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, Election/Restriction, and Claim Status
The amendment filed 17 November 2025 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection and 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection set forth in the Office Action mailed 16 June 2025. Claim 21–23 have been added. Claims 1–23 are pending in the application.
Newly amended Claim 18 is directed to invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally examined for the following reasons: Claim 18 is directed to Invention II (process for producing a layered electrode product) as set forth in the Restriction Requirement mailed on 1/6/2025. Said invention was non-elected without traverse in Response to Restriction/Election received on 5/21/2025.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, Claim 18 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claims 10–12 and 18 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Objections
MPEP 714.II.C(B) states that all claims being currently amended must be presented with markings to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version. In the case of Claim 18, in line 1 “A method for producing an” was added. However, markings in the 17 November 2025 claim set do not reflect this change accurately, i.e. it is not shown via underlining that this phrasing was added. Claim 18 is therefore objected to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 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 considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1–6, 8, 9, 13–17, and 19–22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2018/0006291 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 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 at least one lithium ion acceptor (see electrode active material, [0030], [0067]; note that [0030] lists electrode active materials which are known lithium ion acceptors, such as lithium cobalt oxide and lithium manganese oxide),
wherein the at least two layers (110, 120, 130) further comprise a conductive agent (see conducting agents 111, 121, and 131, [0062], FIG. 2), and wherein the at least two layers (110, 120, 130) differ in the amount of the conductive agent (111, 121, 131) ([0012], [0062], FIG. 2; see also Example 1 [0069]–[0072]).
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, Kim discloses the electrode of Claim 1. 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, Kim discloses the electrode of Claim 1. 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 (see polyvinylidene fluoride, [0038]; see also Example 1 [0069]–[0072]) or carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) (see carboxymethylcellulose (CMC), [0038]), and the conductive agent (111, 121, 131) is carbon black (see carbon black, [0035]).
Regarding Claim 4, Kim discloses the electrode of Claim 1. 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, Kim discloses the electrode of Claim 1. 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 6, Kim discloses the electrode of Claim 1. Kim further discloses ([0031]; see also Example 1 [0069]–[0072]) wherein the at least two layers (110, 120, 130) contain at least one of the same type of lithium ion acceptor.
Regarding Claim 8, Kim discloses the electrode of Claim 1. 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, Kim discloses the electrode of Claim 1. Kim further discloses wherein the at least two layers (110, 120, 130) further comprise a binder (see binder, [0037], [0067]) and 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, Kim discloses the electrochemical cell of Claim 13. 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, Kim discloses the electrochemical cell of Claim 17. 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, Kim discloses the electrochemical cell of Claim 14. 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 of Claim 14. 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, Kim discloses the electrode of Claim 1. 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, Kim discloses the electrode of Claim 1. 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, Kim discloses the electrode of Claim 1. 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 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 agent (see wt.% of natural graphite in second positive electrode slurry of Example 1 [0070]).
Regarding Claim 22, Kim discloses the electrode of Claim 1. Kim further discloses a battery (see lithium secondary battery, [0044]) comprising the electrode (100) of Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 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 considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. 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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2018/0006291 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, in view of Huang et al. (Huang, C.; Young, N.P.; Zhang, J.; Snaith, H.J.; Grant, P.S. A two layer electrode structure for improved Li Ion diffusion and volumetric capacity in Li Ion batteries, Nano Energy 31, p. 377–385, published 3 December 2016).
Regarding Claim 7, Kim discloses the electrode of Claim 1. 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), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first layer has a higher porosity than the second layer.
Huang teaches an electrode (see two layer electrode, p. 378 ¶ “Two types of…”, Fig. 1(a)), comprising: at least one metal foil (see current collector, p. 378 ¶ “Two types of…”, Fig. 1(a); note that Fig. 1(a) and p. 378 ¶ “The two layer…” identify the current collector as Cu foil), and at least two layers (see P-TiO2 layer and N-TiO2 layer, p. ¶ “Two types of…”, Fig. 1(a)) each comprising at least one lithium ion acceptor (see TiO2, p. 377 ¶ “Titanium oxide-based…”), wherein the at least two layers further comprise a conductive agent (see MWNTs, p. 378 ¶ “The two layer…”), and wherein a first layer (see P-TiO2 layer, p. ¶ “Two types of…”, Fig. 1(a)) of the at least two layers is positioned closer to a metal foil than a second layer (see N-TiO2 layer, p. ¶ “Two types of…”) of the at least two layers and the first layer has a higher porosity than the second layer (p. 380 ¶ “The porosity of…”). Huang teaches (p. 383 ¶ “A two layer…”) that an electrode including a higher porosity first layer positioned closer to the metal foil and a lower porosity second layer positioned farther from the metal foil can provide improved ion dynamics and capacity retention.
Huang and Kim 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 first layer positioned closer to the metal foil has a higher porosity than the second layer positioned further from the metal foil, for the purpose of providing improved ion dynamics and capacity retention, as taught by Huang.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2018/0006291 A1) as applied to Claim 22 above, in view of McGee (US 2021/0005885 A1).
Regarding Claim 23, Kim discloses the battery of Claim 22, 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 and Kim are 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 Kim (e.g. the lithium secondary battery of Example 1 [0069]–[0074], which includes a lithium-nickel-manganese-cobalt-oxide positive electrode and graphite negative electrode) 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 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 regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections of Claims 1–8 and 13–20 as being anticipated by the reference Sikha, and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of Claim 9 as being unpatentable over Sikha, 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.
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 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.
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