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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16 were rejected in the 10/30/2025 office action. Applicant cancelled claims 6-9 and added new claims 17-24. Claims 1-5 & 10-24 are pending in the application and are presently examined.
Response to Amendment / Arguments
The amendment filed 1/26/2026, in response to the 10/30/2025 office action, has been entered.
Applicant’s claim amendments overcame the prior 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections; however, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to new issues introduced in these claim amendments.
Applicant's claim amendments overcame the prior 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections; nevertheless, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 due to a different arrangement of the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 19 & 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 19 & 24 contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification does not provide support for the t1/t2≤0.9 limitation of new claims 19 & 24. Claims 19 & 24 are not analyzed for prior art due to new matter in these claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-5 & 10-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor(s) regard as the invention.
Claims 1, 14, & 16 state:
“a cross-sectional area of the edge region parallel to the thickness direction of the electrode assembly includes a first edge that is a curved line segment”
It is unclear how the cross-sectional area, which has two dimensions, can be parallel to the thickness direction, which has one dimension. For present examination, the above, indefinite claim limitation is interpreted as follows:
“
Claims 1, 14, & 16 state:
“a slope of the first edge is a variable value”
The phrase “variable value” is indefinite because a “variable value” can vary in time or location. For present examination, Examiner interprets this claim limitation as follows:
“a slope of the first edge is variable in a direction from the edge region toward the center region”
See specification page 20, lines 9-13 for support of this interpretation.
Claims 2-5 & 10-13, 15, & 17-24 are rejected due to their dependence on claims 1, 14, & 16.
Claim 10 states “an average slope of the first edge”. It is unclear whether “an average slope” of claim 10 is an average of the slope of claim 1. Examiner presumes the following interpretation of this claim limitation for present examination: “an average of the slope of the first edge”.
Claim 11 states “a slope k of the first edge”. It is unclear whether “a slope k” of claim 11 is the same as the slope of claim 1.
Applicant amended claim 1 to state that “the slope is measured relative to a plane parallel to the surface of the second current collector on which the first edge is located”. Slope is typically defined as “rise/run” or “Δx/Δy”. Even if “a slope k” of claim 11 is the same as the slope of claim 1, it is unclear whether Δx or Δy is “parallel to the surface of the second current collector on which the first edge is located”.
Examiner suggests moving the following, amended claim 10 limitation to claim 1:
“the
This would provide appropriate definition to slope in claims 10-11.
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, 11, 13-16, & 20-21 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_image1.png
776
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Tang, however, fails to teach the following limitations (amended as interpreted by the Examiner) of claims 1, 14, & 16, which are taught by Wang (Figure B below):
a slope of the first edge is variable in a direction from the edge region toward the center region… and the slope is measured relative to a plane parallel to the surface of the second current collector on which the first edge is located
Figure B: Annotated Wang Figure 4
PNG
media_image2.png
458
797
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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_image3.png
872
738
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 11, modified Tang teaches the limitations of claims 1 & 7, as described above. Tang, however, fails to teach the following limitation of claim 11, which is taught by Wang (Figure B above):
along the direction from the edge region toward the center region, a slope k of the first edge continuously decreases
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 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 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.
Claims 3-5, 10, 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_image4.png
364
1245
media_image4.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 10, modified Tang teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Claim 10 recites:
an average slope of the first edge is K and K ≤ 1/20, and the average slope is based on a change in the thickness direction over a change in the direction from the edge region toward the center region
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.
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 = 15-30 µm, the 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 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 50≤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 50 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.’”
Given that there is only a slight difference between Tanaka’s 23 to 47 and 50 to 200 in claims 18 & 23, 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
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
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721