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 .
The Applicant’s amendments filed on June 29, 2026 were received. The text of those sections of Title 35., U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office action issued February 24, 2025. Claim 1 was amended.
Claim Objections
2. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
It is unclear that the recitations “a winding axis“ in line 2 and “a winding axis” in line 9 of claim 1 are the same or different axis. For the interest of compact prosecution, they are examined as the same winding axis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Cheon et al. (US 2006/0008702) in view of Imaji et al. (US 2015/0340693 A1) on claims 1,6,9,14 are maintained. The rejections are restated to address the amendment.
Regarding claim 1, Cheon et al. teaches an energy storage device (a secondary battery in para. 12 and Fig. 1) comprising a wound electrode assembly in which a positive electrode and a negative electrode are wound with a separator interposed therebetween (see para. 44 and Fig. 2):
the negative electrode (para. 12) including a negative electrode substrate (the negative current collector 62a in para. 72) and an active material layer (active material layers 62b in para. 72) layered directly or indirectly on a surface of the negative electrode substrate (Fig. 7B);
the negative active material layer contains a negative electrode active material (active material layers 62b for negative electrode 62 in para. 72);
in a cross section of the negative electrode in a winding axis direction of the wound electrode assembly (See Figs 1 & 2), the edge side of the negative electrode active material layer parallel to the winding axis direction is thicker than a central portion present between the one end edge side and the other end edge side in the winding axis direction (see para. 69). When the layers of the battery are wound, as shown in Figs. 1,2,7B, the leading edge would be thicker than the rest of the electrode including the central portion which is between it and the other end edge side along the winding axis direction. See para. 27,72-74,Claim 28.
Cheon et al. fails to explicitly teach the negative electrode active material contains non-graphitizable carbon; when true density of the non-graphitizable carbon is A [g/cm³], and an amount of
charge B [mAh/g] of the negative electrode in a fully charge states satisfies the formula 1: -730 X A + 1588 ≤ B ≤ -830 X A + 1800. However, Imaji et al., directed to a carbonaceous material for negative electrode in the abstract, teaches a negative electrode having a negative electrode active material
containing non-graphitizable carbon in para. 16-17. Further, Imaji et al. teaches a true density of the non-graphitizable carbon is A [g/cm³] is 1.52 g/cm³, and an amount of charge B [mAh/g] is 532 mAh/g of the negative electrode as seen in the working example 1 in tables 1-2 which satisfies the formula 1 (see calculation below). Imaji et al. teaches the non-graphitizable carbon having a large charge-discharge capacity and excellent rate characteristics in para 13.
-730 X A + 1588 ≤ B ≤ -830 X A + 1800
-730(1.52) + 1588 ≤ 532 ≤ -830(1.52) + 1800
478.4 ≤ 532 ≤ 538.4
Cheon et al. and Imaji et al. are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they both teach secondary batteries with an anode, cathode, separator, and electrolyte. 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 negative electrode active material of Cheon et al. to include non-graphitizable carbon with the true density and amount of charge as taught by Imaji et al. to increase charge-discharge capacity with excellent rate characteristics. See Imaji et al. para. 13
Regarding claim 6, Cheon et al. and Imaji et al. teaches the energy storage device as described in Paragraph 3 above. Imaji teaches a true density of non-graphitizable carbon of 1.52 g/cm³ while the present claims require 1.5 g/cm³ or less. It is apparent, however, that the instantly claimed amount of 1.5 g/cm³ or less and the 1.52 g/cm³ taught by Imaji et al. are so close to each other that the fact pattern is similar to the one in In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) or Titanium Metals Corp. of America V. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed.Cir.1985) where despite a "slight" difference in the ranges the court held that such a difference did not "render the claims patentable" or, alternatively, that "a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough SO that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties". In light of the case law cited above and given that there is only a "slight" difference between the amount of 1.52 g/cm³ disclosed by Imaji et al. and the amount disclosed in the present claims of 1.5 g/cm³ or less and further given the fact that no criticality is disclosed in the present invention with respect to the amount of 1.5 g/cm³ or less, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the amount of 1.5 g/cm³ or less disclosed in the present claims is but an obvious variant of the amounts disclosed in Imaji et al., and thereby one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention. When a composition with a touching or overlapping range is found in the prior art, this is considered sufficient to support a holding of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Regarding claim 9, Cheon et al. teaches an energy storage device (see para. 12 and Fig. 1) comprising a layered electrode assembly in which a plurality of positive electrodes and a plurality of negative electrodes are layered with a plurality of separators each interposed between each one of the plurality of positive electrodes and each one of the plurality of negative electrodes (see the numerous sheets or layers of separator 13 interposed between the positive and negative electrodes 11 and 12 respectively in Fig. 1 and shown to be formed in Fig. 2):
in a cross section of each one of the plurality of negative electrodes in a direction perpendicular to a layering direction of the layered electrode assembly in a cross section of the negative electrode in a winding axis direction of the wound electrode assembly, the edge side of the negative electrode active material layer parallel to the winding axis direction is thicker than a central portion present between the one end edge side and the other end edge side in the winding axis direction (see para. 69). Once the layers of the battery are wound, as shown in FIGs. 1,2,7B, the leading edge would be thicker than the rest of the electrode including the central portion which is between it and the other end edge side along the winding axis direction. See para. 27,72-74,Claim 28.
Cheon et al. does not teach the negative electrode active material contains non-graphitizable carbon and a true density of the non-graphitizable carbon is A [g/cm³], and an amount of charge B [mAh/g] of the negative electrode in a fully charge states satisfies the formula 1: -730 X A + 1588 ≤ B ≤ -830 X A + 1800. However, Imaji et al., directed to a carbonaceous material for negative electrode in the abstract, teaches a negative electrode having a negative electrode active material containing non-graphitizable carbon in para. 16-17. Further, Imaji et al. teaches a true density of the non-graphitizable carbon is A [g/cm³] is 1.52 g/cm³, and an amount of charge B [mAh/g] is 532 mAh/g of the negative electrode as seen in the working example 1 in tables 1-2 which satisfies the formula 1 (see calculation below). Imaji et al. teaches the non-graphitizable carbon having a large charge-discharge capacity and
excellent rate characteristics in para. 13.
-730 X A + 1588 ≤ B ≤ -830 X A + 1800
-730(1.52) + 1588 ≤ 532 ≤ -830(1.52) + 1800
478.4 ≤ 532 ≤ 538.4
Cheon et al. and Imaji et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they both teach secondary batteries with an anode, cathode, separator, and electrolyte. 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 negative electrode active material of Cheon et al. to include non-graphitizable carbon with the true density and amount of charge as taught by Imaji et al. to increase charge-discharge capacity with excellent rate characteristics. See Imaji et al. para. 13
Regarding claim 14, Cheon et al. and Imaji et al. teaches the energy storage device as described in Paragraph 3 above. Imaji teaches a true density of non-graphitizable carbon of 1.52 g/cm³ while the present claims require 1.5 g/cm³ or less. It is apparent, however, that the instantly claimed amount of 1.5 g/cm³ or less and the 1.52 g/cm³ taught by Imaji et al. are so close to each other that the fact pattern is similar to the one in In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) or Titanium Metals Corp. of America V. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed.Cir.1985) where despite a "slight" difference in the ranges the court held that such a difference did not "render the claims patentable" or, alternatively, that "a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough SO that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties". In light of the case law cited above and given that there is only a "slight" difference between the amount of 1.52 g/cm³ disclosed by Imaji et al. and the amount disclosed in the present claims of 1.5 g/cm³ or less and further given the fact that no criticality is disclosed in the present invention with respect to the amount of 1.5 g/cm³ or less, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the amount of 1.5 g/cm³ or less disclosed in the present claims is but an obvious variant of the amounts disclosed in Imaji et al., and thereby one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention. When a composition with a touching or overlapping range is found in the prior art, this is considered sufficient to support a holding of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
4. Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheon et al. (US 2006/0008702) in view of Imaji et al. (US 2015/0340693 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Tanaka et al. (US 2012/0058375 A1) on claims 2 and 10 are maintained.
Regarding claim 2, Cheon et al. in view of Imaji et al. teaches an energy storage device as described in Paragraph 3 above, wherein a thickness difference (T2-T1) between a thickness T2 of the negative active material layer on the one end edge side and a thickness T1 of the central portion is 1 µm or more and 5 µm or less (Cheon et al. teaches the ratio of t5 to t6 Is 1.8:1 in para. 74. Cheon et al. further teach secondary batteries can be used in a variety of systems from cellular phones to hybrid EV in para. 3. Cheon et al. also teach the secondary batteries can be in various shapes in para. 4. If t6 is between 1.25 µm and 6.25 µm, and the ratio of t5 and t6 is 1.8:1, then the thickness of the negative active material layer on the one end edge side, note T2 in the instant application maps to t5, is 1µm or more and 5 µm or less than the thickness of the central portion, note T1 in the instant application maps to t6. While Cheon et al. is silent on the size of t5 or t6, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary the thickness of t5 and t6 within the ratio of 1.8:1 to fit the various sizing needs of a secondary battery in a cellular phone to a hybrid EV so that the thickness difference between t5 and t6 is 1µm or more and 5 µm or less. It is understood that t6 is part of the central portion because it is between the two edges.
Tanaka et al., also directed to an energy storage device and teach an electrode assembly in which a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a separator are laminated together. Tanaka et al. teaches a wound assembly (see para. 27, 78, and Fig. 1). Further, Tanaka et al. teaches varying and tapered thickness of the negative electrode active material (tapered thickness in Fig. 1 and a larger thickness at each end of the electrode in Fig. 5 and Para. 30, 59, 66- 68, and 87). Tanaka et al. teaches layer 40 is between 3-15 µm. It appears, based upon 1 and 5, this thicker region of alumina layer 40 resides at one side of the electrode along the length of the entire wound strip, i.e. it resides at edges of the wound beginning end and wound final end portion. Thus, the active material on a side relative vertically to the current collector that contains alumina-containing layer 40 at a horizontal end of the electrode and also resides at one end edge side relative to the wound beginning portion is 3-15 µm thicker than a more central portion horizontally and in the wound direction of the active material on the same side relative vertically to the current collector, as seen in annotated Fig. B. Tanaka et al. teaches this prevents short circuiting and because of the alumina, helps bonding in order to reduce occurrences of delamination in Para. 87. It's worthwhile noting T1 and T2 as described in claim 2 are not necessarily related to the thickness variation mentioned in claim 1 due to the way the claim is recited. Therefore, it would have further been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the negative electrode of Cheon et al. in view of Imaji et al. to have al alumina layer at the edge of the existing negative electrode active material in a thickness between 3-15 µm, as taught by Tanaka et al., to prevent short circuiting and reduce occurrences of delamination as noted by Tanaka et al. in para. 87.
PNG
media_image1.png
367
785
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure B. Annotated Fig. B of Fig. 5 of Tanaka et al.
Regarding claim 10, Cheon et al. in view of Imaji et al. teaches the energy storage device described in Paragraph 3 above, wherein a thickness difference (T2-T1) between a thickness T2 of the negative active material layer on the one end edge side and a thickness T1 of the central portion is 1 µm or more and 5 µm or less (see Cheon et al. teaches the ratio of t5 to t6 Is 1.8:1 in para. 74). Cheon et al. further teaches secondary batteries can be used in a variety of systems from cellular phones to hybrid EV in para. 3. Cheon et al. teach the secondary batteries can be in various shapes in para. 4. If t6 is between 1.25 µm and 6.25 µm, and the ratio of t5 and t6 is 1.8:1, then the thickness of the negative active material layer on the one end edge side, note T2 in the instant application maps to t5, is 1µm or more and 5 µm or less than the thickness of the central portion, note T1 in the instant application maps to t6. While Cheon et al. is silent on the size of t5 or t6, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary the thickness of t5 and t6 within the ratio of 1.8:1 to fit the various sizing needs of a secondary battery in a cellular phone to a hybrid EV so that the thickness difference between t5 and t6 is 1 µm or more and 5 µm or less. It is understood that t6 is part of the central portion because it is between the two edges.
Tanaka et al., also directed to an energy storage device, teach an electrode assembly in which a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a separator are laminated together. Tanaka et al. teaches a wound assembly (see para. 27, 78, and Fig. 1). Further, Tanaka et al. teaches varying and tapered thickness of the negative electrode active material (see the tapered thickness in Fig. 1 and a larger thickness at each end of the electrode in Fig. 5 and Para. 30, 59, 66-68, and 87. Tanaka et al. teaches layer 40 is between 3-15 µm. It appears, based upon Fig. 1 and 5, this thicker region of alumina layer 40 resides at one side of the electrode along the length of the entire wound strip, i.e. it resides at edges of the wound beginning end and wound final end portion. Thus, the active material on a side relative vertically to the current collector that contains alumina-containing layer 40 at a horizontal end of the electrode and also resides at one end edge side relative to the wound beginning portion is 3-15 µm thicker than a more central portion horizontally and in the wound direction of the active material on the same side relative vertically to the current collector, as seen in annotated Fig. B. Tanaka et al. teaches this prevents short circuiting and because of the alumina, helps bonding in order to reduce occurrences of delamination in para. 87. It's worthwhile to note T1 and T2 as described in claim 10 are not necessarily related to the thickness variation mentioned in claim 9 due to the way the claim is recited. Therefore, it would have further been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the negative electrode of Cheon et al. in view of Imaji et al. to have al alumina layer at the edge of the existing negative electrode active material in a thickness between 3-15 µm, as taught by Tanaka et al., to prevent short circuiting and reduce occurrences of delamination. See Tanaka et al. para. 87.
5. Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheon et al. (US 2006/0008702) in view of Imaji et al. (US 2015/0340693 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Hatanaka et al. (US 2010/0221607 A1) on claims 3 and 11 are maintained.
Regarding claim 3, Cheon et al. in view of Imaji et al. teaches the energy storage device as described in Paragraph 3 above. Cheon et al. taught in the cross section of the negative electrode in the winding axis direction, a thickness T2, (see e.g. Cheon teaches Annotation T2 of Annotated Fig. C), an end of the negative active material on the current collector that has thickness greater than a thickness T3 of the negative active material layer on the other end edge side (see annotation T3 of the annotated Fig. C is on the opposite or other end edge side of the active layer).
Cheon et al. in view of Imaji et al. fails to explicitly teach wherein the negative electrode substrate includes a non-layered portion which protrudes from the one end edge side in the winding axis direction and on which the negative active material layer is not layered; and in the cross section of the negative electrode in the winding axis direction, a thickness T2 of the negative active material layer on the non-layered portion side is greater than a thickness T3 of the negative active material layer on the other end edge side. However, Hatanaka et al. teaches in para. 17 the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to the present invention comprises a long core member and a material mixture layer formed thereon. The electrode plate has an exposed part of the core member formed along one side which is parallel to the longitudinal direction of the core member. In para. 41 in an electrode plate 40 of FIG. 4, the total thickness of the electrode plate in the vicinity of the edge portion 32a is larger than the total thickness of the electrode plate in the vicinity of the central portion of the material mixture layer. In para. 75, a positive electrode current collector terminal and a negative electrode current collector terminal are welded, respectively, to the exposed part of the positive electrode core member and the exposed part of the negative electrode core member of the obtained electrode group. As the method for welding the current collector terminals to the exposed part of the core member, laser welding, ultrasonic welding, resistance welding, TIG welding etc. can be used without limitation thereto. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the tab winding electrode structure of Cheon et al. in view of Imaji et al. to have an exposed electrode tab extend off of the thicker edge of the negative electrode, as taught in Fig. 4 of Hatanaka et al., in order to weld a current collector to the exposed tab and conduct charge and therefore yield predictable results of the known method as an alternative to the tab - current collector structure shown in Fig. 2 of Cheon et al. by the uncoated portions 12a and negative current collecting plate 50. Upon this combination, a non-layered or exposed portion would protrude from the one end edge side or the thicker edge in the winding axis direction as seen how the exposed portion of Hatanaka et al. in Fig. 4 extends and annotated Fig. A and B in which the thicker portion is lie along the core length.
PNG
media_image2.png
440
959
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure C. Annotated Fig. C of Fig. 7B of Cheon et al.
Regarding claim 11, Cheon et al. in view of Imaji et al. teaches the energy storage device as described in Paragraph 3 above. Cheon et al. taught in the cross section of the negative electrode in the winding axis direction, a thickness T2, (see e.g. Cheon teaches Annotation T2 of Annotated Fig. C), an end of the negative active material on the current collector that has thickness greater than a thickness T3 of the negative active material layer on the other end edge side (see e.g. annotation T3 of the annotated Fig. C is on the opposite or other end edge side of the active layer).
Cheon et al. in view of Imaji et al. fails to explicitly teach wherein the negative electrode substrate includes a non-layered portion which protrudes from the one end edge side in the winding axis direction and on which the negative active material layer is not layered; and in the cross section of the negative electrode in the winding axis direction, a thickness T2 of the negative active material layer on the non-layered portion side is greater than a thickness T3 of the negative active material layer
on the other end edge side. However, Hatanaka et al. teaches in para. 17 the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to the present invention comprises a long core member and a material mixture layer formed thereon. The electrode plate has an exposed part of the core member formed along one side which is parallel to the longitudinal direction of the core member. In para. 41 in an electrode plate 40 of FIG. 4, the total thickness of the electrode plate in the vicinity of the edge portion 32a is larger than the total thickness of the electrode plate in the vicinity of the central portion of the material mixture layer. In para. 75, a positive electrode current collector terminal and a negative electrode current collector terminal are welded, respectively, to the exposed part of the positive electrode core member and the exposed part of the negative electrode core member of the obtained electrode group. As the method for welding the current collector terminals to the exposed part of the core member, laser welding, ultrasonic welding, resistance welding, TIG welding etc. can be used without limitation thereto. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the tab winding electrode structure of Cheon et al. in view of Imaji et al. to have an exposed electrode tab extend off of the thicker edge of the negative electrode, as taught in Fig. 4 of Hatanaka et al., in order to weld a current collector to the exposed tab and conduct charge and therefore yield predictable results of the known method as an alternative to the tab - current collector structure shown in Fig. 2 of Cheon et al. by the uncoated portions 12a and negative current collecting plate 50. Upon this combination, a non-layered or exposed portion would protrude from the one end edge side or the thicker edge in the winding axis direction as seen how the exposed portion of Hatanaka et al. in FIG. 4 extends and annotated Fig. A and B in which the thicker portion lies along the core length.
6. Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheon et al. (US 2006/0008702) in view of Imaji et al. (US 2015/0340693 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Masato et al. (JP 2010-199077 A) on claims 4,5,12,13 are maintained.
Regarding claim 4, Cheon et al. and Imaji et al. teach the energy storage device as described in Paragraph 3 above, wherein the positive electrode includes a positive electrode substrate and a positive active material layer directly or indirectly layered on the surface of the positive electrode substrate. Cheon et al. in view of Imaji et al. fails to explicitly note what the positive active material 60b contains a lithium transition metal oxide containing nickel, cobalt, and manganese as a main component; and a molar ratio of nickel to a total of nickel, cobalt, and manganese in the lithium transition metal oxide is 0.5 or more. However, Masato et al. teaches a lithium nickel manganese cobalt composite oxide in which they are all main components, as seen by the molar ratio ranges and because they make up the chemical formula in Para. 15-17. The LibMnsNitCouXvO2 (X is at least one kind of Zr, Mg, Al, Ti, Sn, 0 0.0001 ≤ v ≤ 0.03, s+t+u+v=1) that Masato et al. teaches in para. 15-17 presents an overlapping range with the claimed range of molar ratio of nickel to a total of nickel, cobalt, and manganese in the lithium transition metal oxide is 0.5 or more in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05). The nickel may have a molar ratio such as 0.5 and in order to meet s+t+u+v=1, nickel would have to have a molar ratio of 0.5 or more between nickel and nickel, cobalt, and manganese (see calculations below).
When t = 0.5 (within the range of t in the prior art),
as long as s+u+v=0.5 (meeting s+t+u+v=1 of prior art),
then the molar ratio of nickel to nickel, cobalt, and manganese (t/(s+t+u)) will be 0.5 or more.
While S is limited to 0.1 to 0.5, because the range of V is small and u is not limited
to a range, the conditions of S will not affect whether the molar ratio of nickel to nickel,
cobalt, and manganese (t/(s+t+u)) will be 0.5 or more.
If v = O, then the molar ratio of t:(s+t+u) will be 0.5
(0.5/(1-0))=0.5
If v = 0.0001, then the molar ratio will be 0.50005005
(0.5/(1-0.0001))=0.50005005
If v = 0.03, then the molar ratio will be 0.51546
(0.5/(1-0.03))=0.51546
Even when t is less than 0.5, the conditions of the claim can still be met.
When t = 0.49 and V = 0.03, then the molar ratio will be 0.50515
(0.49/(1-0.03)=0.50515
Masato et al. also teaches the lithium-cobalt composite oxides to which zirconium and magnesium are highly stable at a high potential. Further, the lithium-nickel-manganese composite oxides have a layered structure excellent in thermal stability at a high potential in para. 16.
Regarding claim 5, Cheon et al. in view of Imaji et al. teaches the energy storage device as described in Paragraph 3 above. Cheon et al. teach a separator disposed between sheet-type positive and negative electrodes in para. 4). Cheon et al. in view of Imaji et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the separator has a porosity of 50% or more. However, Masato et al. teaches wherein the separator has a porosity of 50% or more in Para. 40. Masato et al. explains this is to prevent cycle deterioration in Para. 20 and 69-70.
Cheon et al. and Masato et al. are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they both teach secondary batteries, for applications such as cellular devices, with an anode, cathode, separator, and electrolyte. 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 battery of Cheon et al. in view of Imaji et al. SO that the separator has a porosity of 50% or more to prevent cycle deterioration as taught by Masato et al. in para. 20 and 69-70.
Regarding claim 12, Cheon et al. in view of Imaji et al. teaches an energy storage device as described in Paragraph 3 above, wherein Cheon et al. teaches the positive current collector 60a in Para. 72) and a positive active material layer. Cheon et al. in view of Imaji et al. fails to explicitly note what the positive active material 60b contains a lithium transition metal oxide containing nickel, cobalt, and manganese as a main component; and a molar ratio of nickel to a total of nickel, cobalt, and manganese in the lithium transition metal oxide is 0.5 or more. However, Masato et al. teaches a lithium nickel manganese cobalt composite oxide in which they are all main components, as seen by the molar ratio ranges and because they make up the chemical formula in para. 15-17. The LibMnsNitCouXvO2 (X is at least one kind of Zr, Mg, Al, Ti, Sn, 0 0.0001 ≤ v ≤ 0.03, ≤ S + + u + = 1) that Masato et al. teaches in Para. 15-17 presents an overlapping range with the claimed range of molar ratio of nickel to a total of nickel, cobalt, and manganese in the lithium transition metal oxide is 0.5 or more in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05). The nickel may have a molar ratio such as 0.5 and in order to meet s+t+u+v=1, nickel would have to have a molar ratio of 0.5 or more between nickel and nickel, cobalt, and manganese (see calculations below).
When t = 0.5 (within the range of t in the prior art),
as long as S +u+v=0.5 (meeting s+t+u+v=1 of prior art),
then the molar ratio of nickel to nickel, cobalt, and manganese (t/(s+t+u)) will be 0.5 or more.
While S is limited to 0.1 to 0.5, because the range of V is small and u is not limited
to a range, the conditions of S will not affect whether the molar ratio of nickel to nickel,
cobalt, and manganese (t/(s+t+u)) will be 0.5 or more.
If v = O, then the molar ratio of t:(s+t+u) will be 0.5
(0.5/(1-0))=0.5
If V = 0.0001, then the molar ratio will be 0.50005005
(0.5/(1-0.0001)=0.50005005
If V = 0.03, then the molar ratio will be 0.51546
(0.5/(1-0.03))=0.51546
Even when t is less than 0.5, the conditions of the claim can still be met.
When t = 0.49 and V = 0.03, then the molar ratio will be 0.50515
(0.49/(1-0.03)=0.50515
Masato et al. also teaches the lithium-cobalt composite oxides to which zirconium and magnesium are highly stable at a high potential. Further, the lithium-nickel-manganese composite oxides have a layered structure excellent in thermal stability at a high potential in para. 16. Cheon et al. and Masato et al. are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they both teach secondary batteries, for applications such as cellular devices, with an anode, cathode, separator, and electrolyte. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the battery of Cheon et al. in view of Imaji et al. to contain a positive electrode active material that comprises a lithium transition metal oxide containing nickel, cobalt, and manganese as a main component; and a molar ratio of nickel to a total of nickel, cobalt, and manganese in the lithium transition metal oxide is 0.5 or more, as taught by Masato et al.. This would be because Masato et al. also teaches the lithium-cobalt composite oxides to which zirconium and magnesium are highly stable at a high potential. Further, lithium-nickel-manganese composite oxides have a layered structure excellent in thermal stability at a high potential as taught by Masato et al. See para. 16.
Regarding claim 13, Cheon et al. in view of Imaji et al. teaches the energy storage device as described in Paragraph 3 above. Cheon et al. in view of Imaji et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the separator has a porosity of 50% or more. However, Masato et al. teaches wherein the separator has a porosity of 50% or more in Para. 40. Masato et al. explains this is to prevent cycle deterioration in para. 20 and 69-70. Cheon et al. and Masato et al. are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they both teach secondary batteries, for applications such as cellular devices, with an anode, cathode, separator, and electrolyte. 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 battery of Cheon et al. in view of Imaji et al. so that the separator has a porosity of 50% or more to prevent cycle deterioration as taught by Masato et al. See para. 20 and 69-70.
7. Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheon et al. (US 2006/0008702) in view of Imaji et al. (US 2015/0340693 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kako et al. (US 2015/0093647) on claims 7,8,15, and 16 are maintained.
Regarding claim 7 and 8, Cheon et al. in view of Imaji et al. teaches the energy storage device as described in Paragraph 3 above. Cheon et al. in view of Imaji et al. fails to teach wherein the negative active material layer contains a cellulose derivative in which a counter cation is a metal ion (claim 7) and wherein the metal ion is a sodium ion (claim 8). However, Kato et al. teaches wherein the negative active material layer contains a cellulose derivative in which a counter cation is a metal ion and wherein the metal ion is a sodium ion by part of a thickener added to a binder for the negative active material: methyl cellulose or carboxymethyl cellulose and sodium salts in para. 70. Kato et al. teaches this acts as a paste viscosity regulator and thickener to the binder for non-graphitizable carbon for a nonaqueous electrolyte-based battery in para. 70.
Cheon et al. and Kako et al. are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they both teach batteries with an anode, cathode, separator, and nonaqueous electrolyte. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the battery of Cheon et al. in view of Imaji et al. and add a binder to adhere the active material to the substrate and add a thickener to the binder, as taught by Kako et al., to regulate its viscosity as noted by Kako et al. in para. 70.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Cheon et al. in view of Imaji et al. teaches the energy storage device as described in Paragraph 3 above. Cheon et al. in view of Imaji et al. fails to teach wherein the negative active material layer contains a cellulose derivative in which a counter cation is a metal ion (claim 15) and wherein the metal ion is a sodium ion (claim 16). However, Kato et al. teaches wherein the negative active material layer contains a cellulose derivative in which a counter cation is a metal ion and wherein the metal ion is a sodium ion by Part of a thickener added to a binder for the negative active material: methyl cellulose or carboxymethyl cellulose and sodium salts in para. 70. Kato et al. teaches this acts as a paste viscosity regulator and thickener to the binder for non-graphitizable carbon for a nonaqueous electrolyte-based battery in para. 70.
Cheon et al. and Kako et al. are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they both teach batteries with an anode, cathode, separator, and nonaqueous electrolyte. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the battery of Cheon et al. in view of Imaji et al. and add a binder to adhere the active material to the substrate and add a thickener to the binder to regulate its viscosity as noted by Kako et al. See para. 70.
8. Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheon et al. (US 2006/0008702) in view of Imaji et al. (US 2015/0340693 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Yoshida et al. (US 6,136,471) on claims 17-20 are maintained.
Regarding claim 17, Cheon et al. in view of Imaji et al. teaches the energy storage device as described in Paragraph 3 above. Cheon et al. in view of Imaji et al. fails to explicitly teach wherein a lower limit of the negative active material in the negative active material layer is 80% by mass. However, Yoshida et al. teaches a preferred negative electrode active material is non-graphitizing carbon in Column 6: lines 41-49. Yoshida et al. teaches 95 parts by carbon, the active material, and 5 parts binder resin for the negative electrode in embodiment 1 in Column 7: lines 59-62. Yoshida et al. teaches the same composition was used for Embodiment 2 and 3 and 5 in Column 8: lines 51-53, Column 9: lines 6-8, and Column 10: lines 14-16 respectively. Embodiment 4 comprises 95 parts of carbon and 5 parts of a different binder resin in Column 9: lines 33 and 42-46. Yoshida et al. teaches the negative electrode active material layers comprises negative active material particles dispersed and bound with a binder resin in Column 3: lines 23-26. 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 negative active material layer of Cheon et al in view of Imaji, to have 95 parts by mass of the negative electrode active material, such as a non-graphitizing carbon, and 5 parts by mass of a binder resin, as taught by Yoshida et al.. Yoshida et al. establishes this as a known technique of a 95 parts by mass active carbonaceous material to 5 parts by mass binder resin, to a known device of a negative electrode active material layer, that would yield predictive results and result in an improved system of binding the negative active material particles as noted in Column 3: lines 23-26 of Yoshida et al.
Regarding claim 18, Cheon et al. in view of Imaji et al. teaches the energy storage device as described in Paragraph 3 above. Cheon et al. in view of Imaji et al. fails to explicitly teach wherein a lower limit of the negative active material in the negative active material layer is 90% by mass. However, Yoshida et al. teaches a preferred negative electrode active material is non-graphitizing carbon in Column 6: lines 41-49. Yoshida et al. teaches 95 parts by carbon, the active material, and 5 parts binder resin for the negative electrode in embodiment 1 in Column 7: lines 59-62. Yoshida et al. teaches the same composition was used for Embodiment 2 and 3 and 5 in Column 8: lines 51-53, Column 9: lines 6-8, and Column 10: lines 14-16 respectively. Embodiment 4 comprises 95 parts of carbon and 5 parts of a different binder resin in Column 9: lines 33 and 42-46. Yoshida et al. teaches the negative electrode active material layers comprises negative active material particles dispersed ad bound with a binder resin in Column 3: lines 23-26. 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 negative active material layer of Cheon et al in view of Imaji, to have 95 parts by mass of the negative electrode active material, such as a non-graphitizing carbon, and 5 parts by mass of a binder resin, as taught by Yoshida et al.. Yoshida et al. establishes this as a known technique of a 95 parts by mass active carbonaceous material to 5 parts by mass binder resin, to a known device of a negative electrode active material layer, that would yield predictive results and result in an improved system of binding the negative active material particles as noted in Column 3: lines 23-26 of Yoshida et al.
Regarding claim 19, Cheon et al. in view of Imaji et al. teaches the energy storage device as described in Paragraph 3 above. Cheon et al. in view of Imaji et al. fails to explicitly teach wherein a lower limit of the negative active material in the negative active material layer is 80% by mass. However, Yoshida et al. teaches a preferred negative electrode active material is non-graphitizing carbon in Column 6: lines 41-49. Yoshida et al. teaches 95 parts by carbon, the active material, and 5 parts binder resin for the negative electrode in embodiment 1 in Column 7: lines 59-62. Yoshida et al. teaches the same composition was used for Embodiment 2 and 3 and 5 in Column 8: lines 51-53, Column 9: lines 6-8, and Column 10: lines 14-16 respectively. Embodiment 4 comprises 95 parts of carbon and 5 parts of a different binder resin in Column 9: lines 33 and 42-46. Yoshida et al. teaches the negative electrode active material layers comprises negative active material particles dispersed ad bound with a binder resin in Column 3: lines 23-26. 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 negative active material layer of Cheon et al in view of Imaji, to have 95 parts by mass of the negative electrode active material, such as a non-graphitizing carbon, and 5 parts by mass of a binder resin, as taught by Yoshida et al.. Yoshida et al. establishes this as a known technique of a 95 parts by mass active carbonaceous material to 5 parts by mass binder resin, to a known device of a negative electrode active material layer, that would yield predictive results and result in an improved system of binding the negative active material particles as noted in Column 3: lines 23-26 of Yoshida et al.
Regarding claim 20, Cheon et al. in view of Imaji et al. teaches the energy storage device as described in Paragraph 3 above. Cheon et al. in view of Imaji et al. fails to explicitly teach wherein a lower limit of the negative active material in the negative active material layer is 90% by mass. However, Yoshida et al. teaches a preferred negative electrode active material is non-graphitizing carbon in Column 6: lines 41-49. Yoshida et al. teaches 95 parts by carbon, the active material, and 5 parts binder resin for the negative electrode in embodiment 1 in Column 7: lines 59-62. Yoshida et al. teaches the same composition was used for Embodiment 2 and 3 and 5 in Column 8: lines 51-53, Column 9: lines 6-8, and Column 10: lines 14-16 respectively. Embodiment 4 comprises 95 parts of carbon and 5 parts of a different binder resin in Column 9: lines 33 and 42-46. Yoshida et al. teaches the negative electrode active material layers comprises negative active material particles dispersed and bound with a binder resin in Column 3: lines 23-26. 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 negative active material layer of Cheon et al in view of Imaji, to have 95 parts by mass of the negative electrode active material, such as a non-graphitizing carbon, and 5 parts by mass of a binder resin, as taught by Yoshida et al.. Yoshida et al. establishes this as a known technique of a 95 parts by mass active carbonaceous material to 5 parts by mass binder resin, to a known device of a negative electrode active material layer, that would yield predictive results and result in an improved system of binding the negative active material particles as noted in Column 3: lines 23-26 of Yoshida et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 6/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s principal arguments are:
Cheon fails to teach or suggest, in a cross section of the negative electrode in a winding axis direction parallel to the winding axis around which the positive electrode and the negative electrode are wound with a separator interposed therebetween.
Cheon has the same thickness throughout the winding axis direction, and throughout a direction perpendicular to the alleged layering direction.
Hatanaka et al. does not show a cross section of the negative electrode in a winding axis direction parallel to the winding axis, at least on end edge side of the negative active material layer in the winding axis direction is thicker than ta central portion as recited in claim 1.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, please consider the following comments:
According to one embodiment, an electrode assembly 10 is formed by interposing an insulating separator 13 between positive and negative electrodes 11 and 12, and winding them. Also, as shown in FIG. 2, with the electrode assembly 10, a separator 13 is disposed between the positive and negative electrodes 11 and 12, and spirally wound together. See para. 38,44 and FIG. 2.
Cheon et al. teach the rigidity reinforcing member may be structured such that the thickness of the active material layer formed on the current collector corresponding to the leading edge of the electrode is larger than the thickness of the active material layer formed on other portions of the current collector. See para. 27,72-74, FIG. 7B, Claim 28. It is known in the art that the thickness variation of the active material layer itself is distinct from other approaches in the patent (e.g., thickening the current collector at the leading edge, or applying separate reinforcing films). The variation serves the same purpose: preventing crumpling of the active material layers during the winding process by adding rigidity to the leading edge.
Hatanaka et al. is used to show the electrode substrate includes a protrusion from one end edge side in the winding axis in the winding axis direction. Hatanaka et al. show the protrusions (current collector terminal) can be welded to the electrode substrate by different welding methods. See FIG. 1-4 and para. 75. In addition, the comparison of thickness between T2 and T3 is disclosed by Cheon et al. See annotated FIG. 7B above.
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 DAH-WEI YUAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1295. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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.
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.
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights