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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10, 13-14, 17-18, 21, 25, and 27-28 in the reply filed on 15 Dec 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 13-14, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi et al. (CN 112750971, as read via machine translation).
As to Claim 1, Choi et al. discloses a bilayer comprising:
a metal substrate (see e.g. substrate 11, which may be made of aluminum foil, [0050], Fig. 6, and Illustration 1 below) having at least two longitudinal edges and at least two transverse edges (see e.g. Fig. 6 and Illustration 1 below); three lanes of coating material (see e.g. coating 12, [0038]) disposed on the metal substrate (see e.g. substrate 11, which may be made of aluminum foil, [0050]);
wherein a first and a second lane of coating material (see e.g. coating 12, [0038]) comprise cathode material (see e.g., slurry which comprises an active material. Choi et al. discloses that substrate 11 forms a positive electrode plate, and as such Choi et al.’s active material is a cathode material see [0036] and [0050]); and
wherein the longitudinal edges comprise one or more cuts that extend from a longitudinal edge toward the coating material (see e.g. Fig. 10, which shows cuts extending from the longitudinal edge toward coating material 12, thereby forming terminal piece 11b, [0057]).
PNG
media_image1.png
444
678
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Illustration 1: reproduction with annotation of Fig. 6 of Choi et al..
As to Claim 2, Choi et al. discloses the bilayer of claim 1, wherein the coating material (see e.g. coating 12, [0038]) covers at least about 50% of the surface of the metal substrate (see e.g. substrate 11, which may be made of aluminum foil, [0050], Fig. 6, and Illustration 1 below) but does not cover the longitudinal edges (see e.g. Choi et al. discloses a bilayer in which the coating material 12 covers at least 50% of the surface of the metal substrate 11, but does not cover the longitudinal edges in Fig. 6 and discussion of claim 1 above).
As to Claim 3, Choi et al. discloses the bilayer of claim 1, wherein a third lane of slurry material comprises cathode material (see e.g. slurry which comprises an active material, [0036] and [0050]. Choi et al. discloses that substrate 11 forms a positive electrode plate, and as such Choi et al.’s active material is a cathode material).
As to Claim 5, Choi et al. discloses the bilayer of claim 1, wherein the three lanes of coating material are identical in composition (see e.g. coating 12, [0038]. Fig. 6 of Choi shows three lanes of the coating material).
As to Claim 13, Choi et al. discloses the bilayer of claim 1, wherein the cuts comprise one or more slits (see e.g. Fig. 10, which shows cuts that can reasonably be interpreted as slits extending from the longitudinal edge toward coating material 12).
As to Claim 14, Choi et al. discloses the bilayer of claim 13, wherein the slits comprise an I-shape, an L- shape, a T-shape, or combinations thereof (see e.g. Fig. 10 and see Illustration 2 below, which shows slits that can reasonably be said to be I-shaped or L-shaped).
PNG
media_image2.png
253
215
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Illustration 2: reproduction with modification of Fig. 10 of Choi et al., emphasizing the L-shaped cuts in the bilayer.
As to Claim 25, Choi et al. discloses the bilayer of claim 1, wherein the metal substrate is an aluminum foil (see e.g. substrate 11, [0050]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 establiShin et al.g 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.
Claim(s) 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (CN 112750971, as read via machine translation).
As to Claim 8, Choi et al. discloses the bilayer of claim 1, wherein the bilayer has cuts (see e.g. Fig. 10, which shows cuts extending from the longitudinal edge toward coating material 12, thereby forming terminal piece 11b. See e.g. Choi [0057]).
Choi does not disclose cuts that are periodically spaced.
However, modifying Choi et al.’s bilayer to produce periodically spaced cuts on both f would be a simple duplication of the cuts already disclosed by Choi et al., and would fail to produce any new or unexpected benefit. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Choi et al.’s bilayer such that cuts are periodically spaced. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to produce multiple electrode plates from the bilayer.
As to Claim 10, Choi et al. discloses the bilayer of claim 1, wherein the cuts are present on one longitudinal edge (see e.g. Fig. 10, which shows cuts extending from the longitudinal edge toward coating material 12, thereby forming terminal piece 11b. See also [0057]).
Choi et al. only explicitly shows cuts on one longitudinal edge (as shown in Fig. 10) that forms a single electrode plate, and is silent as to whether cuts are present on both longitudinal edges.
However, modifying Choi et al.’s bilayer to produce multiple cuts on both of the longitudinal edges would be a simple duplication of the cuts on one longitudinal edge already disclosed by Choi et al., and would fail to produce any new or unexpected benefit. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Choi et al.’s bilayer such that cuts are present on both longitudinal edges of the bilayer. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to produce multiple electrode plates from the bilayer.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (CN 112750971, as read via machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zagars et al. (US 2020/0014025).
As to Claim 17, Choi et al. discloses the bilayer of claim 1, wherein the metal substrate is in the shape of a battery tab (see e.g. electrode terminal piece 11b, [0057] and Fig. 10).
Choi et al. does not disclose indentations or perforations in the metal substrate shaped as battery tabs.
Zagars et al., also working on the problem of manufacturing electrodes by depositing active material onto a metal substrate, teaches the use of perforations in the metal substrate (see e.g. pre-perforated extent lines in a current collector [0047]). Zagars et al. teaches that the metal substrate can be cut by separating the substrate along these perforations ([0047]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to provide the metal substrate of Choi et al. with perforations shaped as battery tabs in the manner suggested by Zagars et al.. Said artisan would have been motivated to provide these perforations in order to facilitate the cutting of the substrate by separating the substrate along the perforated lines, as taught by Zagars et al.
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (CN 112750971, as read via machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shin et al. (US 2021/0036239).
As to Claim 18, Choi et al. discloses the bilayer of claim 1, including a cathode material (see e.g. coating 12 ,[0007] and [0038]).
However, Choi et al. is silent as to the loading density of the cathode active material.
Shin et al., also working in the field of electrode design, teaches bilayer electrode (see e.g. cathode plate) comprising a metal substrate (see e.g. metal current collector) and a cathode active material (see e.g. positive electrode active material) that is analogous to Choi et al.’s bilayer ([0054]). Shin et al.’s cathode active material has a loading of 35 mg/cm2 to 50 mg/cm2 , which lies within and thereby anticipates the claimed range of 27 mg/cm2 or greater ([0056]-[0058]). Additionally, Shin et al. teaches that a cathode active material with this loading density yields a battery with a high cell energy density ([0058]).
As Choi and Shin both deal with analogous electrode designs, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cathode material of Choi et al. by selecting a cathode loading of 27 mg/cm2 or greater as taught by Shin et al. Said artisan would have been motivated to select a cathode loading of 27 mg/cm2 or greater because Shin et al. teaches that this loading range produces a battery with a high cell energy density (Shin: [0058]).
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (CN 112750971, as read via machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (US 2021/0050599).
As to Claim 21, Choi et al. discloses the bilayer of claim 1.
Choi et al. is silent as to the porosity of the cathode material.
Lee, also working on the problem of electrode design, teaches the use of an electrode comprising a cathode material having a porosity of about 5% to about 25% by volume, which anticipates the claimed range of about 25% or less by volume (see e.g. positive active material, [0013]). Lee further teaches that this cathode material produces an electrode with a high areal capacity, a fast charging rate, and excellent stability ([0002]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Choi et al.’s bilayer with a cathode material having a porosity of about 25% or less by volume as taught by Lee. Said artisan would have been motivated to select this material for the cathode material because Choi et al. teaches that it produces an electrode with a high areal capacity, a fast charging rate, and excellent stability.
Claim(s) 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (CN 112750971, as read via machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xiao et al. (US 2020/0274148).
As to Claim 27, Choi et al. discloses the bilayer of claim 1, wherein the cathode comprises a cathode active material (see e.g. coating 12, which comprises a slurry containing an active material, see [0007], [0038]).
However, Choi et al. is silent as to the composition of this cathode material and does not disclose a cathode material selected from the group presented in Claim 27.
Xiao et al., also working in the field of battery electrodes, teaches an analogous bilayer electrode comprising a cathode material deposited on a metal substrate (see e.g. cathode material 150 and current collector 160, see e.g. Xiao [0142] and Fig. 1). Xiao et al. teaches the use of LiMPO4 where M = Fe, LiNixMnyCozO2 where x+y+z=1, and LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 (which anticipates the claimed LiNixCoyAlzO2 where x+y+z=1) as suitable cathode materials for the electrode (see e.g. Xiao [0142]).
As both Choi et al and Xiao et al. are analogous in the field of battery electrode materials, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skills in the art to modify the cathode materials of Choi et al. with the LiMPO4 where M = Fe, LiNixMnyCozO2 where x+y+z=1, and/or the LiNixCoyAlzO2 where x+y+z=1cathode materials as taught by Xiao et al., because the cathode materials made of LiMPO4 where M = Fe and/or LiNixMnyCozO2 where x+y+z=1 can provide the advantage wherein the amount of inactive material in each cathode material layer is minimized to reduce parasite weight and maximize the areal capacity of the cathode (Choi et al., [142]).
As to Claim 28, Choi et al. discloses the bilayer of claim 27.
However, Choi et al. is silent as to the composition of the cathode material and does not disclose the use of LiNixMnyCozO2 where x+y+z=1 as a cathode material.
Xiao et al., also working in the field of battery electrodes, teaches an analogous bilayer electrode comprising a cathode material deposited on a metal substrate (see e.g. cathode material 150 and current collector 160, see e.g. Xiao [0142] and Fig. 1). Xiao et al. teaches the use of LiNixMnyCozO2 where x+y+z=1 as a suitable cathode material for the electrode (see e.g. Xiao [0142]).
As both Choi et al and Xiao et al. are analogous in the field of battery electrode materials, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skills in the art to modify the cathode materials of Choi et al. with the LiNixMnyCozO2 where x+y+z=1 cathode materials as taught by Xiao et al., because the cathode materials made of LiNixMnyCozO2 where x+y+z=1can provide the advantage wherein the amount of inactive material in each cathode material layer is minimized to reduce parasite weight and maximize the areal capacity of the cathode (see e.g. Choi et al., [142]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lee ‘345: (US 2019/0081345) also discloses an analogous bilayer comprising a metal substrate, a cathode active material, and notched tabs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERT HILTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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 (571)-272-3066. 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.
/A.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/TONG GUO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723