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 Objections
Claims 8, 10, and 13-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 8, 10, and 13, the phrase “the cuts” should be changed to “the one or more cuts” to conform to prior recitations. Claim 14 is similarly objected to as it depends from claim 13.
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 31 Jul, 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
With regard to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC §103 as unpatentable over Choi et al. (CN 112750971) in view of Ikeriji et al. (US 2023/0090263), Applicant argues that Ikeriji et al. does not disclose or suggest the claimed surface flatness of less than or equal to 50 mm per cm2, the Examiner submits that this limitation is met by Wang et al. (US 2016/0006018) as set forth in detail in the rejection of claim 1 below.
With regard to the rejection of claim 17 under 35 USC §103 as unpatentable over Choi et al. in view of Ikeriji et al. and Zagars et al. (US 2020/0014025), Applicant argues that the prior Office Action has not shown why one skilled in the art would modify Choi et al.'s specific bilayer/tab structure to include perforations or indentations shaped as battery tabs, rather than simply continue using Choi et al.'s disclosed cutting approach. Further, Applicant argues that modifying Choi et al. in the manner proposed could damage the structural integrity of the sheet during calendaring, which could render Choi et al.’s invention inoperable.
The Examiner maintains that the use of perforations is a functionally equivalent method of forming cuts in an electrode sheet, as taught by Zagars et al., and the use of such perforations would fail to produce any new of unexpected benefit to one of ordinary skill in the art. Additionally, there is no evidence of record to support Applicant’s argument that modifying Choi et al.’s invention with the perforations taught by Zagars et al. would render Choi et al.’s invention inoperable.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 8, 10, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (CN 112750971) in view of Wang et al. (US 2016/0006018).
At 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, Choi et al.: [0050], Fig. 6, and Illustration 1 below) having at least two longitudinal edges and at least two transverse edges (see e.g. Choi et al.: Fig. 6 and Illustration 1 below); and
PNG
media_image1.png
444
678
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Illustration 1: reproduction with annotation of Fig. 6 of Choi et al..
a cathode material disposed on a surface of the metal substrate (see e.g. coating 12, which is formed from an active material slurry and is deposited on substrate 11, which may be made of aluminum foil, Choi et al.: [0036], [0038], and [0050]. Choi et al.’s invention is directed toward forming a positive electrode current collector in one embodiment as per [0050], and as such coating 12 reads on a cathode material);
wherein the cathode material forms a cathode (see e.g. Choi et al.: [0050], Choi et al.’s invention is directed toward forming a positive electrode current collector in one embodiment, and therefore the active material coating is necessarily a cathode material that forms a cathode, see Choi et al. : [0007]);
wherein the longitudinal edges comprise one or more cuts that extend from a longitudinal edge (see e.g. Choi et al.: [0057] and Fig. 10, which shows cuts extending from the longitudinal edge toward coating material 12, thereby forming terminal piece 11b).
Choi et al. is silent at to the surface flatness of the cathode, and does not explicitly teach a cathode that has a surface flatness of less than or equal to about 50 mm per cm2.
Wang et al., also working in the field of electrodes for batteries, teaches that when an electrode is formed, reduced surface roughness and increased smoothness are important, as surface roughness can lead to uneven current density that adversely affects battery performance (see e.g. Wang et al.: [0018]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to reduce the surface flatness of Choi et al.’s cathode to less than or equal to about 50 mm per cm2 in order to produce as smooth a surface as possible. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification because Wang et al. teaches that increased surface smoothness is an important factor for an electrode that can prevent uneven current density that adversely affects battery performance.
As to Claim 2, Choi et al. in view of Wang et al. teaches the bilayer of claim 1, wherein the cathode (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. in view of Wang 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. in view of Wang et al. teaches the bilayer of claim 1, wherein at least three lanes of cathode material are disposed on the metal substrate (see e.g. coating 12, which forms three lanes as shown in Choi et al.: Fig. 6).
As to Claim 5, Choi et al. in view of Wang et al. teaches the bilayer of claim 1, wherein at least three lanes of cathode material are disposed on the metal substrate, wherein the at least three lanes of cathode material are identical in composition (see e.g. coating 12, which forms three lanes as shown in Choi et al.: Fig. 6 to yield three lanes that are identical in composition).
As to Claim 8, Choi et al. in view of Wang 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 et al. [0057]).
Choi et al. does not disclose cuts that are periodically spaced.
However, modifying Choi et al. in view of Wang 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. in view of Wang 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. in view of Wang 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. in view of Wang 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. in view of Wang 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. in view of Wang 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. in view of Wang 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. in view of Wang 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.
As to Claim 13, Choi et al. in view of Wang 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. in view of Wang 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.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (CN 112750971) in view of Wang et al. (US 2016/0006018) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zagars et al. (US 2020/0014025).
As to Claim 17, Choi et al. in view of Wang et al. discloses the bilayer of claim 1, wherein the metal substrate is cut into the shape of a battery tab (see e.g. electrode terminal piece 11b, [0057] and Fig. 10).
Choi et al. in view of Wang 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. in view of Wang et al. with perforations shaped as battery tabs such that the tabs can be formed by cutting along the perforations in the manner taught by Zagars et al. This is because the use of such perforations would be an art-recognized, functionally equivlanet method of creating cuts in the metal substrate that would fail to produce any new benefit or effect that would not have been reasonably expected by one of ordinary skill in the art given the teachings of Zagars et al.
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (CN 112750971) in view of Wang et al. (US 2016/0006018) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shin et al. (US 2021/0036329).
As to Claim 18, Choi et al. in view of Wang et al. discloses the bilayer of claim 1, including a cathode material (see e.g. coating 12 ,[0007] and [0038]).
However, Choi et al. in view of Wang 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. in view of Wang 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 et al. 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. in view of Wang 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) in view of Wang et al. (US 2016/0006018) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (US 2021/0050599).
As to Claim 21, Choi et al. in view of Wang et al. discloses the bilayer of claim 1.
Choi et al. in view of Wang 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. in view of Wang 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. in view of Wang 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) in view of Wang et al. (US 2016/0006018) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xiao et al. (US 2020/0274148).
As to Claim 27, Choi et al. in view of Wang et al. discloses the bilayer of claim 1, wherein the cathode material 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. in view of Wang et al. is silent as to the composition of this cathode material and does not disclose a cathode material comprising a cathode active 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 active 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. 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 active materials of Choi et al. in view of Wang 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 active 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 active material layer is minimized to reduce parasite weight and maximize the areal capacity of the cathode (Choi et al. in view of Wang et al., [142]).
As to Claim 28, Choi et al. in view of Wang et al. discloses the bilayer of claim 27.
However, Choi et al. in view of Wang 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. 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. in view of Wang 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. in view of Wang et al., [142]).
Conclusion
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
/CHRISTIAN ROLDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights