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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 17th, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 5-8, and 10-24 are pending.
Claims 3 and 4 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 6, 10, 12, 14, 19, and 22 have been amended.
Claims 23 and 24 have been added.
Status of Amendment
The amendment filed June 17th, 2026 has been fully considered but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
Pending Objections and Rejections since the Office Action of April 20th, 2026
The 103 rejections of claims 1, 5-8, 10, and 12-22 over Wang (US 2022/0052341 A1) and further in view of Tani (WO 2013/080988 A1) are amended in view of the Applicant's amendment, but are otherwise maintained.
The 103 rejection of claim 11 over Wang and further in view of Tani and Matsushima (US 2014/0170489 A1) is amended in view of the Applicant’s amendment, but is otherwise maintained.
The 103 rejections of claims 3 and 4 are moot because those claims have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed June 17th, 2026 related to the newly amended claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant includes limitations from the cancelled claims 3 and 4 drawn to a range of particle size and surface roughness that were rejected in the previous Office Action. The Applicant also amended the range of tensile strength to avoid direct overlap with the prior art, Tani. Tani teaches a current collector with a tensile strength of 450 MPa or greater, and the newly amended claim 1 recites that the strength of the claimed current collector is between 360 MPa and 420 MPa. In the consideration of overlapping ranges and sufficient closeness, it is the Examiner’s position that 420 MPa is sufficiently close to the 450 MPa taught by the prior art. Alternatively, Tani also teaches that a current collector with a tensile strength greater than 300 MPa is preferable to ensure that the tensile strength of the current collector is maintained throughout the formation process (page 5, paragraph 3). 300 MPa or greater overlaps with the newly amended range and thus renders said range obvious.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 5-8, 10, and 12-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2022/0052341 A1) and further in view of Tani (WO 2013/080988 A1). The combination of the two will be referred to as modified Wang.
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 13, Wang teaches a battery electrode plate comprised of an active material layer disposed on a current collector (abstract) characterized by a ratio of the current collector’s roughness (Ra) to the volume average particle diameter (D) of the active material present in the active material layer. Wang teaches a volume average particle diameter of 5 µm – 8 µm [0008] and a current collector’s surface roughness of 1.6 µm – 3.2 µm [0028]. Given these values, Wang teaches an Ra/D such that 0.2 ≤ Ra/D ≤ 0.61. This range is within the range claimed in claim 1 (1 ≥ Ra/D ≥ 0.15). Wang’s range of surface roughness of 1.6 µm – 3.2 µm [0028] overlaps with the claimed surface roughness range of 0.5 µm ≤ Ra ≤ 3 µm. The range of volume average particle diameter of 5 µm – 8 µm overlaps with the claimed range of 2 µm – 20 µm. The surface roughness range of 1.6 µm – 3.2 µm overlaps with the claimed range of 0.5 µm – 3 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Wang teaches a battery electrode plate (abstract), but does not discuss the tensile strength of the current collector. Tani is analogous art to Wang because both teach materials in secondary batteries (Tani, title; Wang, title). Tani teaches that it is preferable to have a current collector that has a tensile strength of 450 MPa or more to prevent breakage when the battery expands (page 5, paragraph 2). This range of 450 MPa or more is close to the claimed range of 360 – 420 MPa. Alternatively, Tani also teaches that the tensile strength of a current collector is preferably 300 MPa or more, and current collectors with this tensile strength maintain their tensile strength after a drying and baking process (page 5, paragraph 3). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use a negative current collector with tensile strength of 450 MPa or more to prevent breakage and/or a negative current collector with a tensile strength of 300 MPa or more to ensure that the current collector maintains that strength during its formation.
Wang continues to teach the usage of a battery comprised of a battery electrode plate and an apparatus/electric device using said battery (abstract). The battery electrode plate of modified Wang would be suitable for use in a battery and a device comprised of said battery. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use the battery electrode plate of modified Wang in a battery (as required by claim 12) as well as an electric device comprised of said battery (as required by claim 13).
Regarding claim 5, Wang teaches a negative electrode plate where the active material comprises a silicon-based active material and a carbon-based active material (silicon oxide and graphite, respectively, [0008]).
Regarding claim 6, Wang teaches a battery electrode plate that has an active material comprised of a silicon-based active material ([0006] and [0008]). As described above, Wang teaches a range of values for Ra/D such that 0.2 ≤ Ra/D ≤ 0.61 which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.3 ≤ Ra/D ≤ 1. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 7, Wang teaches that the “negative electrode film” is “disposed on at least one surface of the negative electrode current collector” [0053].
Regarding claim 8, Wang, through their Embodiment 1, provides an example battery where the mass percentage of the active material in the active layer is 94.5% (Table 1) and it further comprises a conductive agent (acetylene black; [0102] and Table 1) and a binder (sodium polyacrylate; [0102] and Table 1). In Embodiment 1, the mass content of the binder is 4%, satisfying the optional limitation of condition (3) wherein the mass proportion of the binder is 2% - 10%. The mass proportion of the acetylene black is 1% which is not within the 2% - 10% range of the optional limitation within condition (2), but is close. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 10, Wang teaches a method of preparing a negative electrode plate by mixing active material, binder, and conductive material into a slurry and coating the slurry onto a negative electrode current collector [0102]. Wang does not explicitly discuss the current collector’s roughness or particle size of the active material, but they later state that “as long as there is no structural conflict, various technical features mentioned in the various embodiments may be combined in any manner” [0122]. Wang teaches a battery electrode plate comprised of an active material layer disposed on a current collector (abstract) characterized by a ratio of the current collector’s roughness (Ra) to the volume average particle diameter (D) of the active material present in the active material layer where Ra/D ≥ 0.15. Wang teaches a volume average particle diameter of 5 µm – 8 µm [0008] and a current collector’s surface roughness of 1.6 µm – 3.2 µm [0028]. Given these values, Wang teaches an Ra/D such that 0.2 ≤ Ra/D ≤ 0.61. This range is within the ranges claimed in claim 10 (1 ≥ Ra/D ≥ 0.15). Wang’s range of surface roughness of 1.6 µm – 3.2 µm [0028] overlaps with the claimed surface roughness range of 0.5 µm – 3 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Wang teaches a battery electrode plate (abstract), but does not discuss the tensile strength of the current collector. Tani teaches that it is preferable to have a current collector that has a tensile strength of 450 MPa or more to prevent breakage when the battery expands (page 5, paragraph 2). This range of 450 MPa or more is close to the claimed range of 360 – 420 MPa. Alternatively, Tani also teaches that the tensile strength of a current collector is preferably 300 MPa or more, and current collectors with this tensile strength maintain their tensile strength after a drying and baking process (page 5, paragraph 3). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use a negative current collector with tensile strength of 450 MPa or more to prevent breakage and/or a negative current collector with a tensile strength of 300 MPa or more to ensure that the current collector maintains that strength during its formation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to prepare a negative electrode plate comprised of the active material and roughened current collector previously mentioned in Wang’s disclosure in the preparation method taught in paragraph [0102] with the features claimed in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 14, Wang teaches a range of surface roughness of a current collector of 1.6 µm – 3.2 µm [0028] which overlaps with the claimed range of 1.5 µm – 3 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 15, Wang teaches a volume average particle diameter of 5 µm – 8 µm [0008] which overlaps with the claimed range of 3 µm – 6 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 16, Wang teaches a range of surface roughness of a current collector of 1.6 µm – 3.2 µm [0028] which overlaps with the claimed range of 1.5 µm – 3 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use a current collector with the claimed surface roughness in modified Wang’s preparation method to make a battery electrode plate.
Regarding claim 17, Wang teaches a volume average particle diameter of 5 µm – 8 µm [0008] which overlaps with the claimed range of 3 µm – 6 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use an active material with the claimed diameter in modified Wang’s preparation method of a battery electrode plate.
Regarding claim 18, Wang teaches a negative electrode plate where the active material comprises a silicon-based active material and a carbon-based active material (silicon oxide and graphite, respectively, [0008]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use the active material taught by Wang in modified Wang’s preparation method of a battery electrode plate.
Regarding claim 19, Wang teaches a battery electrode plate that has an active material comprised of a silicon-based active material ([0006] and [0008]). As described above, Wang teaches a range of values for Ra/D such that 0.2 ≤ Ra/D ≤ 0.61 which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.3 ≤ Ra/D ≤ 1. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use the active material with the required diameter and a current collector with the required surface roughness in modified Wang’s preparation method of a battery electrode plate.
Regarding claim 20, Wang teaches a range of surface roughness of a current collector of 1.6 µm – 3.2 µm [0028] which overlaps with the claimed range of 1.5 µm – 3 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use a current collector with the claimed surface roughness in modified Wang’s preparation method to make a battery.
Regarding claim 21, Wang teaches a volume average particle diameter of 5 µm – 8 µm [0008] which overlaps with the claimed range of 3 µm – 6 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use an active material with the claimed diameter in modified Wang’s preparation method of a battery.
Regarding claim 22, Wang teaches a battery electrode plate that has an active material comprised of a silicon-based active material ([0006] and [0008]). As described above, Wang teaches a range of values for Ra/D such that 0.2 ≤ Ra/D ≤ 0.61 which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.3 ≤ Ra/D ≤ 1. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use the active material with the required diameter and a current collector with the required surface roughness in modified Wang’s preparation method of a battery.
Regarding claim 23, Wang discloses that they prepared batteries including their negative electrode plate and tested their performances. The batteries were tested with a voltage range of 2.5 – 4.25 volts, and all of the exemplary embodiments performed acceptably and did not fail ([0111] – [0113] and Table 2), outside of the adhesion test specifically designed to cause failure [0110].
Regarding claim 24, Wang discloses that they prepared batteries including their negative electrode plate and tested their performances. They tested Embodiments 10 and 13 for 853 and 858 cycles, respectively. They maintained a capacity retention rate of 92% and 86%, respectively. One of ordinary skill in the art would not expect the performance of these batteries would drastically drop and/or fail after 47 and 42 more cycles (which corresponds to only 5.5% and 4.9% of the number of cycles the batteries have already experienced). Furthermore, Wang discusses the factors of the negative electrodes’ compositions and how they contribute to the positive performance of the batteries ([0118] – [0121]). One of ordinary skill in the art could use this data and discussion as a foundation for further optimization to create batteries whose lives extend beyond 900 cycles.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Wang as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Matsushima (US 2014/0170489 A1). Modified Wang teaches a preparation method of making a negative electrode ([0067] – [0072], [0102]), but fails to teach a method for roughening a current collector. Matsushima is analogous art to modified Wang because both discuss negative electrode active material (Wang, abstract; Matsushima, title). Matsushima teaches that one method of roughening a current collector is to deposit metal particles onto a copper foil via a plating method [0026]. Matsushima continues to teach that this method is preferable because roughness control is easy [0026]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use the plating method of Matsushima to roughen the current collector matrix of Wang’s method in order to easily control the roughness of the current collector.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN K BLACKWELL-RUDASILL whose telephone number is (571)270-0563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/R.B.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights