DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the July 29th, 2025 arguments and remarks (“Remarks”).
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 .
Response to Amendments
In response to the amendments received in the Remarks on July 29th, 2025:
Claims 1 and 6-9 are pending in the current application. Claims 1 and 9 have been amended. Claims 2-5 have been cancelled.
The previous rejection under 35 USC 112 is overcome in light of the amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed with the Remarks on July 29th, 2025 with respect to Claims 1 and 6-9 are acknowledged, however, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that the prior art of record fails to disclose the claimed electrode is not persuasive.
Specifically, Applicant argues that the prior art of record fails to disclose wherein a proportion of a cross-sectional area of the solid oxide electrolyte with respect to a cross-sectional area of the entire gap is 5.1 to 11.6%; and Applicant argues that an electrode with this proportion is advantageous over the prior art in that it is able to simultaneously achieve an electrode active material volume filling factor of 60% or more and a capacity maintenance rate of 81.4% or more. This argument is not persuasive for the following reasons:
First, the examples provided in Tables 1 and 2 of Applicant’s own PG Publication only have a proportion value of 0, 5.1, or 11.6%. These data points only compare the presence of a cross-sectional area of solid oxide electrolyte (5.1, 11.6) to no presence of a cross-sectional area of solid oxide electrolyte (0). This would mean that at most, Applicant is able to state that the presence of a cross-sectional area of solid oxide electrolyte is critical, but there is no proof of criticality of a specific range. In order for this to be a persuasive argument, Applicant would need to provide at least one proportion outside of the claimed range that does not include the end points representing either no solid oxide electrolyte (0) or all solid oxide electrolyte (100). For example, a proportion of 20% that has both an electrode active material volume filling factor less than 60% and a capacity maintenance rate less than 81.4%.
Second, in Table 1 Example 4 has a proportion of 11.6% (which falls within the claimed range of 5.1 to 11.6%) and a volume filling factor of 63.9% or 65.5%. However, Example 4 has a capacity maintenance rate of 80.9% (which falls outside of the claimed range of 81.4% or more). Therefore, Applicant is incorrect in stating that an electrode with a proportion between 5.1 and 11.6% simultaneously achieves both an electrode active material volume filling factor of 60% or more and a capacity maintenance rate of 81.4% or more.
Third, as stated above, Example 4 has a proportion of 11.6% and a capacity maintenance rate of 80.9%. While Comparative Example 3 has a proportion of 0% and a capacity maintenance rate of 80%. It is not convincing that there is such a significant improvement in the quality of a battery with a capacity maintenance increase of less than 1%. Additionally, Comparative Example 3 has a higher volume filling factor (67.2%) for the positive electrode than that of Example 4 (63.9%).
Therefore, the arguments presented are not persuasive and the rejection of record is maintained. Any modification to the rejection is as necessitated by the amendments.
Prior Art
Previously cited Iwasaki US PG Publication 2018/0083269 (“Iwasaki”)
Previously cited Oh US PG Publication 2019/0081321 (“Oh”)
Previously cited Anandan US PG Publication 2017/0263973 (“Anandan”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9, lines 2-3 recite the limitation “an electrolyte solution located in an outer portion of the electrode.” It is wholly unclear whether this “electrolyte solution” is the same as defined in line 3 of Claim 1, from which Claim 9 depends, or if this is an entirely different “electrolyte solution.”
Further clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claims 1 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki US PG Publication 2018/0083269 in view of Oh US PG Publication 2019/0081321.
Regarding Claim 1, Iwasaki discloses an electrode for a lithium-ion secondary battery (e.g., nonaqueous electrolyte battery) ([0018]) comprising:
an electrode active material (e.g., active material-containing layer) ([0022]);
a current collector ([0017]);
a solid oxide electrolyte (e.g., inorganic solid particles of Li7La3Zr2O12 - LLZO) ([0071]-[0074]);
and an electrolyte solution ([0179]);
wherein the solid oxide electrolyte (e.g., LLZO) and the electrolyte solution are located in a gap formed between particles of the electrode active material (e.g., solid electrolyte particles can exist inside the active material-containing layer) ([0075]), and
wherein the solid oxide electrolyte is LLZO (which meets the claim limitation of at least one selected from the group consisting of Li7La3Zr2O12 (LLZO), Li6.75La3Zr1.75Ta0.25O12 (LLZTO), Li0.33La0.56TiO3 (LLTO), Li1.3Al0.3Ti1.7(PO4)3 (LATP), and Li1.6Al0.6Ge1.4(PO4)3 (LAGP)) ([0071]-[0074]),
wherein a concentration of a lithium salt in the electrolyte solutions is 0.5 to 2.5 mol/L (which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of 0.5 to 3.0 mol/L) ([0179]-[0182]),
wherein a thickness of an electrode composite layer in the electrode for a lithium-ion secondary battery refers to a length in a direction in which a current collector and the electrode composite material layer are overlaid ([0115]-[0117]),
wherein in cross-section observation of the electrode for a lithium-ion secondary battery, where an observation is made for an area of 100% (i.e. the entire area - which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of 80% or more) with respect to the thickness of the electrode composite material layer ([0115]-[0117]), a proportion of a cross-sectional area of the solid oxide electrolyte with respect to a cross-sectional area of the entire gap is 0 to 100% (which encompasses the claimed range of 5.1 to 11.6%) (see Modified Fig. 2 below, wherein a proportion of a cross-sectional area of the solid oxide electrolyte with respect to a cross-sectional area of the entire gap has a gradient throughout the cross-section observation of the electrode including the two extremes in which the proportion is 0% and 100% which are also reflective of the schematic as shown in Fig. 1 and wherein the cross-sectional area comprises the current collector and electrode material layer overlaid on one another),
wherein a capacity maintenance rate (i.e. capacity retention ratio) of the lithium-ion secondary battery having the electrode for a lithium-ion secondary battery is 82% or more (which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of 81.4% or more) (Table 3, [0322]).
While Iwasaki does not explicitly disclose wherein the cross-section is performed by observing a cross section of an electrode composite material layer comprising the electrode active material and the solid oxide electrolyte via SEM, Iwasaki does disclose that the cross-section is performed by observing the entire cross section of an electrode composite material layer (which meets the claim limitation of an imaging area of 80% or more of the electrode composite material layer in a thickness direction of the electrode) comprising the electrode active material and the solid electrolyte via SSRM ([0117]). Further, Iwasaki discloses that SEM can be performed to confirm SSRM results ([0120]), and therefore the skilled artisan would expect substantially similar results when measured via SSRM compared to SEM.
Further, while Iwasaki does not explicitly disclose a volume filling factor of the electrode active material to a total volume of the electrode composite material constituting the electrode, Iwasaki does disclose wherein the volume of the active material particles is 4 times to 10 times the volume of insulator particles also found within the electrode ([0089]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would therefore recognize that Iwasaki discloses wherein the electrode active material has a volume filling factor with respect to a total volume of the electrode composite material constituting the electrode of 91% or less (which overlaps the claimed range of 60% or more) (in the instance where the electrode only comprises active material and insulator particles and the active material particles comprise 10 times the volume of the insulator particles).
Additionally, while Iwasaki does not explicitly disclose wherein the capacity maintenance rate refers to a proportion of a discharge capacity after a durability test with respect to an initial discharge capacity of the lithium-ion secondary battery, and wherein the discharge capacity after the durability test refers to a discharge capacity measured in the following manner: performing a cycle of charging and discharging for 500 cycles, in which one cycle of charging and discharging is defined as an operation of constant current charging at 1C to 4.2V and subsequent constant current discharging at a discharge rate of 2C to 2.5V in a thermostatic bath at 45oC; and after the 500 cycles are complete, the thermostatic bath is set to 25oC, and the lithium-ion secondary battery is left in the thermostatic bath to stand for 24 h after the 2.5V discharging – the skilled artisan would expect to attain substantially similar results when measuring properties of the battery regardless of the protocol, as long as a person having ordinary skill in the art would find it reasonable and feasible to perform said protocol - including measuring the capacity with the claimed protocol compared to the protocol as defined by Iwasaki (Table 3, [0320]-[0322]) (see MPEP 2112.01).
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).
Also, Oh discloses an electrode comprising an electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery (Abstract) and a solid electrolyte placed between a gap of active material particles ([0005]) . Oh teaches controlling the gap between the active material particles such that there is no need for an excessive amount of solid electrolyte and thereby maintain a desirable energy density per volume and mass of the battery ([0005]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the electrode of Iwasaki to optimize a proportion of a cross-sectional area of the solid electrolyte with respect to a cross-sectional area of the entire gap such that there is no need for an excessive amount of solid electrolyte and thereby maintain a desirable energy density per volume and mass of the battery, as taught by Oh.
“[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.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
PNG
media_image1.png
512
1513
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 2 of Iwasaki
Regarding Claim 7, Iwasaki in view of Oh teaches the instantly claimed electrode for a lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 1, and Iwasaki discloses wherein the electrode for a lithium-ion secondary battery (e.g., nonaqueous electrolyte battery) is a positive electrode ([0034]).
Regarding Claim 8, Iwasaki in view of Oh teaches the instantly claimed electrode for a lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 1, and Iwasaki discloses wherein the electrode for a lithium-ion secondary battery (e.g., nonaqueous electrolyte battery) is a negative electrode ([0034]).
Regarding Claim 9, Iwasaki in view of Oh teaches a lithium-ion secondary battery (e.g., nonaqueous electrolyte battery) comprising the instantly claimed electrode for a lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 1, and Iwasaki discloses an electrolyte solution ([0179]-[0180]) located in an outer portion of the electrode for a lithium-ion secondary battery comprising, in order, a positive electrode, the solid-oxide electrolyte comprising the electrolyte solution, and a negative electrode ([0180], [0213]-[0215]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki US PG Publication 2018/0083269 in view of Oh US PG Publication 2019/0081321, as applied to Claim 1, further in view of Anandan US PG Publication 2017/0263975.
Regarding Claim 6, Iwasaki teaches in view of Oh the instantly claimed electrode for a lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein a thickness of the electrode for a lithium-ion secondary battery is 40 µm or more.
However, Anandan discloses a lithium-ion rechargeable (secondary) battery comprising an electrode active material ([0026]), a high dielectric oxide solid (e.g., LLZO, LLTO, or LATP) ([0019]), and an electrolyte solution ([0007]).
Anandan teaches thicker electrodes with a thickness greater than 300 µm, which falls within the claimed 40 µm or more, may obtain high energy density because they have a higher ratio of the electrode active material to the non-active components ([0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that the electrode for a lithium-ion secondary battery of Iwasaki in view of Oh would further include a thickness of the electrode being 40 µm or more, so that the lithium-ion secondary battery can obtain a high energy density, as taught by Anandan.
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 OLIVIA MASON RUGGIERO whose telephone number is (703)756-4652. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7am-6pm 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached on (571)272-1481. 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.
/O.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729