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 .
Response to Amendment and Claim Status
The amendment filed 9 June 2026 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection set forth in the Office Action mailed 9 March 2026. Claim 6 is canceled. Claims 1–5 and 7–23 are pending in the application. Claims 10–12 and 18 are withdrawn from consideration.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
P4L11–12: “super P, acetylene black preferred” should instead read “super P and acetylene black, and preferred”.
P4L12: the extra space after “nanotubes” and before the period should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 7, and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2: “LiCoO2” and “LiFePO4” should instead read “LiCoO2” and “LiFePO4”, respectively.
Claim 7: “a metal foil” should read “the at least one metal foil”.
Claim 21: all instances of “conductive agent” should instead read “conductive material-agent”.
Appropriate correction 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 1–5, 7–9, 13–17, and 19–22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2018/0006291 A1; art already of record) in view of Kolosnitsyn et al. (US 2014/0023924 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 7, and 13, Kim discloses an electrode (see electrode 100, [0061], FIG. 2), comprising:
at least one metal foil (see current collector 140, [0061], FIG. 2), and
at least two layers (see first electrode mixture layer 110, second electrode mixture layer 120, and third electrode mixture layer 130, [0061], FIG. 2) each comprising a binder (see binder, [0037], [0067]), a conductive material-agent (see conducting agents 111, 121, and 131, [0062], FIG. 2), and a same type of at least one lithium ion acceptor (see electrode active material, [0030]–[0031], [0067]; see also Example 1 [0069]–[0072]; note that [0030] lists electrode active materials which are known lithium ion acceptors, such as lithium cobalt oxide and lithium manganese oxide) (Claims 1 and 13).
Kim further discloses wherein a first layer (see first electrode mixture layer 110, [0061], FIG. 2) is positioned closer to a metal foil (140) than a second layer (see e.g. second electrode mixture layer 120, [0061], FIG. 2) of the at least two layers (110, 120, 130) (Claim 7).
However, Kim does not disclose wherein the at least two layers have different porosities (Claims 1 and 13), nor wherein the first layer has a higher porosity than the second layer (Claim 7).
Kolosnitsyn teaches an electrode ([0056], FIG. 2; see also positive electrode, [0044]), comprising: at least one metal foil (see base substrate 1, [0055], FIG. 2), and at least two layers (see successively deposited layers of electrode composition 3, [0056], FIG. 2) each comprising a binder ([0044], [0046]), a conductive material-agent (see electron conductive material, [0044]–[0045]), and at least one lithium ion acceptor (see electroactive material, [0043]–[0044]; note that [0043] lists e.g. simple and complex metal oxides, which a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand include lithium ion acceptors; note that Kolosnitsyn also refers to the electroactive material as a “depolarizer” in e.g. [0016] and [0021]). Kolosnitsyn teaches ([0022], [0025], [0056], FIG. 2) wherein the at least two layers have different porosities, and specifically wherein a first layer that is positioned closer to the metal foil has a higher porosity than a second layer of the at least two layers, i.e. each successive layer decreases in porosity in a direction away from the metal foil. Kolosnitsyn ([0016], [0021]) teaches that such a configuration improves the capacity and power of chemical sources of electrical energy by equalizing the electrochemical overvoltage value over the electrode thickness and improving the efficient utilization of lithium ion acceptor.
Kim and Kolosnitsyn are analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of lithium-based batteries. It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode of Kim such that the at least two layers have different porosities, and specifically such that the first layer positioned closer to the metal foil has a higher porosity than the second layer (and so on, such that each successive layer decreases in porosity in a direction away from the metal foil), as taught by Kolosnitsyn, for the purpose of improving the capacity and power of chemical sources of electrical energy by equalizing the electrochemical overvoltage value over the electrode thickness and improving the efficient utilization of lithium ion acceptor.
Modified Kim does not disclose wherein each different porosity of the at least two layers is determined by an amount of at least one of the conductive material-agent or the binder (Claims 1 and 13). Instead, modified Kim (Kolosnitsyn [0028]) discloses that the different porosities can be determined, i.e. implemented, by processes such as varying the solid content of the slurry, the solvent composition in the slurry, the drying temperature of each layer after deposition, or the pressing/calendaring conditions of each layer after deposition.
However, it is noted that this limitation is considered to be a product-by-process limitation, and even 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, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to Applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product (In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292
(Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP § 2113). In the instant case, this product-by-process limitation is not given patentable weight because the final product, i.e. the electrode having at least two layers having different porosities, would be considered the same regardless of the process by which the porosities was determined. Thus, the electrode of modified Kim, which has the at least two layers with different porosities as set forth above, would be considered the same or similar to the claimed product, even though the porosities are determined by a different process.
Further regarding Claim 13, Kim further discloses an electrochemical cell (see lithium secondary battery, [0043]) comprising the electrode (100) set forth above.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Kim discloses the electrode as set forth above. Kim further discloses wherein the at least one lithium ion acceptor is selected from the group consisting of LiCoO2 (see lithium cobalt oxide (LiCoO2), [0030]), lithium-nickel-manganese-cobalt-oxide (see Li1.2Ni0.2Mn0.5Co0.1O2 of Example 1 [0069]–[0072]), and lithium-manganese-oxide (see lithium manganese oxide represented by a chemical formula Li1+xMn2−xO4, [0030]).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Kim discloses the electrode as set forth above. Kim further discloses wherein the at least two layers (110, 120, 130) further comprise a binder (see binder, [0037], [0067]), and the binder is polyvinylidene fluoride ([0038]; see also Example 1 [0069]–[0072]) or carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) (see carboxymethylcellulose (CMC), [0038]), and the conductive material-agent (111, 121, 131) is carbon black (see carbon black, [0035]).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Kim discloses the electrode as set forth above. Kim further discloses ([0027], FIG. 2; see also Example 1 [0069]–[0072]) wherein a first layer (see first electrode mixture layer 110, [0061], FIG. 2) of the at least two layers (110, 120, 130) is applied directly to the metal foil (140) and wherein a second layer (see second electrode mixture layer 120, [0061], FIG. 2) of the at least two layers (110, 120, 130) is applied to the first layer (110).
However, it is noted that these limitations are considered to be product-by-process limitations, and even 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, 227 USPQ 964,966).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Kim discloses the electrode as set forth above. Kim further discloses wherein the at least two layers (110, 120, 130) differ from each other in their mass loading ([0012], [0062]; see also Example 1 [0069]–[0072]; note that ‘mass loading’ is interpreted as referring to the amount of material included in the layers).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Kim discloses the electrode as set forth above. Kim further discloses wherein a ratio of a thickness of a first layer of the at least two layers (110, 120, 130) to a thickness of a second layer of the at least two layers (110, 120, 130) is 1:1 ([0024]; see also Example 1 [0069]–[0072]).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Kim discloses the electrode as set forth above. Kim further discloses wherein a first layer (see first electrode mixture layer 110, [0061], FIG. 2; see specifically first positive electrode slurry of Example 1 [0069]; one of ordinary skill in the art will understand that the wt.% of the components in the first positive electrode slurry of Example 1 will be analogous to the wt.% of the components in the final first positive electrode mixture layer of Example 1 produced as described in [0072]) of the at least two layers (110, 120, 130) comprises
88 wt.% of the lithium ion acceptor (see wt.% of Li1.2Ni0.2Mn0.5Co0.1O2 in first positive electrode slurry of Example 1 [0069]),
5 wt.% of the binder (see wt.% of PVdF in first positive electrode slurry of Example 1 [0069]), and
7 wt.% of the conductive agent (see wt.% of natural graphite in first positive electrode slurry of Example 1 [0069]),
and
wherein a second layer (see e.g. second electrode mixture layer 120, [0061], FIG. 2; see specifically e.g. second positive electrode slurry of Example 1 [0070]; one of ordinary skill in the art will understand that the wt.% of the components in the second positive electrode slurry of Example 1 will be analogous to the wt.% of the components in the final second positive electrode mixture layer of Example 1 produced as described in [0072]) of the at least two layers (110, 120, 130) comprises
91 wt.% of the lithium ion acceptor (see wt.% of Li1.2Ni0.2Mn0.5Co0.1O2 in second positive electrode slurry of Example 1 [0070]),
4 wt.% of the binder (see wt.% of PVdF in second positive electrode slurry of Example 1 [0070]), and
5 wt.% of the conductive agent (see wt.% of natural graphite in second positive electrode slurry of Example 1 [0070]).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Kim discloses the electrochemical cell as set forth above. Kim further discloses wherein the electrochemical cell is further comprising at least one additional electrode ([0043] discloses an electrode assembly, disclosed in [0003] to include a positive electrode/separator/negative electrode structure; thus one of ordinary skill in the art will understand that an additional electrode is necessarily present; see also negative electrode of Example 1 [0073]), an electrolyte (see non-aqueous electrolyte, [0043]) and at least one separator (see separator, [0043]).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Kim discloses the electrochemical cell as set forth above. Kim further discloses wherein the at least one additional electrode is a metal foil (see copper foil, Example 1 [0073]) coated with a mixture of graphite (see natural graphite, Example 1 [0073]) and silicon (see SiO, Example 1 [0073]).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Kim discloses the electrochemical cell as set forth above. Kim further discloses wherein the electrolyte is aprotic salt solutions (see non-aqueous electrolyte containing lithium salt, [0043]; note that [0046] discloses that the solvent can be non-protic, i.e. aprotic) or carbonates (see e.g. propylene carbonate, ethylene carbonate, butylene carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, diethyl carbonate, [0046]), and wherein the separator is a polyolefin membrane (see sheet or non-woven fabric made of olefin polymer, [0044]).
Regarding Claim 16, Kim discloses the electrochemical cell as set forth above. Kim further discloses wherein the electrochemical cell comprises a lithium ion cell (see lithium secondary battery, [0044]; see also lithium secondary battery of Example 1 [0074]; one of ordinary skill in the art will understand that the lithium secondary battery of e.g. Example 1 which includes a lithium-nickel-manganese-cobalt-oxide positive electrode and graphite negative electrode is necessarily a lithium ion cell).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Kim discloses the electrode as set forth above. Kim further discloses wherein the electrode (100) comprises a cathode (see positive electrode, [0029]; see also positive electrode of Example 1 [0072]).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Kim discloses the electrode as set forth above. Kim further discloses wherein the at least one metal foil (140) contains aluminum (see aluminum, [0041]; see also aluminum foil of Example 1 [0072]) or copper (see copper, [0041]).
Regarding Claim 21, modified Kim discloses the electrode as set forth above. Kim further discloses wherein a first layer (see first electrode mixture layer 110, [0061], FIG. 2; see specifically first positive electrode slurry of Example 1 [0069]; one of ordinary skill in the art will understand that the wt.% of the components in the first positive electrode slurry of Example 1 will be analogous to the wt.% of the components in the final first positive electrode mixture layer of Example 1 produced as described in [0072]) of the at least two layers (110, 120, 130) comprises 7 wt% of the conductive material-agent (see wt.% of natural graphite in first positive electrode slurry of Example 1 [0069]) and a second layer (see e.g. second electrode mixture layer 120, [0061], FIG. 2; see specifically e.g. second positive electrode slurry of Example 1 [0070]; one of ordinary skill in the art will understand that the wt.% of the components in the second positive electrode slurry of Example 1 will be analogous to the wt.% of the components in the final second positive electrode mixture layer of Example 1 produced as described in [0072]) of the at least two layers (110, 120, 130) comprises 5 wt.% of the conductive material-agent (see wt.% of natural graphite in second positive electrode slurry of Example 1 [0070]).
Regarding Claim 22, modified Kim discloses the electrode as set forth above. Kim further discloses a battery (see lithium secondary battery, [0044]) comprising the electrode (100) of Claim 1.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2018/0006291 A1; art already of record) in view of Kolosnitsyn et al. (US 2014/0023924 A1) as applied to Claim 22 above, further in view of McGee (US 2021/0005885 A1; art already of record).
Regarding Claim 23, modified Kim discloses the battery as set forth above, but does not disclose an aircraft comprising the battery of Claim 22.
McGee teaches ([0002]) that aircraft systems use lithium-ion batteries for backup and auxiliary power, engine-startup, etc. due to their quick recharging capabilities, high voltage and current capabilities, and power quality. Note that McGee is analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of lithium-based batteries.
One of ordinary skill in the art will understand that the battery of modified Kim, which can include e.g. a lithium-nickel-manganese-cobalt-oxide positive electrode and graphite negative electrode (Kim Example 1 [0069]–[0074]), is a lithium-ion battery. It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the battery of modified Kim in an aircraft, as McGee teaches that aircraft systems use lithium-ion batteries for backup and auxiliary power, engine-startup, etc. due to their quick recharging capabilities, high voltage and current capabilities, and power quality.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the Remarks filed 9 June 2026 with respect to amended Claims 1 and 13 and dependent Claims 2–6, 8, 9, 14–17, and 19–22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments in the Remarks filed 9 June 2026 with respect to Claims 7 and 23 have been fully considered but are not persuasive, as Applicant has not specified in their arguments the specific ways in which the Office Action mailed 9 March 2026 has failed to determine the scope and content of the prior art and/or properly ascertained the differences between the prior art and the claimed combinations. It is submitted that the Office Action does determine the scope and content of the prior art references, ascertained the differences between the claimed combinations and the prior art, and provided obviousness rationales as set forth in the rejections above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA MARIE FEHR, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-0860. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, BASIA RIDLEY can be reached at (571)272-1453. 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.
/J.M.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights