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 .
The Applicant has amended independent claim 1; and withdrew claims 12-16. The pending claims are claims 1, 3-11.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mimura, WO 2017-163846, in view of Jeong So Mi et al., KR 20160012591, and in further view of Du, CN 206250304.
Regarding claim 1, Mimura et al., teaches an electrode for a lithium secondary battery (abstract), the electrode comprising: an electrode current collector (current collector 3) (0004); an electrode active material layer (electrode active material layer 2, 7) (0004; Fig. 2, 3) formed on the electrode current collector (0004; current collector 3); and an insulating layer (0006) formed on the electrode current collector (current collector 3) and overlapping and contacting the electrode active material layer (0035) in a partial region (0006-0007).
Mimura does not teach thickness of the insulating layer at an end of the electrode active material layer is A0, the thickness of the insulating layer at an end of the insulating layer is A, and A/ A0 is at least 0.05 and less than 1.
Jeong So Mi et al., teaches a thickness of the insulating layer at an end of the electrode active material layer (0046-0049) (Fig. 4) (thickness of insulating layer D1; thickness of region where electrode active material 122 is applied D3; insulating layer 150).
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified to adjust the thicknesses of the insulating layer anode the electrode active material layer because the insulating layer is to prevent an internal short circuit between the electrodes (0045) and the insulating layer can be adjusted accordingly (0046).
Mimura et al., in view of Jeong So Mi, does not teach wherein a length of a region in which the electrode active material layer and the insulating layer overlap is 0.1 to 1.3 mm.
Du teaches a length of a region in which the electrode active material layer and the insulating layer (insulating protective material) (0012) overlap is 0.1 mm (0027).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to insert the teachings of Du into the teachings of Mimura modified by Jeong So Mi, because Du teaches the thickness of the electrode assembly overlapping with insulation provides the advantages of this utility model of ternary high-energy density power battery and power battery module are that it replaces the existing lithium iron phosphate cathode material with ternary cathode material, thereby improving the battery's internal resistance, energy density, cycle performance, rate performance and safety performance (0017).
Regarding claim 7, Mimura teach wherein a thickness of the electrode active material layer in a region in which the electrode active material layer (0006) and insulating layer
(0006) do not overlap (0012), a thickness of the insulating layer in a region in which the electrode active material layer and insulating layer do not overlap (0012).
Regarding claim 9, Mimura teaches wherein, in a region in which the electrode active material layer (0004) (Fig. 2, 3) and insulating layer (0006) do not overlap (0035). Mimura does not teach a thickness of the electrode active material layer is 50 to 150 um.
Jeong So Mi et al., teaches a thickness of the electrode active material layer is 50 to 200 um (0046).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to insert the teachings of Jeong So Mi into the teachings of Mimura because "If the coating thickness (T) of the above insulating layer is too thin, it may be difficult to obtain the desired electrical insulation properties, and conversely, if it is too thick, the coating layer solidification time may become longer or the thickness may increase,
which is not desirable." (0037).
Regarding claim 10, Mimura teaches wherein, in a region in which the electrode active material layer and the insulating layer overlap, the electrode active material layer is formed obliquely (inclined) (0020-0022).
Regarding claim 11, Mimura teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising the electrode of claim 1 (abstract; 0004).
Claim(s) 3, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mimura, WO 2017-163846, in view of Jeong So Mi et al., KR 20160012591, in further view of Huh et al., KR 20140112609.
Regarding claim 3, Mimura teaches a region in which the electrode active material layer and the insulating layer overlap (0007; 0020-0022).
Mimura does not teach a thickness of the insulating layer is decreased toward the electrode active material layer.
Huh et al., teaches thickness of the electrode active material layer is 50 to 200 um (0049); Huh teaches the thickness of the insulating layer is continually decreased toward electrode active material layer (0031).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to insert the teachings of Huh into the teachings of Mimura because "The coating method of the insulating layer formed on one or both sides of the positive electrode tab may also vary, and preferably, for example, an aqueous solution containing an insulating material may be coated on the positive electrode tab" (0039).
Regarding claim 4, Mimura does not teach, wherein, in a region in which the electrode active material layer and the insulating layer overlap, a thickness of the insulating layer is continually decreased toward the electrode active material layer.
Huh et al., teaches thickness of the electrode active material layer is 50 to 200 um (0049); Huh teaches the thickness of the insulating layer is continually decreased toward electrode active material layer (0031).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to insert the teachings of Huh into the teachings of Mimura because "The coating method of the insulating layer formed on one or both sides of the positive electrode tab may also vary, and preferably, for example, an aqueous solution containing an insulating material may be coated on the positive electrode tab" (0039).
Claim(s) 5, 6, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mimura, WO 2017-163846, in view of Jeong So Mi et al., KR 20160012591, in further view of Lee et al., KR 20170139463.
Regarding claim 5, Mimura modified by Jeong So Mi does not teach wherein A₀ is 3 to 20 um.
Lee et al., teaches insulating layer has a thickness of 2 to 15 um (0040).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to insert the teachings of Lee into the teachings of Mimura, because Lee teaches the insulating layer thickness having the effect of preventing active material detachment or preventing inhibiting lithium ion migration (0040).
Regarding claim 6, Mimura modified by Jeong So Mi does not teach wherein A is at least 0.15 and less than 20 um.
Lee et al., teaches insulating layer has a thickness of 2 to 15 um (0040).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to insert the teachings of Lee into the teachings of modified Mimura, because Lee teaches that the insulating layer thickness having the effect of preventing active material detachment or preventing inhibiting lithium ion migration (0040).
Regarding claim 8, modified Mimura does not teach wherein, in a region in which the electrode active material layer and insulating layer do not overlap, a thickness of the insulating layer is 3 to 20 um.
Lee et al., teaches insulating layer has a thickness of 2 to 15 um (0040).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to insert the teachings of Lee into the teachings of Mimura, because Lee teaches that the insulating layer thickness having the effect of preventing active material detachment or preventing inhibiting lithium ion migration (0040).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that “to move prosecution forward, Applicant has amended claim 1 herein to recite the features of original dependent claim 2, which is "a length of a region in which the electrode active material layer and the insulating layer overlap is 0.1 to 1.3 mm." The pending rejection of original dependent claim 2 is not detailed and does not make a specific reference to the prior art, and the Office Action appears to concede that this feature is not taught in Mimura or Jeong So Mi.”
However, a new reference, Du, CN 206250304, has been provided to teach the claim limitation of the electrode active material layer and the insulating layer overlap, wherein
the advantages of this utility model of ternary high-energy density power battery and power battery module are that it replaces the existing lithium iron phosphate cathode material with ternary cathode material, thereby improving the battery's internal resistance, energy density, cycle performance, rate performance and safety performance (0017).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA J MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1288. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-4pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
ANGELA J. MARTIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/ANGELA J MARTIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
