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 20-24 are currently pending
Claims 1-3, 5, 11-13, and 15 are amended
New claims 21-14 have been added
Status of Amendments
The amendment filed 17 March 2026 has been fully considered, but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
This action has been made final.
Status of Objections and Rejections of the Office Action from 2 January 2026
The objection and 112 rejections regarding housing wall limitation have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The 103 rejections over Wu and over Wu in view of Avison and in view of Ozaki have been withdrawn. However, a new grounds of rejection over Saeki in view of Bruch further in view of Carlson and Ozaki has been set forth, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
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 11-17 and 20-24 and 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 11 claims a lithium-ion secondary battery comprising one or more secondary cells and 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. Claim 11 then claims each of the one or more secondary cells as consisting of a positive electrode, a negative electrode, a non-aqueous electrolyte, a separator, and an inorganic additive. However, claim 11 then claims that the inorganic additive is included in a coating applied onto at least a portion of a surface of the internal wall from one of the one or more housings. It is unclear how the inorganic additive can be a part of each secondary cell while being applied to the one or more housings encapsulating at least one or more secondary cells, which are not defined by claim 11 as being a part of the cells themselves. Further, it is unclear, in the instance where one housing encapsulates multiple cells, whether a coating applied to the internal wall of the housing would still be considered to be a part of each cell, an individual cell, or none of the cells. Examiner suggests moving the inorganic additive limitation to be immediately following the one or more housings limitation. Examiner notes that this is not an issue in claim 1 because the single housing is defined as being a part of the single cell.
Claim 23 recites the limitation “wherein at least one of the one or more secondary cells does not individually include the inorganic additive within the positive electrode, the negative electrode, the electrolyte, or the separator.” Examiner notes that this could be interpreted to mean that as long as the additive is not included in at least one of the specified locations of at least one cell, even if it is present in the other locations of that same cell, then the limitation is met. This particular issue would likely be fixed by changing “or” to “and” to indicate that, in at least one secondary cell, the additive is not present in the positive electrode, is not present in the negative electrode, is not present in the electrolyte, and is not present in the separator.
Examiner acknowledges that the claims are expected to be interpreted in light of the specification, in particular [instant 0042], which recites “when desirable, the battery 75A, 75B may also include one or more cells in which the inorganic additive 50A-50D is not incorporated or included provided that at least one of the cells in the battery 75A, 75B incorporates the inorganic additive 50A-50D.” However, claim 23 includes the option of only having one cell present while also being dependent from claim 12, which recites the limitation “wherein the inorganic additive is further dispersed within at least a portion of the positive electrode, the negative electrode, the electrolyte, or the separator.” In light of the specification, it is contradictory to claim a single cell further including the inorganic additive dispersed within one of the specified locations while also not being included in any of those same locations. The only way for this to be possible would be to use the previously mentioned alternative interpretation. If the single cell further includes the inorganic additive in only the positive electrode, for example, it could be considered to meet the second limitation as well, because the additive would not be present in the negative electrode, the electrolyte, or the separator. For the purposes of this office action, if a source does not require the additive to be included in each of the positive electrode, the negative electrode, the electrolyte, and the separator at the same time, then it will be considered to meet the limitations of claim 23.
Claims 12-17, 20-22, and 24 are rejected for being dependent from the rejected base claim 1.
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 1-6, 10-16, 20, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saeki et al. (US 20190305278 A1), hereinafter Saeki, in view of Bruch et al. (US 20180138463 A1), hereinafter Bruch.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Saeki teaches a lithium-ion secondary battery comprising:
one or more secondary cells, in this case the single cell lithium-ion secondary battery (claim 18); and
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, in this case an outer package that encloses constituent materials of the battery [0013];
wherein each of the one or more secondary cells consists of:
a positive electrode [0013], the positive electrode comprising an active material as a cathode for the cell and a current collector that is in contact with the cathode [0197]; wherein lithium ions flow from the cathode to an anode when the cell is charging [0005];
a negative electrode [0013], the negative electrode comprising an active material as the anode for the cell and a current collector that is in contact with the anode [0218]; wherein lithium ions flow from the anode to the cathode when the cell is discharging [0005];
a non-aqueous electrolyte positioned between and in contact with both the negative electrode and the positive electrode, in this case disclosed as the lamination of the positive electrode, the separator, and the negative electrode in that order, wherein the positive electrode and negative electrode are exposed to the electrolyte solution [0052] and the separator is disclosed as being stable in a nonaqueous electrolyte [0069]; wherein the non-aqueous electrolyte supports the reversible flow of lithium ions between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, in this case shown by the battery being a secondary battery (claim 18); and
a separator placed between the positive electrode and negative electrode, such that the separator separates the anode and a portion of the electrolyte from the cathode and the remaining portion of the electrolyte [0068]; wherein the separator is permeable to the reversible flow of lithium ions there through, in this case shown by the battery being a secondary battery (claim 18); and
an inorganic additive consisting of a transition phase alumina or a type of boehmite, in this case a combination of basic inorganic particles that may comprise alumina [0029] and other inorganic particles that may comprise alumina or boehmite [0064], that absorbs free transition metal ions [0075] and hydrogen fluoride [0015] that become present in the cell.
Saeki is silent as to the inorganic additive specifically absorbing moisture that becomes present in the cell. However, Saeki teaches measuring the specific surface area of the inorganic particles by adsorbing water vapor to the inorganic particles. Further, Saeki teaches the inorganic particles consisting of alumina or boehmite and being capable of absorbing free transition metal ions and hydrogen fluoride that become present in the cell, as required by claims 1 and 11. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the taught inorganic particles to also be capable of absorbing moisture that becomes present in the cell because "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).
Saeki further teaches the inorganic particles being present in an outer package [0052]. Saeki is silent as to the inorganic additive specifically being included in a coating applied onto at least a portion of a surface of the internal wall from one of the one or more housings. However, Bruch teaches a battery, wherein the interior walls of the battery case may be thermal spray-coated with a dielectric material comprising aluminum oxide [0147].
Saeki and Bruch are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aluminum oxide battery 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 outer package of Saeki to include the inorganic particles as a coating applied onto at least a portion of a surface of the internal wall, as taught by Bruch. Doing so would have prevented lithium dendrite formation between cathode and anode surfaces [Bruch 0027] and resulting short circuits [Bruch 0006], leading to improved battery reliability, performance, and lifetime [Bruch 0003].
Regarding claims 2 and 12, modified Saeki teaches the cell or battery according to claims 1 and 11. Saeki further teaches the inorganic additive being dispersed within at least a portion of the positive electrode, the negative electrode, the separator [0052], or the electrolyte [0054].
Regarding claims 3 and 13, modified Saeki teaches the cell or battery according to claims 1 and 11. Saeki further teaches the inorganic additive being in the form of a coating applied onto a portion of a surface of the negative electrode, the positive electrode, or the separator [0052].
Regarding claims 4 and 14, modified Saeki teaches the cell or battery according to claims 1 and 11. Saeki further teaches the inorganic additive comprising particles having a morphology that is plate-like, spherical, scale-like, acicular, columnar, polyhedral, massive shape, etc. [0061].
Regarding claims 5 and 15, modified Saeki teaches the cell or battery according to claims 1 and 11. Saeki is silent as to the inorganic additive having a particle size (D50) that is specifically in the range of greater than or equal to 0.5 micrometers (µm) to less than 5 micrometers (µm). However, Saeki teaches the inorganic additive comprising particles having a particle size (D50) that is in the range of about 0.05 micrometers (µm) to about 4 micrometers (µm) [0059]. This overlaps with the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art to select a particle size within the claimed range. 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, modified Saeki teaches the cell or battery according to claims 1 and 11. Saeki is silent as to the inorganic additive exhibiting a surface area that is specifically in the range of about 10 m2/g to about 1000 m2/g. However, Saeki teaches the inorganic additive exhibiting a surface area that is in the range of about 3 m2/g or more and more preferably a surface area that is in the range of about 3 m2/g or more to 2000 m2/g or less [0050]. This overlaps with the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to use an inorganic additive exhibiting a surface area in the claimed range. 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 10 and 20, modified Saeki teaches the cell or battery according to claims 1 and 11. Saeki further teaches the positive electrode comprising a lithium transition metal oxide [0199-0207] or a lithium transition metal phosphate [0209-0210];
the negative electrode comprising graphite, a metal, an alloy, an oxide, and a nitride [0219];
the separator being a polymeric membrane [0069]; and
the non-aqueous electrolyte being a solution of a lithium salt dispersed in an organic solvent [0226].
Regarding claims 23 and 24, modified Saeki teaches the battery according to claims 12 and 13. Saeki further teaches the inorganic additive being optionally included in at least a portion of the positive electrode, the negative electrode, the separator [0052], or the electrolyte [0054]. In view of the 112(b) rejections above, Saeki is considered to meet the limitations of claims 23 and 24.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saeki in view of Bruch, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, further in view of Carlson (US 2007/0108120 A1), hereinafter Carlson.
Modified Saeki teaches the cell or battery according to claims 1 and 11. Saeki is silent as to the pore volume range of the inorganic additive. However, Carlson teaches a separator for an electrochemical cell comprising a microporous layer comprising pseudo-boehmite [0031] with a pore volume range of 0.02 cc/g to 2.0 cc/g [0033], which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1-2.0 cc/g.
Saeki and Carlson are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of inorganic additives in electrochemical cells. 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 Saeki to incorporate the pore characteristics taught by Carlson. Doing so would have decreased the number of insoluble particles capable of passing through the separator [Carlson 0035] and increased the capillary action of the separator for the electrolytic solution [Carlson 0037]. Further, 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 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saeki in view of Bruch, as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, further in view of Ozaki et al. (WO 2019203303 A1), hereinafter Ozaki.
Modified Saeki teaches the cell or battery according to claims 1 and 12. Saeki is silent as to the inorganic additive being doped with a sodium content and one or more doping elements. Saeki is further silent as to the purity and the synthesis method of the alumina of the inorganic additive. However, Ozaki teaches a method for forming an alumina powder additive using Bayer’s method [0042] that results in an alumina powder with a purity of 99% by mass or more, with the remaining impurity comprising Si, Na, Mg, Cu, Fe, and Zr [0037]. This is considered to be equivalent to the inorganic additive being doped with a sodium content in the range of 0 to 1.0 wt.% and one or more doping elements selected from the group consisting of Si, Mg, Cu, Fe, and Zr.
Saeki and Ozaki are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of alumina inorganic additives for lithium-ion secondary batteries. 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 alumina of Saeki to be produced using the method taught by Ozaki, resulting in a purity of 99% by mass or more and a remaining impurity comprising a sodium content in the range of 0 to 1.0 wt.% and one or more doping elements selected from the group consisting of Si, Mg, Cu, Fe, and Zr. Doing so would have suppressed degradation of electrical insulation properties of the alumina and reduced the likelihood of a short circuit [Ozaki 0037].
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
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 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
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights