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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7, 10-17, and 20 are pending
Claims 1 and 11 have been amended
Claims 8-9 and 8-19 have been cancelled
Status of Amendments
The amendment filed 25 August 2025 has been fully considered, but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
Status of Rejections and Objections of the Office Action from 29 May 2025
The 112 rejections regarding claims 8-9 and 18-19 have been withdrawn
The 102 rejections over Saeki and the 103 rejections over Saeki in view of Carlson have been withdrawn. However, a new grounds of rejection over Wu and over Wu in view of Avison has been set forth, as necessitated by applicant’s amendment.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The portion of each claim that reads “the internal wall of the housing” should instead read “the internal wall from one of the one or more housings.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 and 10 are 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 1 recites the limitation "the internal wall of the housing" in the newly amended limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-7 and 10 are rejected for dependent upon the rejected base claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 10-12, 15-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 20170077520 A1), hereinafter Wu.
Regarding claims 1-2, 10-11, and 20, Wu teaches a lithium-ion secondary battery, in this case a rechargeable lithium-ion battery 400 [0064], comprising:
One or more secondary cells 300;
wherein each of the one or more secondary cells consists of:
a positive electrode 40, the positive electrode comprising an active material 28, in this case lithium transition metal oxides, as also required by claims 10 and 20 [0038], as a cathode for the cell and a current collector 30 that is in contact with the cathode [0038]; wherein lithium ions flow from the cathode to an anode when the cell is charging [0014];
a negative electrode 38, the negative electrode comprising an active material, in this case lithium foil, as also required by claims 10 and 20 [0085], as the anode for the cell and a current collector 36 that is in contact with the anode [0051]; wherein lithium ions flow from the anode to the cathode when the cell is discharging [0014];
a non-aqueous electrolyte positioned between and in contact with both the negative electrode and the positive electrode, in this case a lithium salt dissolved in an organic solvent, as also required by claims 10 and 20; wherein the non-aqueous electrolyte supports the reversible flow of lithium ions between the positive electrode and the negative electrode [0058]; and
a separator 42 placed between the positive electrode 40 and negative electrode 38, such that the separator 42 separates the anode and a portion of the electrolyte from the cathode and the remaining portion of the electrolyte, in this case a porous polymer separator, as also required by claims 10 and 20; wherein the separator is permeable to the reversible flow of lithium ions there through [0054]; and
an inorganic additive that absorbs free transition metal ions [0066] and hydrogen fluoride (HF) [0034] that become present in the cell; the inorganic additive consisting of a transition phase alumina or a type of Boehmite, in this case nanomaterials comprising Al2O3 or AlOOH [0025-0026]: the inorganic additive being located in at least one of the cathode, the anode, the electrolyte, the separator, and the internal wall of the housing, in this case dispersed throughout the cathode, as also required by claim 2 [0003].
Wu is silent as to the battery comprising one or more housings, such that an internal wall from one of the one or more housings encapsulates at least one or more of the secondary cells. However, Wu teaches the production of coin cells comprising a positive electrode, negative electrode, separator, and a non-aqueous electrolyte [0085]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a coin cell needs to contain some form of housing in order to hold the non-aqueous electrolyte. Therefore, the limitation of a basic housing encapsulating at least one or more of the secondary cells is considered to be met.
Wu is silent as to the inorganic additive absorbing moisture in the cell. However, Wu teaches a substantially identical nanomaterial capable of absorbing free transition metal ions and hydrogen fluoride, as well as having similar particle size and surface area. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the taught nanomaterials to also absorb moisture in the cell. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Further, "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Wu teaches the cell according to claim 1 and the battery according to claim 11, wherein the inorganic additive comprises particles having a particle size (D50) that is in the range of about 0.05 micrometers (µm) to about 5 micrometers (µm), in this case 0.01 µm to 0.2 µm. 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Wu teaches the cell according to claim 1 and the battery according to claim 11, wherein the inorganic additive exhibits a surface area that is in the range of about 10 m2/g to about 1000 m2/g, in this case 0 m2/g to about 100 m2/g. 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view Ozaki et al. (WO 2019203303 A1), hereinafter Ozaki.
Wu teaches the cell according to claim 1 and the battery according to claim 11. Wu is silent as to the inorganic additive being in the form of a coating. However, Ozaki teaches an alumina porous film that can be formed by coating an alumina slurry on a base material or a support, and removing a solvent in the alumina slurry [0068]. Ozaki further teaches the film being applied to at least a portion of a surface of the negative electrode, the positive electrode, or the separator [0001].
Wu and Ozaki are both considered to be equivalent to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of lithium-ion secondary batteries with alumina inorganic additives. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the additive of Wu to be a coating on the negative electrode, positive electrode, or separator, as taught by Ozaki. Doing so would have improved the durability and protected the respective component from high temperature and the like [Ozaki 0062] and reduced the possibility of short circuits [Ozaki 0004].
Claims 4, 7, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Avison et al. (WO 2019075457 A2), hereinafter Avison.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Wu teaches the cell according to claim 1 and the battery according to claim 11. Wu is silent as to the inorganic additive comprising particles having a morphology that is plate-like, cubic, spherical, or a combination thereof. However, Avison teaches a nanoporous coating layer comprising inorganic particles, such as boehmite particles, being nearly cubic in shape or having other shapes, such as platelets and needles [0039].
Wu and Avison are both considered to be equivalent to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of lithium-ion secondary batteries with alumina inorganic additives. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the particles of Wu to be cubic, or plate-like, as taught by Avison. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use, in this case cubic or plate-like inorganic particles being used as an additive coating, supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Wu teaches the cell according to claim 1 and the battery according to claim 11. Wu is silent as to the pore volume of the inorganic additive. However, Avison teaches a nanoporous layer comprising boehmite with a pore volume of between 0.8 cc/g and 1.0 cc/g [0049].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the additive of Wu to have the pore volume taught by Avison. Doing so would have allowed the inorganic additive to more easily obtain the greater cohesive and adhesive strength that are preferred for long term, safer lithium battery separator applications [0049].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 11 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Carlson et al. (US 6153337 A) teaches a pseudo-boehmite coating layer of comparable particle size and pore volume.
Zhu et al. (CN 106133959 B) teaches an alumina coating of comparable particle size and surface area that may be dry coated.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUSTIN KENWOOD VAN KIRK whose telephone number is (703)756-4717. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571)272-3433. 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.
/DUSTIN VAN KIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights