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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/27/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claim 1 is amended. Support for amendment can be found in [0034] of the instant specification.
Claim 4 is cancelled.
Claim 3 was previously cancelled.
Claims 1-2 are considered on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1/27/2026 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR20090051381A) hereinafter "Lee", in view Park et al. (CN104347843A) hereinafter "Park", Mihashi (JP2013004241A) hereinafter "Mihashi", and Abe et al. (JP6052520B2) hereinafter "Abe", in further view of Kogetsu et al. (US 20180145304 A1) hereinafter “Kogetsu”. Reference is made to previously provided machine translations.
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, comprising: an electrode assembly in which a band-shaped positive electrode and a band-shaped negative electrode are spirally wound with a separator interposed therebetween ([0002]; [0008]; [0011]; Fig. 2 reproduce below); and an exterior housing body that houses the electrode assembly ([0044] “cylindrical can”), wherein the negative electrode has a negative electrode current collector, and a negative electrode mixture layer formed on both side surfaces of the negative electrode current collector ([0019]; [0008]) and including at least a negative electrode active material and a binder ([0021]), the negative electrode mixture layer has an outer negative electrode mixture layer positioned on an outer peripheral side of the negative electrode current collector, and an inner negative electrode mixture layer positioned on an inner peripheral side of the negative electrode current collector ([0020]; [0021]). Lee teaches that it is preferable to use binders having different characteristics, respectively, in an inner negative electrode active material layer and an outer negative electrode active material layer because each are subject to different forces ([0021]; [0026]). Lee teaches that an inner binder should be selected from a material with high adhesive strength such as a polyvinyl difluoride (PVdF)-based binder ([0027]). Lee further teaches that an outer binder is preferably a styrene-butadiene rubber-based binder with a high flexibility ([0039]; [0038]).
PNG
media_image1.png
300
501
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lee does not teach wherein a degree of swelling of the binder included in the outer negative electrode mixture layer is higher than a degree of swelling of the binder included in the inner negative electrode mixture layer, and the outer negative electrode mixture layer includes a binder having a degree of swelling of 150 to 250%.
However, Park teaches an electrode binder for a lithium secondary battery ([0013]) with a non-aqueous electrolyte ([0015]) where a binder having a large swelling ratio in an electrolyte is used to provide a flexible structure, while a second binder with a small swelling ratio is used to provide a rigid structure ([0032]). Park teaches that a binder may be styrene-butadiene or a derivate thereof and that different binders selected from the same substance can have different swelling ratios ([0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the outer negative electrode mixture layer in the battery taught by Lee, by using a binder with a larger degree of swelling as taught by Park.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the outer negative electrode mixture layer in the battery taught by Lee, by using a binder with a larger degree of swelling as taught by Park, to allow for greater flexibility in the outer negative electrode mixture layer ([0032]).
Further, Mihashi teaches a non-aqueous ([0032]) secondary battery ([0008]) with an electrode assembly in which a positive electrode and a negative electrode are wound with a separator interposed therebetween ([0076]) and the negative electrode mixture contains a binder such as styrene-butadiene copolymers (SBR) and acrylic acid-modified SBR resins (SBR-based latexes) ([0024]; [0018]). Mihashi teaches where a swelling degree of styrene-butadiene rubber is preferably about 150% or more and more preferably 200% or more ([0098]). Mihashi teaches that it is preferable for a styrene-butadiene rubber serving as a rubber-based binder to have a relatively high degree of swelling with an electrolytic solution because it results in stronger peel strength of negative electrode material layers and lower reaction resistance of a battery ([0096]; [0097]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the degree of swelling of a binder in an outer electrode active mixture in the battery taught by Lee in view of Park, within the range taught by Mihashi.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the degree of swelling of a binder in an outer electrode active mixture in the battery taught by Lee in view of Park, within the range taught by Mihashi with a reasonable expectation of producing a negative electrode. 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) (see MPEP §2144.05).
Lee in view of Park and Mihashi does not teach where each of the binder included in the outer negative electrode mixture layer and the binder included in the inner negative electrode mixture layer comprises a styrene-butadiene rubber having acrylonitrile as a constituent monomer, and a content of acrylonitrile in the styrene-butadiene rubber included in the outer negative electrode mixture layer is higher than a content of acrylonitrile in the styrene-butadiene rubber included in the inner negative electrode mixture layer.
However, Abe teaches a binder for a negative electrode ([0071]) with excellent storage stability and excellent adhesion and charge/discharge characteristics even after long-term storage ([0008]; [0010]). Abe teaches a binder comprising predominantly styrene and butadiene monomers where the addition of an α,β-unsaturated nitrile compound such as acrylonitrile, increases the swelling properties of the polymer in an electrolytic solution ([0043]; [0037]-[0042]). Abe teaches that excessive acrylonitrile results in excessive swelling ([0043] content of acrylonitrile must be kept below a threshold to prevent excessive swelling).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have substituted the PVDF-based inner negative electrode mixture layer binder taught by Lee with a binder containing styrene, butadiene, and acrylonitrile monomers as taught by Abe.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute the PVDF-based inner negative electrode mixture layer binder taught by Lee with a binder containing styrene, butadiene, and acrylonitrile monomers as taught by Abe to increase storage stability and maintain excellent adhesion and charge/discharge characteristics even after long-term storage ([0008]; [0010]). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP §2144.07).
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included acrylonitrile in the inner and outer binders and to have modified a content of acrylonitrile in each styrene-butadiene rubber-based binders as taught by Abe, such that the swelling of an outer negative electrode mixture layer was maintained greater than the swelling of the inner negative electrode mixture layer as taught by Lee in view of Park and Mihashi.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to included acrylonitrile in the inner and outer binders to allow control of swelling characteristics. Further one of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the content of acrylonitrile in styrene-butadiene rubber-based binders as taught by Abe, such that the swelling of an outer negative electrode mixture layer was maintained greater than the swelling of the inner negative electrode mixture layer taught by Lee in view of Park and Mihashi with a reasonable expectation of producing an electrode.
Lee in view of Park, Mihashi, and Abe is silent as to a winding radius, which is a distance between an innermost circumference of the negative electrode and a winding axis of the electrode assembly.
However, Kogetsu teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, comprising: an electrode assembly in which a band-shaped positive electrode and a band-shaped negative electrode are spirally wound with a separator interposed therebetween; and an exterior housing body that houses the electrode assembly ([0015]; [0074]; [0083]), wherein the negative electrode has a negative electrode current collector, and a negative electrode mixture layer formed on both side surfaces of the negative electrode current collector ([0057]). Kogetsu teaches that when the curvature radius of the winding start portion is too small an active material layer can peel from a current collector sheet and when the diameter of winding core is too large, the battery capacity decreases ([0075]; “Curvature radius of a winding start portion” is equivalent to “winding radius”). Kogetsu teaches that it is preferable to select winding core such that the diameter of a hollow portion of the electrode group is 3 mm or less ([0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the secondary battery taught by Lee in view of Park, Mihashi, and Abe by selecting a winding core such that the diameter of a hollow portion of the electrode group is 3 mm or less as taught by Kogetsu.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the secondary battery taught by Lee in view of Park, Mihashi, and Abe by selecting a winding core such that the diameter of a hollow portion of the electrode group is 3 mm or less as taught by Kogetsu to minimize active material layer peeling and maximize battery capacity ([0075]). A diameter of 3mm corresponds to a radius of 1.5mm or less which overlaps with the claimed range of “greater than or equal to 1 mm and less than or equal to 5 mm”. 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) (see MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding claim 2, modified Lee teaches the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1.
Modified Lee does not teach wherein the binder of the inner negative electrode mixture layer has a degree of swelling of 100 to 150%.
However, modified Lee teaches where a degree of swelling of a binder in an outer electrode mixture layer is 150-200% (Mihashi [0098]) and where it is higher than a degree of swelling of a binder in an inner electrode mixture layer (Park [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a binder for an inner electrode mixture layer with a degree of swelling less than 150%.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have selected a binder for an inner electrode mixture layer with a degree of swelling less than 150% with a reasonable expectation of producing a negative electrode. 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) (see MPEP §2144.05). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP §2144.07).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FELICITY B. ALBAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 571-270-7871. 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.
/F.B.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728