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
Examiner notes the following amendments made to the claims:
Claim 5 amended to overcome 112 (b) rejection
New claims 7 and 8 added
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/11/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 5 under 35 USC 112 (b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112 (b) rejection of claim 5 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/11/2025 regarding the rejections of claim 1-4 and claims 5-6 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, examiner still finds that the combination of Ahn and Sugimori teaches all of the elements of claim 1. There is no argument provided for the rejections of claims 5-6 other than that they rely on independent claim 1, so by stating that examiner finds claim 1 to still not be allowable, claims 5 and 6 remain rejected as well. Examiner will respond to applicant arguments in order:
First, applicant argues that the separator materials of Sugimori “are merely examples” and that a separator composed of three layers of PP is “solely in specific examples.” Examiner does not find this argument persuasive as the examples are part of the subject matter of Sugimori, and therefore would be obvious to draw from when making a modification to another piece of art.
Second, applicant argues that Sugimori does not teach the use of an inorganic filler, such as alumina, on only one surface of the separator—either the positive electrode side or the negative electrode side. Examiner disagrees with this, as by stating “A layer made of an inorganic filler may be placed at the interface between the positive electrode and the separator or the interface between the negative electrode and the separator.” Sugimori [0056] Sugimori clearly states that the layer including inorganic filler may be place on one surface OR the other, thus teaching that it can be used on only one surface of the separator. This is the subject matter that teaches two surfaces with different contact angles, and therefore examiner believes that the limitations of claim 1 are met by Ahn modified with Sugimori.
Lastly, applicant argues that even if Ahn and Sugimori were combined, that the recited features of claim 1 would not be met as Ahn is silent on the wetting property of the separator and Sugimori is silent on the contact angles of the separator, which can be surface modified on one surface. Examiner does not find these arguments persuasive, as both the wetting properties and contact angle would be inherent properties of the materials used. If the separator were the same as the claimed one in its composition, and had two surfaces with different compositions (i.e. one modified with alumina and one not), there would inherently be different contact angles, and, therefore, different wetting properties with respect to the first and second surfaces of the separator, and the desirable properties stated by applicant would be present. See MPEP 2112. II. or Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., for case law regarding the fact that an inherent feature need not be recognized at the relevant time in order for it to still anticipate the feature, which is later recognized).
Based on these points, examiner does not find the presented arguments persuasive, and the rejection of claim 1 (and dependent claims 2-4) remains in place and unchanged. Examiner finds that there is still no allowable subject matter in claims 1-6.
Regarding new claims 7 and 8, these claims are rejected in further view of Lee (US 20210020887 A1) which teaches the additional limitations of both claims. Thus, there is currently not considered to be any allowable subject matter present in the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn (US 20140287316 A1) in view of Sugimori (US 20190173085 A1), as evidenced by the instant specification paragraph [0054].
Regarding claim 1, Ahn teaches all of the following elements:
A non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising: (“Examples of the electrolyte of the lithium secondary battery may be an organic electrolyte solution, in which a lithium salt is dissolved in a non-aqueous solvent, or a polymer electrolyte solution.” Ahn [0054])
an electrode assembly in which a positive electrode and a negative electrode oppose each other with a separator therebetween: (“A polyethylene separator was disposed between the anode and the cathode, and the product thus obtained was put into a battery case.” Ahn [0066])
a non-aqueous electrolyte: (“Examples of the electrolyte of the lithium secondary battery may be an organic electrolyte solution, in which a lithium salt is dissolved in a non-aqueous solvent, or a polymer electrolyte solution.” Ahn [0054])
and an outer housing that houses the electrode assembly and the non-aqueous electrolyte, (“A polyethylene separator was disposed between the anode and the cathode, and the product thus obtained was put into a battery case.” Ahn [0066])
wherein the negative electrode comprises a negative electrode current collector, a first negative electrode mixture layer provided over a surface of the negative electrode current collector, and a second negative electrode mixture layer provided over a surface of the first negative electrode mixture layer, (“According to an aspect of the present invention, there is provided an anode including: an electrode current collector; and a multi-layered active material layer formed on the electrode current collector, wherein the multi-layered active material layer includes a first anode active material layer including a first anode active material; and a second anode active material layer including a second anode active material” Ahn [0013])
the first negative electrode mixture layer and the second negative electrode mixture layer include graphite particles. (“Also, in the anode according to the present invention, the first anode active material and the second anode active material may include crystalline carbon, such as natural graphite and artificial graphite” Ahn [0024])
a ratio (S2SI) of a porosity (S2) between the graphite particles in the second negative electrode mixture layer to a porosity (Si) between the graphite particles in the first negative electrode mixture layer is 1.1 2.0. (“In the first anode active material layer and the second anode active material layer, a ratio of the porosities before the press may be in a range of 5:5.1 to 4:6, and a ratio of the porosities after the press may be in a range of 5:5.1 to 2:8.” Ahn [0044])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 5.1:5 (1.02:1) to 8:2 (4:1) for the ratio of porosities between the first and second active material layers encompasses the claimed range of 1.1:1 to 2:1. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
a ratio (D2 D1) of a packing density (D2) of the second negative electrode mixture layer to a packing density (D1) of the first negative electrode mixture layer is 0.9 - 1. 1. (“Also, in the anode according to the embodiment of the present invention, a ratio of the press density of the first anode active material to the press density of the second anode active material may be in a range of 1.1:1 to 3:1, for example, 1.1:1 to 1.5:1 under a pressure of 12 MPa to 16 MPa.” Ahn [0028])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 1.1:1 to 3:1 for the ratio of packing densities between the first and second active material layers overlaps the claimed range of 0.9:1 to 1.1:1. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
the separator has a first surface which is in contact with the positive electrode and a second surface which is in contact with the negative electrode. (“A polyethylene separator was disposed between the anode and the cathode, and the product thus obtained was put into a battery case.” Ahn [0066])
Ahn is silent on the following elements of claim 1:
and a contact angle of the first surface with respect to ethylene carbonate is smaller than a contact angle of the second surface with respect to ethylene carbonate.
However, Sugimori teaches all of the elements of claim 1 that aren’t found in Ahn. Specifically, Sugimori teaches the exact separator used in the claimed invention, which would inherently have the same contact angles as are claimed:
and a contact angle of the first surface with respect to ethylene carbonate is smaller than a contact angle of the second surface with respect to ethylene carbonate. (“Examples of the separator include separators made of polypropylene, separators made of polyethylene, polypropylene-polyethylene multilayer separators, separators surface-coated with resin such as an aramid resin, and separators containing cellulose. The separator used is preferably a polypropylene-containing separator.” Sugimori [0055] and “A layer made of an inorganic filler may be placed at the interface between the positive electrode and the separator or the interface between the negative electrode and the separator. Examples of the filler include oxides containing one or more of titanium, aluminium” Sugimori [0056]. In this case, by using a separator comprising a base layer of microporous polypropylene with a coating layer of aramid resin, and a layer or aluminum oxide mixed with the aramid resin coating, the same separator as used in the instant application would be formed. Thus, all of the limitations would be met, as the separator detailed in the instant specification must meet the limitations regarding contact angle with respect to ethylene carbonate “An aramid resin including alumina was applied by the doctor blade method over one surface of a polypropylene microporous film serving as a base material layer, was dried, and was compressed, to produce a separator having a coating layer.” Instant spec [0054])
Ahn and Sugimori are considered to be analogous because they are both within the same field of non-aqueous electrolyte secondary batteries. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery of Ahn to substitute its separator with that of Sugimori, as this would be a simple substitution of one separator used in a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery for another, and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
The limitations of claims 2-4 would all be met by using the separator of Sugimori without requiring any additional modifications or motivation.
Regarding claim 2, modified Ahn teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Ahn is silent on the following elements of claim 2:
The non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the separator includes a base material layer and a coating layer, and the coating layer is placed over the first surface.
However, Sugimori teaches all of the elements of claim 2 not found in Ahn. Specifically, Sugimori teaches:
The non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the separator includes a base material layer and a coating layer, and the coating layer is placed over the first surface. (“Examples of the separator include separators made of polypropylene, separators made of polyethylene, polypropylene-polyethylene multilayer separators, separators surface-coated with resin such as an aramid resin, and separators containing cellulose. The separator used is preferably a polypropylene-containing separator.” Sugimori [0055] and “A layer made of an inorganic filler may be placed at the interface between the positive electrode and the separator or the interface between the negative electrode and the separator. Examples of the filler include oxides containing one or more of titanium, aluminium” Sugimori [0056]. In this case, by using a separator comprising a base layer of microporous polypropylene with a coating layer of aramid resin, and a layer or aluminum oxide mixed with the aramid resin coating, the same separator as used in the instant application would be formed.)
Regarding claim 3, modified Ahn teaches all of the limitations of claim 2, as shown above. Ahn is silent on the following elements of claim 3:
The non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 2, wherein the base material layer includes a polyolefin-based resin.
However, Sugimori teaches all of the elements of claim 3 not found in Ahn. Specifically, Sugimori teaches:
The non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 2, wherein the base material layer includes a polyolefin-based resin. (“Examples of the separator include separators made of polypropylene, separators made of polyethylene, polypropylene-polyethylene multilayer separators, separators surface-coated with resin such as an aramid resin, and separators containing cellulose. The separator used is preferably a polypropylene-containing separator.” Sugimori [0055] and “A layer made of an inorganic filler may be placed at the interface between the positive electrode and the separator or the interface between the negative electrode and the separator. Examples of the filler include oxides containing one or more of titanium, aluminium” Sugimori [0056]. In this case, by using a separator comprising a base layer of microporous polypropylene with a coating layer of aramid resin, and a layer or aluminum oxide mixed with the aramid resin coating, the same separator as used in the instant application would be formed.)
Regarding claim 4, modified Ahn teaches all of the limitations of claim 2, as shown above. Ahn is silent on the following elements of claim 4:
The non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 2, wherein the coating layer includes an aramid resin and inorganic particles.
However, Sugimori teaches all of the elements of claim 4 not found in Ahn. Specifically, Sugimori teaches:
The non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 2, wherein the coating layer includes an aramid resin and inorganic particles. (“Examples of the separator include separators made of polypropylene, separators made of polyethylene, polypropylene-polyethylene multilayer separators, separators surface-coated with resin such as an aramid resin, and separators containing cellulose. The separator used is preferably a polypropylene-containing separator.” Sugimori [0055] and “A layer made of an inorganic filler may be placed at the interface between the positive electrode and the separator or the interface between the negative electrode and the separator. Examples of the filler include oxides containing one or more of titanium, aluminium” Sugimori [0056]. In this case, by using a separator comprising a base layer of microporous polypropylene with a coating layer of aramid resin, and a layer or aluminum oxide mixed with the aramid resin coating, the same separator as used in the instant application would be formed.)
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn (US 20140287316 A1) in view of Sugimori (US 20190173085 A1) and further in view of Wang (US 20170125806 A1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Ahn teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Ahn and Sugimori are silent on the following elements of claim 5:
The non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein each of the packing density (D1) of the first negative electrode mixture layer and the packing density (D2) of the second negative electrode mixture layer is 1.3 g/cm3 ~ 2.0 g/cm3. (cm3 used as unit instead of m3, see 112(b) rejection and specification objection for why)
However, Wang teaches all of the elements of claim 5 that aren’t found in Sugimori or Ahn. Specifically, Wang teaches:
The non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein each of the packing density (D1) of the first negative electrode mixture layer and the packing density (D2) of the second negative electrode mixture layer is 1.3 g/cm3 ~ 2.0 g/cm3. (“Specifically, the density of the first region 12a is preferably 1.5 to 2.1 g/cm3 and more preferably 1.7 to 1.9 g/cm3 The density of the second region 12b is preferably 1.7 to 2.3 g/cm3 and more preferably 1.9 to 2.1 g/cm3” Wang [0039])
Wang is considered to be analogous to Ahn as they are both related to secondary batteries with two negative electrode active material layers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the negative electrode active material layers of Ahn to have the specific densities and presence of a silicon material of Wang in order to improve the ability of electrolyte solution to pass through the first region into the second, improving lithium ion conductivity (“the density of the first region containing a larger amount of the silicon material decreases as a result of charging and discharging, many pores are formed between active materials in the first region, which makes it easy for an electrolyte solution to pass through the first region and thus improves lithium ion conductivity. When the lithium ion conductivity of the first region containing a large amount of the silicon material improves, high capacity and good discharge rate characteristics are obtained.” Wang [0014]). Additionally, the inclusion of silicon material would be obvious as it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that silicon materials can intercalate more lithium ions per unit volume than graphite (“silicon materials, such as silicon (Si) and silicon oxide represented by SiO.sub.x, can intercalate more lithium ions per unit volume than carbon materials, such as graphite, use of silicon materials in negative electrodes of lithium ion batteries or other batteries has been studied.” Wang [0002]).
By using the packing density and silicon additive of Wang, the limitations of claim 6 would also be met without requiring any further modification or motivation.
Regarding claim 6, modified Ahn teaches all of the elements of claim 5, as shown above. Ahn and Sugimori are silent on the following elements of claim 6:
The non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 5 ,wherein at least one of the first negative electrode mixture layer or the second negative electrode mixture layer includes a Si-based material.
However, Wang teaches all of the elements of claim 5 that aren’t found in Sugimori or Ahn. Specifically, Wang teaches:
The non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 5 ,wherein at least one of the first negative electrode mixture layer or the second negative electrode mixture layer includes a Si-based material. (“The negative-electrode mixture layer contains graphite and a silicon material. The first region of the negative-electrode mixture layer contains a larger amount of the silicon material than the second region of the mixture layer. The first region has a lower density than the second region.” Wang [0012])
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn (US 20140287316 A1) in view of Sugimori (US 20190173085 A1) and further in view of Lee (US 20210020887 A1)
Regarding claim 7, modified Ahn teaches all of the elements of claim 2, as shown above. Ahn and Sugimori are silent on the following elements of claim 7:
The non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 2, wherein a thickness of the base material layer is 5 µm ~ 30 µm and a thickness of the coating layer is 1µm ~ 5µm.
However, Lee teaches all of the elements of claim 7 that are not found in Ahn or Sugimori. Specifically, Lee teaches a separator with a base material layer and an inorganic coating layer, both having thicknesses overlapping or anticipating the claimed ranges:
The non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 2, wherein a thickness of the base material layer is 5 µm ~ 30 µm and a thickness of the coating layer is 1µm ~ 5µm. (“According to the present disclosure, the porous substrate preferably has a thickness of 3-12 μm, or 5-12 μm.” Lee [0046] and “The inorganic coating layer preferably has a thickness of 1.5-5.0 μm on one surface of the porous substrate.” Lee [0055]. In this case, the porous substrate is the base layer and the inorganic coating layer is the coating layer.)
Lee is considered to be analogous to Sugimori because it is within the same field of separators for non-aqueous batteries which contain an inorganic filler. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the separator of Sugimori having a base layer and a coating layer containing inorganic material to have the thicknesses of Lee, which also teaches a separator having a base layer and a coating layer containing inorganic material. This would be desirable in order to maintain a sufficient conducting barrier while making sure to not increase resistance (“When the thickness is smaller than the above-defined range, it is not possible to obtain a sufficient conducting barrier function. On the other hand, when the thickness is excessively larger than the above-defined range (i.e. the porous substrate is excessively thick), the separator may show excessively increased resistance.” Lee [0046]) in regards to the base layer, and provide excellent adhesion and optimize cycle characteristics (“Within the above-defined range, it is possible to provide excellent adhesion to an electrode, thereby providing increased cell strength of the battery. Meanwhile, an inorganic coating layer thickness of 5.0 μm or less is advisable in terms of cycle characteristics and resistance characteristics of the battery.” Lee [0056]) in regards to the inorganic coating layer.)
Regarding claim 8, modified Ahn teaches all of the elements of claim 4, as shown above. Ahn and Sugimori are silent on the following elements of claim 8:
The non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 4, wherein a content of the inorganic particles in the coating layer is 30 mass% ~ 70 mass%. (“According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, the binder resin and inorganic particles are present at a weight ratio of 15:85-50:50 in the inorganic coating layer.” Lee [0051])
However, Lee teaches all of the elements of claim 8 that are not found in Ahn or Sugimori. Specifically, Lee teaches a content percentage of inorganic material in the coating layer that overlaps the claimed range:
The non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 4, wherein a content of the inorganic particles in the coating layer is 30 mass% ~ 70 mass%. (“According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, the binder resin and inorganic particles are present at a weight ratio of 15:85-50:50 in the inorganic coating layer.” Lee [0051])
Lee and Sugimori are considered to be analogous for the reasons provided above. It would have been additionally obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the inorganic coating layer or Sugimori to have the content of inorganic material as taught by Lee in order to have a sufficient amount of binder present to have a stable coating layer and excellent adhesion properties (“the separator according to an embodiment of the present disclosure and the electrochemical device including the same show excellent adhesion between a separator and an electrode, while providing low resistance characteristics and a low electrolyte absorption ratio of a binder resin.” Lee [0020])
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 BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET whose telephone number is (571)272-0156. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-6pm except for the first Friday of bi-week.
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, NICHOLAS SMITH can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752