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 . If status of the application as subject to 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 a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/4/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5, 10, 12-18, 20-23, & 25-27 are pending in the application and are presently examined. Claims 1-5 & 10-24 were rejected in the 3/5/2026 office action. Applicant cancelled claims 11, 19, & 24. Applicant added new claims 25-27.
Response to Amendment / Arguments
The 5/4/2026 amendment, in response to the 3/5/2026 office action, has been entered.
Applicant’s claim amendments overcame the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections.
Applicant’s claim amendments and arguments, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding independent claims 1, 14, & 16, Applicant argues that US20230076286A1 (Wang) fails to teach “a slope of the first edge continuously decreases in a direction from the edge region toward the center region” because “FIG. 4 of Wang appears to show a standard arc or radius at edge region” (Remarks pp.10-11). Examiner is not persuaded for the following reasons:
First, it is unclear how Wang showing “a standard arc or radius at edge region” is related to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection. The claims don’t refer to a “standard arc or radius”. Also, it is unclear what this “standard arc or radius” means.
Second, Wang does show the claimed continuously decreasing slope from the edge region toward the center region. Present application support for this claimed continuously decreasing slope is in figure 10, which is illustrated below next to Wang’s figure 4. Both illustrate this decreasing slope with lines L1 & L2. In both, the slope of line L2 is less than the slope of line L1.
Present Figure 10 Wang Figure 4
PNG
media_image1.png
354
257
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
421
390
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding dependent claims 12, 18, & 23, which all require a range for A/B, Applicant argues that Examiner calculated B incorrectly in the prior office action (Remarks pp.11-12). Applicant notes that B is a thickness of the second electrode plate (claims 12, 18, & 23), and the second electrode plate includes the second current collector and the second active substance layer. Applicant then argues that thickness B must include both second current collector and second active substance layer thicknesses. Examiner disagrees.
These claims state:
“along the direction from the edge region toward the center region, a dimension of the edge region is A, measured in mm; and
“a thickness of the second electrode plate is B, measured in mm”
Although the electrode plate includes the second current collector and the second active substance layer, there is a region of the current collector without the active layer (present figure 13; Tanaka figure 4). These claims don’t require that B is measured in a region where the second active substance layer coats the second current collector. Thus, thickness B can be a thickness of the current collector alone.
Applicant argues that the new 60≤A/B≤200 range is critical (Remarks p.12). Applicant, however, failed to provide evidence of criticality of this range. Applicant referred to paragraphs 6, 105, 127, and 128 in the present specification, as evidence of criticality. These paragraphs, however, fail to prove improved performance inside the 60≤A/B≤200 range, and degraded performance outside of this range. These paragraphs discuss benefits of the claimed edge region, but not criticality of 60≤A/B≤200.
Regarding A/B, the present specification states:
“For example, A/B may be 20, 30, 50, 60, 80, 100, 120, 150, 180, 190, 200, or a range between any two of the preceding numeral values.” (paragraph 114)
This listing of values 20, 30, and 50, which are outside of the claimed 60≤A/B≤200 range, is additional evidence that the 60≤A/B≤200 range is not critical.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 10 recites “an average of the slope of the first edge is K and K ≤ 1/20”. According to claim 10, the average slope K can be less than or equal to zero. One skilled in the art, however, would recognize that K must be greater than zero, based on the requirements of claim 1. Claim 10 is interpreted to mean that “0 < K ≤ 1/20”.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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.
The claims are in bold font, the prior art is in parentheses.
Claims 1-2, 13-16, 20-21, & 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN216120370U machine translation (Tang) in view of US20230076286A1 (Wang), together “modified Tang”.
Tang teaches the following limitations of independent claims 1, 14, & 16:
a first electrode plate (page 8, lines 36-37; figure 2: positive pole piece 1) comprising a first current collector (page 8, line 39; figure 2: positive current collector 11) and a first active substance layer (page 8, lines 41-43; figure 2: positive electrode active material layer 111), and the first active substance layer (111) being disposed on at least one surface of the first current (11) collector; and
a second electrode plate (page 8, lines 36-37; figure 2: negative pole piece 2) having a polarity opposite to that of the first electrode plate, the second electrode plate comprising a second current collector (page 9, lines 4; figure 2: negative electrode current collector 21) and a second active substance layer (page 9, lines 7-3; figure 2: negative electrode active material layer 211), and the second active substance layer (211) being disposed on at least one surface of the second current collector (21)…
the second active substance layer (211) comprises an edge region (page 9, lines 9-11; figure 2: second thinned area 2112) and a center region (page 9, lines 9-11; figure 2: second flat area 2111), the edge region (2112) and the center region (2111) both being disposed on the surface of the second current collector (21), the edge region (2112) and the center region (2111) being continuously disposed (figure 2), and the edge region (2112) being located on at least one side (figure 2) of the center region (2111), along a direction from the edge region (2112) toward the center region (2111), a thickness of the edge region (2112) continuously increases (figure 2), and an average thickness of the edge region (2112) is less than (figure 2) an average thickness of the center region (2111)
Tang also teaches the following limitations of claims 1, 14, & 16 (Figure A below):
wherein along a thickness direction of the electrode assembly, a projection of the second active substance layer (211) is located within a projection of the first active substance layer (111)… the edge region and the center region are smoothly and transitionally connected
Figure A: Annotated Tang Figure 2
PNG
media_image3.png
776
632
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Tang, however, fails to teach the following limitations of claims 1, 14, & 16, which are taught by Wang (Figure B below):
the edge region includes a first edge that is a curved line segment,
a slope of the first edge continuously decreases in a direction from the edge region toward the center region, …the slope is measured relative to a plane parallel to the surface of the second current collector on which the first edge is located, and the slope is based on a change in the thickness direction over a change in the direction from the edge region toward the center region
Figure B: Annotated Wang Figure 4
PNG
media_image4.png
458
797
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding the continuously decreasing slope, the slope of line L2 is less than the slope of line L1 in Figure B above.
Wang is directed to an electrochemical device with increased energy density, reduced lithium plating hazards, and improved safety (abstract). The active material layer includes an edge region with a curved face (paragraphs 35-36; figure 4). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Tang’s negative electrode active material layer 211 to have a curved face / line segment, as taught by Wang, for an electrochemical device with increased energy density, reduced lithium plating hazards, and improved safety.
Regarding the variable slope, claims 1, 14, & 16 also state:
such that the edge region enables deformation under a force and alleviate stress concentration
Wang fails to teach this benefit; however, Wang’s edge region has the claimed shape, and thus is expected to achieve this claimed benefit.
Tang and Wang also teach the following limitations of independent claims 1, 14, & 16:
1. An electrode assembly (Tang figure 2)
14. A battery cell (Tang page 8, lines 36-39; figure 1: secondary battery cell), comprising: an electrode assembly (Tang figure 2)
16. An electric apparatus (Wang paragraphs 3 & 59), comprising: an electrode assembly (Tang figure 2)
With regard to claim 2, modified Tang teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Tang also teaches the following claim 2 limitation (Figure B below):
the first current collector (11) comprises a first current collecting portion and a first tab portion continuously disposed along a first direction, the first active substance layer (111) being disposed on at least one surface of the first current collecting portion, and the first direction being perpendicular to the thickness direction of the electrode assembly; and
the second current collector (21) comprises a second current collecting portion and a second tab portion continuously disposed along the first direction, the second active substance layer being disposed on at least one surface of the second current collecting portion;
wherein the first current collecting portion and the second current collecting portion are disposed opposite each other; and
the edge region (2112) is disposed at least on a side of the center region (2111) close to the first tab portion
Figure B: Annotated Tang Figure 2
PNG
media_image5.png
872
738
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 13, modified Tang teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Claim 13 recites:
the first electrode plate is a negative electrode plate
Tang’s positive pole piece 1 is the first electrode plate, as discussed under claim 1. There is, however, no reason that the roles can’t be swapped. Tang’s negative pole piece 2 can be the first electrode plate. It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Tang’s negative pole piece 2 to be the first electrode plate.
Claim 13 also recites:
the first active substance layer comprises an alkali metal
Tang’s negative pole piece 2 can include lithium (page 3, lines 22-24).
With regard to claim 15, modified Tang teaches the limitations of claim 14 as described above. Tang also teaches the following claim 15 limitation:
A battery, comprising the battery cell according to claim 14. (page 1, lines 14-15: secondary battery)
With regard to claims 20-21, modified Tang teaches the limitations of claims 1 & 10, as described above. Claims 20-21 state:
Claim 20
the average of the slope K of the first edge is based on an average of slopes obtained at a plurality of points
Claim 21
the plurality of points for obtaining the average of the slope K comprises 10 points
This is an apparatus claim and not a method of measurement claim. These details of how average slope is measured do not limit these claims for examination. Applicant may file a continuation application with method of measurement claims.
With regard to claim 25, modified Tang teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Wang also teaches the following claim 25 limitation (Figure C below):
the slope of the first edge continuously decreases in the direction from the edge region toward the center region such that a first thickness increase trend of the edge region is faster farther from the center region, and a second thickness increase trend of the edge region is more moderate closer to the center region
Figure C: Annotated Wang Figure 4
PNG
media_image6.png
496
848
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The claimed increase trend will result from the edge region having a convex shape. Wang illustrates a convex shape.
Claims 3-5, 12, 17-18, & 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN216120370U machine translation (Tang) in view of US20230076286A1 (Wang), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US20060006063A1 (Tanaka).
With regard to claims 3-5, modified Tang teaches the limitations of claims 1-2, as described above. Tang, however, fails to teach the following limitations of claims 3-5, which are taught by Tanaka (paragraphs 7-14, lines figures 3-4, 8(b)-9, Figure D below):
Claim 3
the edge region is disposed on two sides of the center region opposite each other along the first direction
Claim 4
the edge region is further disposed on at least one side of the center region along a second direction, the second direction being perpendicular to the thickness direction of the electrode assembly
Claim 5
the edge region is disposed on two sides of the center region opposite each other along the second direction
Figure D: Annotated Tanaka Figure 4
PNG
media_image7.png
364
1245
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Tanaka is directed to a method of manufacturing an electrode with sufficient volume capacity (paragraphs 7-14). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Tang’s negative electrode active material layer 211 to have a taper at both ends, in a first / second direction perpendicular to the thickness direction, as taught by Tanaka, for sufficient volume capacity.
With regard to claim 12, modified Tang teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Tang, however, fails to teach the following claim 12 limitation, which is taught by Tanaka:
along the direction from the edge region toward the center region, a dimension of the edge region is A, measured in mm; and a thickness of the second electrode plate is B, measured in mm; wherein 20 ≤ A/B ≤ 200
Tanaka’s electrode includes active material on a current collector. In Tanaka’s example 2, edge width W1 [present claim A] = 700 µm (paragraph 156). For Tanaka’s electrode —
the current collector thickness is 15-30 µm (paragraph 60); and
the active material thickness is 190 µm, at its thickest location (D1), and 0 µm, at its thinnest location (D2) (paragraphs 155-156; figure 4).
Selecting Tanaka’s electrode thickness at D2, B is 15-30 µm (current collector thickness). Thus, A/B = 700/30 to 700/15 = 23 to 47, which is within the claimed range of 20 to 200.
With regard to claims 17 & 22, modified Tang teaches the limitations of claims 1 & 14, as described above. Tang, however, fails to teach the following limitation of claims 17 & 22, which is taught by Tanaka:
along the direction from the edge region toward the center region, a dimension of the edge region is A, measured in mm; and a thickness of the second electrode plate is B, measured in mm; wherein 20≤A/B≤25
Tanaka teaches A/B is 23 to 47, as discussed under claim 12 above. Therefore, Tanaka’s 23 to 47 range overlaps the claimed 20 to 25 range. MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A) provides the law for this issue:
“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)”
Given that Tanaka’s range is similar to and substantially overlaps the claimed range, and further given the fact that no criticality is disclosed for the claimed range, the range in claims 17 & 22 is an obvious variant of Tanaka’s range.
With regard to claims 18 & 23, modified Tang teaches the limitations of claims 1 & 14, as described above. Tang, however, fails to teach the following limitations of claims 17 & 22, which are taught by Tanaka:
along the direction from the edge region toward the center region, a dimension of the edge region is A, measured in mm; and a thickness of the second electrode plate is B, measured in mm; wherein 60≤A/B≤200
Tanaka teaches A/B is 23 to 47, as discussed under claim 12 above. Tanaka discloses 23 to 47 whereas claims 18 & 23 require 60 to 200. MPEP 2144.05 (I) provides the law for this issue:
“Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985)… ‘The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.’”
The claimed range is an obvious variant of Tanaka’s range, given that (A) there is only a slight difference between Tanaka’s 23 to 47 range and the 60 to 200 range in claims 18 & 23, (B) no criticality is disclosed for the claimed range, and (C) Applicant presented no evidence of different properties in Tanaka’s 23 to 47 range compared to the claimed 60 to 200 range.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN216120370U machine translation (Tang) in view of US20230076286A1 (Wang), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US20060006063A1 (Tanaka) and JP5765574B2 (JP574).
Claim 10 recites:
an average of the slope of the first edge is K and K ≤ 1/20
Tang fails to teach a slope of the edge. Tanaka teaches a slope of 5.4 degrees (paragraph 150), which is equivalent to 9/100 or 1.8/20: atan(5.4o)=0.09.
Tanaka thus teaches 1.8/20 whereas claim 10 requires ≤ 1/20. MPEP 2144.05 (I) provides the law for this issue:
“Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985)… ‘The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.’”
Given that there is only a slight difference between 1.8/20 (5.4o) in Tanaka and ≤ 1/20 in claim 10, and further given the fact that no criticality is disclosed for the claimed range, the claimed range is an obvious variant of Tanaka’s range. As illustrated in Figure D above, however, Tanaka’s edge has a linear slope, not curved as required by claim 1.
JP574’s negative electrode active material layer 54 has a curved edge (page 5, lines 4-7; page 6, lines 40-44; figures 4-5). JP574 provides guidance for optimization of the shape (i.e. average slope) of the curved edge. JP574 explains that if the radius of curvature R is too small, then the separator can be damaged, and if the radius of curvature R is too large, then capacity is reduced (page 6, lines 19-28).
MPEP 2144.05(II) provides guidance for applying Tanaka and JP574 to claim 10:
“‘[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.’ In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)”.
Tanaka provides a slope barely outside of the claimed range. JP574 teaches slope / curved edge optimization by balancing the competing needs of separator protection and increasing capacity. Tanaka and JP574 thus provide sufficient guidance for one skilled in the art to achieve the claimed average slope of ≤ 1/20 through routine experimentation.
Claims 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN216120370U machine translation (Tang) in view of US20230076286A1 (Wang), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US20120058375A1 (Tanaka2).
With regard to claim 26, modified Tang teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Tang fails to teach the following limitations of claim 26, which are taught by Tanaka2:
the first active substance layer is a lithium metal foil or a lithium metal layer pressed on the first current collector (Paragraph 28: negative electrode active material layer 22 on the negative electrode current collector foil 21. Paragraph 48: negative electrode active material can be lithium metal. Paragraphs 54 & 76: pressed.)
Tang’s positive pole piece 1 is the first electrode plate, as discussed under claim 1. There is, however, no reason that the roles can’t be swapped. Tang’s negative pole piece 2 can be the first electrode plate. It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Tang’s negative pole piece 2 to be the first electrode plate.
Tanaka2 is directed to a battery with less delamination (abstract). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Tang’s negative electrode active material layer 211 to be a lithium metal layer pressed on the first current collector, as taught by Tanaka2, for a battery with less delamination.
With regard to claim 27, modified Tang teaches the limitations of claims 1 & 26, as described above. Claim 27 states:
the thickness of the edge region is reduced relative to the average thickness of the center region by secondary rolling of the lithium metal foil or the lithium metal layer
MPEP § 2113 provides the law for a recitation of how an article is made in an apparatus claim:
“‘[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.’ In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)”
The claim 27 recitation of how the edge region is made does not limit the scope of the claim for patent examination purposes, except to the extent that the process affects the edge region.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT WEST whose telephone number is 703-756-1363 and email address is Robert.West@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am - 7 pm ET.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684.
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.G.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights