which for example, between the base material layer and the adhesive layer, an inorganic particle-containing layer is formed. By the use of the three-layer tape as described above, the heat resistance of the insulating tape can be improved. The inorganic particle-containing layer preferably has a layer structure in which inorganic particles are dispersed in a resin matrix forming the layer (Paragraph 0055). The resin forming the inorganic particle-containing layer is preferably excellent in insulating properties, electrolyte liquid resistance, and the like and also preferably has a preferable adhesive property to the inorganic particles and the base material layer 41 (Paragraph 0056). From the teaching of Mizawa the protective layer is the inorganic particle containing layer, and the second insulation layer is the adhesive layer. Such a insulating tape can be used in the invention of Zhai and based on Figure 3 the insulation tape with the second insulation layer is applied in an area between the conductive structure and the active substance layer (along with the area above the welding mark). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Mizawa and Zhai in order to have a second insulation layer applied between the conductive structure and the active substance layer to improve heat resistance (Paragraph 0055).
Regarding Claim 13,
Based on the combination of Zhai in view of Mizawa, the insulating tape has the protective layer on top of the second insulation layer, and hence, it would meet the limitation that in the second direction, a surface of the protective layer farther away from the current collector exceeds a surface of the second insulation layer farther away from the current collector, wherein the second direction is a thickness direction of the electrode plate, and the second direction is perpendicular to the first direction. By the use of the three-layer tape as described above, the heat resistance of the insulating tape can be improved.
Regarding Claim 14,
Since the insulating tape of Mizawa does not limit the overlap between the layers i.e. the adhesive layer (second insulation layer), an inorganic particle-containing layer (protective layer), hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention the protective layer and the second insulation layer at least partially overlap. By the use of the three-layer tape as described above, the heat resistance of the insulating tape can be improved.
Regarding Claim 17,
Zhai teaches a separator in the electrode assembly (Paragraph 0028), but does not specifically teach that a surface of the protective layer farther away from the current collector abuts against a surface of the separator closer to the electrode plate in a second direction, wherein the second direction is a thickness direction of the electrode plate, and the second direction is perpendicular to the first direction.
However, Mizawa shows in Figure 4 that the insulating tape 40 is in contact with the separator 13 as the battery is wound into a cylindrical form. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the surface of the protective layer farther away from the current collector abuts against a surface of the separator closer to the electrode plate in a second direction in order to form an electrode body wherein internal short circuit of the electrode body 14 is not likely to occur at an outer circumference (Paragraph 0058).
PNG
media_image3.png
460
351
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 18, and Claim 19,
Mizawa teaches a battery cell/battery, comprising: the electrode assembly described above; a housing (Figure 1, element 15; Case main body) having an opening for accommodating the electrode assembly (battery is open prior to fixing the sealing body); and an end cover for closing the opening (Figure 1, Element 16; sealing body).
PNG
media_image4.png
686
471
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 20,
Zhai teaches that batteries are widely used in consumer electronics, electric vehicles etc (Paragraph 0002). These are electric devices, and the battery as taught by Zhai and Mizawa is configured to supply electric energy.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhai in view of Mizawa further in view of Yoshida et al (US 20200020923 A1).
Zhai does not teach that the second insulation layer has a size L1 of 1 mm to 3 mm in the first direction.
However, Yoshida teaches a tab tape 23 such that the length of the tab tape in a direction along the length direction of the tab is preferably 1 mm or more to 8 mm or less (Paragraph 0035). This range overlaps with the claimed range. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose an overlapping value from Yoshida for the insulating tape in Zhai in view of Mizawa in order to easily ensure insulation of the tab (Paragraph 0035).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUHANI JITENDRA PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6278. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Maria Veronica D. Ewald can be reached on 571-272-8519. 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.
/SUHANI JITENDRA PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights