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 .
Summary
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted on November 4, 2025 have been entered into the file. Currently, claims 2-7 and 10-13 are cancelled and claim 1 is amended, resulting in claims 1, 8-9, and 14 pending for examination.
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.
Claims 1, 8-9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki (JP2006286427A, English translation used for text citations and original document used for Figure citations) in view of Yan (Yan, L., Wang, K., Luo, S., Wu, H., Luo, Y., Yu, Y., Jiang, K., Li, Q., Fan, S., Wang, J. Sandwich-structured cathodes with cross-stacked carbon nanotube films as conductive layers for high-performance lithium-ion batteries. Journal of Materials Chemistry A (2017), 5, 4047).
Regarding claim 1, Miyazaki teaches an electrode structure for a secondary battery (Fig. 4A), comprising: a current collector (2, Fig. 4A); a first active material layer formed on at least one surface of the current collector (3a, Fig. 4A); a second active material layer on the first active material layer (3b, Fig. 4A); and a conductive intermediate layer interposed between the first active material layer and the second active material layer (4 and 5, Fig. 4a) that separates the first active material layer from the second active material layer.
Miyazaki further teaches the first active material layer comprising a plurality of first active material pattern layers (3a, Fig. 4A, the first active material layer is divided into first active material pattern layers by the conduction paths 5), wherein the conductive intermediate layer fills a space between the first active material pattern layers to be in direct contact with the current collector (5, Fig. 4A; [51]). The Examiner notes that the conduction path of the conductive intermediate layer (5, Fig. 4A) of Miyazaki is filled with the material used in the conductive layers (4, Fig. 4A) ([11]).
Miyazaki teaches that their invention provides electrical conductivity within the electrode structure ([54]) and ensures electrical connection between the current collector and the conductive layer(s) ([56]). The ordinary artisan would recognize that the conductive intermediate layer has a resistance lower than each resistance of the first active material layer and the second active material layer since the purpose of adding the conductive layers is to allow for electrical conduction within the electrode structure.
Alternatively, since Miyazaki teaches that the purpose of the conductive layer is to ensure electrical conductivity, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate a conductive intermediate layer that has a resistance lower than each of the first and second active material layers in order to ensure suitable electrical conduction within the electrode structure.
Miyazaki further teaches the conductive material being a metal, metal alloy, or carbon material ([55]). Miyazaki does not teach the conductive intermediate layer comprising carbon nanotubes or graphene. However, Yan teaches electrodes for lithium-ion batteries (Yan, title) and that “various kinds of carbon nanomaterials such as carbon nanofibers, carbon nanotubes, and graphenes” are known conductive materials used in secondary battery electrodes and exhibit “superiority in forming long-range conducting pathways” (Yan Pg. 4047 Introduction Col. 2).
Since Miyazaki teaches that carbon materials are suitable and Yan teaches that carbon nanotubes and graphene are known and suitable carbon-based conductive materials for use in secondary battery electrodes, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized carbon nanotubes or graphene as the carbon-based material in the conductive intermediate layer of Miyazaki in order to obtain an electrode with suitable electrical conductivity for a desired battery application and achieve the predictable result of an electrode capable of electrical conduction.
Miyazaki further teaches the conductive intermediate layer comprising openings through which a surface of the first active material layer is exposed (conductive layer has porous structure [57-58]).
Miyazaki further teaches the conductive intermediate layer having a network structure (4 and 5 together form network structure, Fig A).
Regarding claim 8, Miyazaki in view of Yan teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Fig. 4A of Miyazaki teaches the conductive intermediate layer comprising a first portion (4) interposed between the first active material layer (3a) and the second active material layer (3b).
Miyazaki further teaches that the electrode may comprise additional stacked layers to achieve desired electrode performance ([61]) and that the addition of the conductive layers can decrease the resistance of the electrode structure ([60]). Miyazaki teaches the electrode structure having active material layers and conductive layers being alternately stacked ([37], Fig. 2).
Fig. 4A of Miyazaki does not teach a third active material layer stacked on the second active material layer and does not teach a second portion of the conductive intermediate layer interposed between the second active material layer and the third active material layer.
Since Miyazaki teaches that additional layers may be added and that the active material layers and conductive layers are alternately stacked, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a third active material layer and second portion of the conductive intermediate layer interposed between the second active material layer and the third active material layer to the electrode structure of Miyazaki in order to obtain an electrode with suitable electrical performance for a desired battery application. The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 9, Miyazaki in view of Yan teaches all features of claims 1 and 8, as described above. Fig. 3 of Miyazaki teaches the conductive intermediate layer comprising a portion (5) extending along sidewalls of the first and second active material layers that connects the conductive layers interposed between the active material layers (3a and 3b) to the current collector (2).
Fig. 4A and 3 of Miyazaki do not explicitly teach an embodiment wherein the electrode structure includes a third active material layer, as described for instant claim 8, and the conductive intermediate layer further comprises a third portion extending along sidewalls of the first and second active material layers to connect the first and second portions.
Since Miyazaki teaches that it is suitable to add a conductive layer portion to the sidewalls of the electrode layers to provide electrical connection and conductivity, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a third portion of the conductive intermediate layer extending along the sidewalls of the first and second active material layers to connect the first and second portions to the modified electrode structure of Miyazaki, as described above for instant claim 8, in order to achieve electrical connection and conductivity between all of the conductive layers and the current collector.
Regarding claim 14, Miyazaki in view of Yan teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Miyazaki further teaches a lithium secondary battery (“lithium ion secondary battery” [1]), a cathode comprising a lithium metal oxide (Example 1 [76]), and that at least one of the cathode and the anode comprises the electrode structure for a secondary battery (“at least one of the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate is the electrode plate for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery” [70]). Miyazaki further teaches an anode facing the cathode (positive electrode plate and negative electrode plate stacked, [70]).
Miyazaki does not explicitly teach an embodiment of a lithium secondary battery comprising a cathode comprising a lithium metal oxide and an anode facing the cathode, wherein at least of the cathode and the anode comprises the electrode structure of claim 1.
However, since Miyazaki teaches that the electrode structure may be used in a lithium secondary battery, that either the anode or the cathode comprises the electrode structure, that the anode and cathode may face each other, and that a lithium metal oxide is a suitable cathode material, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate a lithium secondary battery comprising a cathode comprising a lithium metal oxide and an anode facing the cathode, wherein at least one of the cathode and the anode comprise the electrode structure for a secondary battery according to claim 1 in order to obtain a battery with suitable performance for a desired application and achieve the predictable result of a lithium secondary battery capable of intercalating and de-intercalating lithium ions.
Response to Arguments
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 112
The rejections of claims 1, 3-5, and 8-14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement are overcome by applicant’s amendments to claim 1 in the response received on November 4, 2025. These rejections of claims 1, 3-5, and 8-14 are withdrawn.
The rejections of claims 1, 3-5, and 8-14 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 are overcome by applicant’s amendments to claim 1 in the response received on November 4, 2025. These rejections of claims 1, 3-5, and 8-14 are withdrawn.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 102 and 103
The following rejections presented in the office action dated August 4, 2025 are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments to claim 1:
Claims 1, 3-4, 10, and 12-13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Miyazaki or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Miyazaki.
Claims 5, 8-9, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki.
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki in view of Yan.
Applicant’s arguments filed November 4, 2025 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On pages 6 and 8 of the response, applicant appears to allege that Miyazaki “does not disclose a conductive intermediate layer that includes openings through which a surface of the first active material layer is exposed or that the conductive intermediate layer has a stripe pattern structure, a mesh structure, or a network structure”. Applicant further recites that “the conductive layer described in Miyazaki refers to a porous structure having ion-permeable voids” on page 7 of the response.
These arguments are not persuasive. As described above and presented in the Non-Final Office Action dated August 4, 2025, Miyazaki further teaches the conductive intermediate layer comprising openings through which a surface of the first active material layer is exposed (conductive layer has porous structure [57-58]). Miyazaki teaches that the porous structure of the conductive intermediate layer facilitates ion permeation and the electrolyte penetration into the electrode active material layer (Miyazaki English Translation [57]), thus resulting in the first active material layer being exposed to ions and the electrolyte though the openings (pores) of the conductive intermediate layer. It is noted that the instant specification does not provide a definition that limits the meaning of “exposed”, nor does the instant claim 1 limit what the first active material layer is exposed to.
Applicant's arguments regarding Miyazaki failing to disclose the conductive intermediate layer having “a strip pattern structure, a mesh structure, or a network structure” fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. As shown in Miyazaki Fig. 4A, described above and presented in the Non-Final Office Action dated August 4, 2025, elements 4 and 5 together form a network structure.
On page 6 of the response, applicant recites that “The first active material layer and the second active material layer are in direct contact with each other though the openings, and structural stability and power properties of the electrode can be further improved”.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the first active material layer and the second active material layer being in direct contact with each other through the openings) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim (US 2022/0181617 A1): appears to disclose an electrode structure wherein the electrode active material layer include an electrode active material and an opening penetrating through the electrode active material layer (abstract, Fig. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA S CASERTO whose telephone number is (571)272-5114. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5 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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1789 /MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789