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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/06/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 1/06/2026:
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-9, and 11-17 are pending in the current application. Claims 1-3 and 5 have been amended, Claims 4, 7, and 10 are canceled, and Claims 11-17 are newly added.
The cores of the previous prior art-based rejections have been overcome in light of the amendment. All changes made to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Interpretation
All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered. Arguments directed at newly amended limitations and newly added claims have been addressed in the new rejection below.
Arguments regarding combination of Iwasaki and Xia
Applicant argues that a skilled artisan would have no motivation to combine the teachings of Iwasaki and Xia and the combination would not achieve the effect of reducing the cell resistance after durability.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Iwasaki discloses an electrode containing a high dielectric oxide solid electrolyte and an electrolytic solution comprising carbonates (see paragraphs [0022], [0071]-[0074], [0179], [0183], and [0276]-[0277]). Xia discloses bis(pentafluorophenyl) carbonate as an appropriate carbonate to use in batteries as it can form an inorganic film improve the low-temperature cycle performance of a battery (see paragraphs [0009], [0013], [0021]-[0023], [0039], and [0097] and Table 5). This provides motivation for a skilled artisan to use bis(pentafluorophenyl) carbonate in the electrolytic solution of Iwasaki.
Further, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., effect of reducing the cell resistance after durability) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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.
Claim 13 is 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 13 recites the limitation "a cross-sectional area of the total gaps" in Lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as depending on Claim 12, which does disclose the gaps of the electrode active material.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 5-6, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki et al. US-20180083269-A1 (hereinafter “Iwasaki”) in view of Kawai US-20180183103-A1 (hereinafter “Kawai”), Xia CN-106816630-A (hereinafter “Xia”), Takeuchi et al. WO-2018088522-A1 (US-20190252718-A1 used as translation and cited in PTO-892) (hereinafter “Takeuchi”), and Tanizaki et al. US-20160285100-A1 (hereinafter “Tanizaki”) and as evidenced by Kishimoto, A. et al., “Application of Fluorinated Esters for Lithium-ion cells Operated at High Voltage and Improvement of Cycle Life Performance at Low Temperature”, 2017, GS Yuasa Technical Report, Vol. 14, Pages 10-14 (hereinafter “Kishimoto”), "Chemical Safety Data Sheet MSDS / SDS Fluoroethylene carbonate," ChemicalBook, 2025 (hereinafter “FEC SDS”), "Safety Data Sheet Methyl 2,2,2-Trifluoroethyl Carbonate," TCI, 2024 (hereinafter “MTFEC SDS”), and Fan, Hao, "Exploring the Relationship Between Lithium-ion Battery Mass and Energy Density," September 17 2025, Large Power, Page 6 (hereinafter “Fan”).
Regarding Claims 1 and 5, Iwasaki discloses a lithium ion secondary battery comprising a lithium ion secondary battery electrode and an electrolytic solution (electrolyte solution), the lithium ion secondary battery electrode comprising an electrode material mixture layer (see paragraph [0022]), the electrode mixture layer (active material-containing layer) comprising: an electrode active material; a high dielectric oxide solid electrolyte (insulator particles) (see abstract and paragraphs [0022], [0071]-[0074], [0092], [0145], and [0276]-[0277]). Iwasaki specifically discloses using solid electrolyte particles as the insulator particles in the electrode mixture layer (see paragraphs [0071]-[0075]) and impregnating the electrode with an electrolyte solution (see paragraphs [0276]-[0277]).
Furthermore, Iwasaki discloses using Li7La3Zr2O12 (LLZO) as the solid electrolyte particles to improve Li ion conductivity (see paragraphs [0071]-[0074]) (meeting Claim 5), which would function as a high dielectric oxide solid electrolyte as it is the same compound disclosed in the instant application for a high dielectric oxide solid (see paragraphs [0085] and [0087] of published instant application).
Iwasaki is silent on in the electrolytic solution, a solvent having an average molecular weight of 110 or more, a flash point of 21°C or more and a viscosity of 3.0 mPa∙s or more.
However, in the same field of endeavor of secondary batteries with solid electrolytes (see abstract), Kawai discloses a secondary battery with an electrode body comprising an electrolytic solution and an active material with a solid electrolyte (see paragraphs [0022]-[0025] and [0062]). Kawai further discloses the electrolytic solution comprises a solvent containing monofluoroethylene carbonate (MFEC) and methyltrifluoroethyl carbonate (MTFEC) in a volume ratio of 30:70 (see paragraphs [0056]-[0063]).
Given that the molecular weights of MFEC and MTFEC are 106.05 g/mol and 158.06 g/mol, respectively, and the densities of MFEC and MTFEC are 1.454 g/cm3 and 1.308 g/cm3, respectively, then the weight ratio of MFEC and MTFEC is 32:68. This results in an average molecular weight of about 141.41 g/mol, which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of a solvent having an average molecular weight of 110 or more. A skilled artisan would recognize that molecular weight is measured in g/mol.
Kawai additionally discloses using fluorinated carbonates as solvents for an electrolytic solution makes oxidative decomposition of the nonaqueous electrolytic solution unlikely to occur and a battery with the above-mentioned ratio results in a 90% capacity retention ratio (see paragraph [0036] and Table 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the secondary battery electrode disclosed by Iwasaki by using, in the electrolytic solution, a solvent as disclosed by Kawai, which has an average molecular weight of 110 or more, in order to make oxidative decomposition of the nonaqueous electrolytic solution unlikely to occur.
Although Kawai is not sufficiently specific on, in the electrolytic solution, a solvent having a flash point of 21°C or more and a viscosity of 3.0 mPa∙s or more, Kishimoto discloses the flash point of FEC (which is equivalent to MFEC) is 128°C and the flash point of TFEMC (which is equivalent to MTFEC) is 33°C (see Table 1). Based on the evidence provided by Kishimoto, the skilled artisan would expect the mixture of these two compounds in the electrode of Iwasaki to have a flash point between these values, which would necessarily fall within and anticipate the claimed range of a solvent having a flash point of 21°C or more.
Kishimoto also discloses the viscosity of FEC and MTFEC when mixed in a volume ratio of 30:70 is 5.27 mPa∙s (see Table 2). This value falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of a solvent having a viscosity of 3.0 mPa∙s or more.
A skilled artisan would expect the electrolytic solution of Iwasaki modified by Kawai to have the same properties since the mixture is the same.
Iwasaki, Kawai, and Kishimoto are silent on the solvent comprising benzyl phenyl carbonate, bis(pentafluorophenyl) carbonate, bis(2-methoxyphenyl) carbonate, or tert-butyl phenyl carbonate in a content of 0.01% by volume or more and 50% by volume or less.
However, in the same field of endeavor of electrolytic solutions (see paragraphs [0002] and [0006]), Xia discloses using bis(pentafluorophenyl) carbonate in amounts of about 0.5-1.5 wt% as an additive in addition to other carbonates in an electrolytic solution (see paragraphs [0009], [0013], [0022], [0024], [0032]-[0033], [0039], [0051]-[0054], and [0113] and Tables 1 and 4).
In the combined invention of Iwasaki and Kawai and accounting for the densities of FEC and MTFEC (see FEC SDS and MTFEC SDS), the solvent comprises 20.1 mL and 52.2 mL of FEC and MTFEC respectively. With a specific gravity/density of 1.78 g/mL of bis(pentafluorophenyl) carbonate (as disclosed in paragraph [0131] of the published instant application), this results in about 0.4%-1.1% by volume of bis(pentafluorophenyl) carbonate in the electrolytic solution when used in a range of of 0.5-1.5 wt%. This falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of the solvent comprising bis(pentafluorophenyl) carbonate in a content of 0.01% by volume or more and 50% by volume or less.
Xia additionally discloses including bis(pentafluorophenyl) carbonate can form an inorganic film and improve the low-temperature cycle performance of a battery (see paragraphs [0009], [0013], [0021]-[0023], [0039], and [0097] and Table 5). As such, a skilled artisan would be motivated to include bis(pentafluorophenyl) carbonate as an additional additive to the electrolyte solution of Iwasaki (which contains carbonates).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the secondary battery disclosed by Iwasaki, Kawai, and Kishimoto wherein the solvent comprises bis(pentafluorophenyl) carbonate, as disclosed by Xia, in order to improve the low-temperature cycle performance of a battery.
Iwasaki, Kawai, Kishimoto, and Xia are silent on the high dielectric solid electrolyte having a powder relative permittivity of 10 or more.
However, in the same field of endeavor of solid electrolytes in batteries (see abstract), Takeuchi discloses the solid electrolyte layer may comprise an LLZO material and have a relative powder permittivity (relative dielectric constant) of 10 to 2000 in order to achieve desirable electronic properties important for battery function (see paragraphs [0090], [0325]-[0329], and [0390]-[0394]). This falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of the high dielectric solid electrolyte having a powder relative permittivity of 10 or more. Further, a skilled artisan would recognize this as an appropriate range for the dielectric constant of a solid electrolyte in a lithium battery to achieve a properly functioning battery and that the LLZO material taught by Iwasaki may suitably fit into this range as taught by Takeuchi.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the secondary battery electrode disclosed by Iwasaki by ensuring the high dielectric solid electrolyte has a powder relative permittivity of 10 or more, as disclosed by Takeuchi, in order to achieve appropriate electronic properties for a battery.
Iwasaki, Kawai, Kishimoto, Xia, and Takeuchi are silent on a thickness of the electrode material mixture layer being 40 µm or more.
However, in the same field of endeavor of electrodes for secondary batteries (see abstract), Tanizaki discloses the thickness of the positive electrode active material layer is preferably 70 to 90 μm (see paragraphs [0032] and [0040]). This range falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of a thickness of the electrode material mixture layer being 40 µm or more.
Tanizaki additionally discloses a large thickness is advantageous in point of capacity but too large of a thickness tends to be disadvantageous in point of input/output characteristics (see paragraph [0040]).
As such, the thickness of the electrode material mixture layer is seen as a result effective variable and the discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the secondary battery disclosed by Iwasaki, Kawai, and Kishimoto wherein a thickness of the electrode material mixture layer is 40 µm or more, as disclosed by Tanizaki, in order to achieve a good capacity.
Iwasaki further discloses a high energy density is demanded for batteries and can be achieved when the insulator particles are included in an appropriate amount (see paragraphs [0003]-[0004] and [0086]). Iwasaki also discloses using a lithium nickel cobalt manganese composite oxide (see paragraph [0062]), which is a high energy density achieving material as evidenced by Fan.
Fan discloses batteries comprising NMC materials (which are lithium nickel cobalt manganese composite oxides) achieve volumetric energy densities of 500-700 Wh/L (see Part 2.1 on Pages 6-7). So, the battery of Iwasaki using a lithium nickel cobalt manganese composite oxide and appropriate insulator particles would achieve a volumetric energy density of 500-700 Wh/L, which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of a volumetric energy density of 500 Wh/L or more.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Iwasaki discloses the lithium ion secondary battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Iwasaki further discloses the mass percent of the active material in the active material layer is 80% to 95%, and the density of the positive layer is 3 g/cm3 or more and the density of the negative layer is 2-2.9 g/cm3 (see paragraphs [0154]-[0158] and [0164]-[0168]).
A skilled artisan would expect using a large mass percent of the active material would lead to a large volume percent of the active material in the active material layer, and as such expect having a mass percent of 80% to 95% of the active material in the active material layer to result in a volume filling rate of the electrode active material with respect to a volume of the entire electrode material layer of 60% or more.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Iwasaki discloses the lithium ion secondary battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Iwasaki further discloses the lithium ion secondary battery electrode is a positive electrode (see paragraphs [0018] and [0022]-[0024]).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Iwasaki discloses the lithium ion secondary battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Iwasaki further discloses the lithium ion secondary battery electrode is a negative electrode (see paragraphs [0018] and [0022]-[0024]).
Claims 1, 11, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki in view of Kawai, Nakagawa et al. US-20110123871-A1 (hereinafter “Nakagawa”), Takeuchi, and Tanizaki and as evidenced by Kishimoto, FEC SDS, MTFEC SDS, and Fan.
Regarding Claims 1, 11, and 14, Iwasaki discloses a lithium ion secondary battery comprising a lithium ion secondary battery electrode and an electrolytic solution (electrolyte solution), the lithium ion secondary battery electrode comprising an electrode material mixture layer (see paragraph [0022]), the electrode mixture layer (active material-containing layer) comprising: an electrode active material; a high dielectric oxide solid electrolyte (insulator particles) (see abstract and paragraphs [0022], [0071]-[0074], [0092], [0145], and [0276]-[0277]). Iwasaki specifically discloses using solid electrolyte particles as the insulator particles in the electrode mixture layer (see paragraphs [0071]-[0075]) and impregnating the electrode with an electrolyte solution (see paragraphs [0276]-[0277]).
Furthermore, Iwasaki discloses using Li7La3Zr2O12 (LLZO) as the solid electrolyte particles to improve Li ion conductivity (see paragraphs [0071]-[0074]) (meeting Claim 14), which would function as a high dielectric oxide solid electrolyte as it is the same compound disclosed in the instant application for a high dielectric oxide solid (see paragraphs [0085] and [0087] of published instant application).
Iwasaki is silent on in the electrolytic solution, a solvent having an average molecular weight of 110 or more, a flash point of 21°C or more and a viscosity of 3.0 mPa∙s or more.
However, in the same field of endeavor of secondary batteries with solid electrolytes (see abstract), Kawai discloses a secondary battery with an electrode body comprising an electrolytic solution and an active material with a solid electrolyte (see paragraphs [0022]-[0025] and [0062]). Kawai further discloses the electrolytic solution comprises a solvent containing monofluoroethylene carbonate (MFEC) and methyltrifluoroethyl carbonate (MTFEC) in a volume ratio of 30:70 (see paragraphs [0056]-[0063]).
Given that the molecular weights of MFEC and MTFEC are 106.05 g/mol and 158.06 g/mol, respectively, and the densities of MFEC and MTFEC are 1.454 g/cm3 and 1.308 g/cm3, respectively, then the weight ratio of MFEC and MTFEC is 32:68. This results in an average molecular weight of about 141.41 g/mol, which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of a solvent having an average molecular weight of 110 or more. A skilled artisan would recognize that molecular weight is measured in g/mol.
Kawai additionally discloses using fluorinated carbonates as solvents for an electrolytic solution makes oxidative decomposition of the nonaqueous electrolytic solution unlikely to occur and a battery with the above-mentioned ratio results in a 90% capacity retention ratio (see paragraph [0036] and Table 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the secondary battery electrode disclosed by Iwasaki by using, in the electrolytic solution, a solvent as disclosed by Kawai, which has an average molecular weight of 110 or more, in order to make oxidative decomposition of the nonaqueous electrolytic solution unlikely to occur.
Although Kawai is not sufficiently specific on, in the electrolytic solution, a solvent having a flash point of 21°C or more and a viscosity of 3.0 mPa∙s or more, Kishimoto discloses the flash point of FEC (which is equivalent to MFEC) is 128°C and the flash point of TFEMC (which is equivalent to MTFEC) is 33°C (see Table 1). Based on the evidence provided by Kishimoto, the skilled artisan would expect the mixture of these two compounds in the electrode of Iwasaki to have a flash point between these values, which would necessarily fall within and anticipate the claimed range of a solvent having a flash point of 21°C or more.
Kishimoto also discloses the viscosity of FEC and MTFEC when mixed in a volume ratio of 30:70 is 5.27 mPa∙s (see Table 2). This value falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of a solvent having a viscosity of 3.0 mPa∙s or more.
A skilled artisan would expect the electrolytic solution of Iwasaki modified by Kawai to have the same properties since the mixture is the same.
Iwasaki, Kawai, and Kishimoto are silent on the solvent comprising benzyl phenyl carbonate, bis(pentafluorophenyl) carbonate, bis(2-methoxyphenyl) carbonate, or tert-butyl phenyl carbonate in a content of 0.01% by volume or more and 50% by volume or less.
However, in the same field of endeavor of electrolytic solutions (see abstract), Nakagawa discloses including tert-butyl phenyl carbonate (t-butyl phenyl carbonate) in an electrolytic solution (meeting Claim 1 and Claim 11) in an amount 0.1% by weight or higher and 1.5% by weight or lower in order to achieve excellent high-temperature storability and cycle characteristics and avoid a decrease in battery capacity (see paragraphs [0007], [0021], [0028], [0078], [0173]-[0184], and [0190]). Nakagawa further discloses the tert-butyl phenyl carbonate can be appropriately included in electrolytic solutions containing cyclic carbonates having a fluorine atom (like the electrolytic solution of Iwasaki) in order to improve the cycle characteristics and high-temperature storability of the battery (see paragraph [0191]).
In the combined invention of Iwasaki and Kawai and accounting for the densities of FEC and MTFEC (see FEC SDS and MTFEC SDS), the solvent comprises 20.1 mL and 52.2 mL of FEC and MTFEC respectively. With a specific gravity/density of 1.05 g/mL of tert-butyl phenyl carbonate (as disclosed in paragraph [0132] of the published instant application), this results in about 0.09%-1.4% by volume of tert-butyl phenyl carbonate in the electrolytic solution when used in a range of of 0.1-1.5 wt%. This falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of the solvent comprising tert-butyl phenyl carbonate in a content of 0.01% by volume or more and 50% by volume or less.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the secondary battery disclosed by Iwasaki, Kawai, and Kishimoto wherein the solvent comprises tert-butyl phenyl carbonate, as disclosed by Nakagawa, in order to improve the cycle characteristics and high-temperature storability of the battery.
Iwasaki, Kawai, Kishimoto, and Nakagawa are silent on the high dielectric solid electrolyte having a powder relative permittivity of 10 or more.
However, Takeuchi discloses the solid electrolyte layer may comprise an LLZO material and have a relative powder permittivity (relative dielectric constant) of 10 to 2000 in order to achieve desirable electronic properties important for battery function (see paragraphs [0090], [0325]-[0329], and [0390]-[0394]). This falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of the high dielectric solid electrolyte having a powder relative permittivity of 10 or more. Further, a skilled artisan would recognize this as an appropriate range for the dielectric constant of a solid electrolyte in a lithium battery to achieve a properly functioning battery and that the LLZO material taught by Iwasaki may suitably fit into this range, as taught by Takeuchi.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the secondary battery electrode disclosed by Iwasaki by ensuring the high dielectric solid electrolyte has a powder relative permittivity of 10 or more, as disclosed by Takeuchi, in order to achieve appropriate electronic properties for a battery.
Iwasaki, Kawai, Kishimoto, Nakagawa, and Takeuchi are silent on a thickness of the electrode material mixture layer being 40 µm or more.
However, in the same field of endeavor of electrodes for secondary batteries (see abstract), Tanizaki discloses the thickness of the positive electrode active material layer is preferably 70 to 90 μm (see paragraphs [0032] and [0040]). This range falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of a thickness of the electrode material mixture layer being 40 µm or more.
Tanizaki additionally discloses a large thickness is advantageous in point of capacity but too large of a thickness tends to be disadvantageous in point of input/output characteristics (see paragraph [0040]).
As such, the thickness of the electrode material mixture layer is seen as a result effective variable and the discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the secondary battery disclosed by Iwasaki, Kawai, and Kishimoto wherein a thickness of the electrode material mixture layer is 40 µm or more, as disclosed by Tanizaki, in order to achieve a good capacity.
Iwasaki further discloses a high energy density is demanded for batteries and can be achieved when the insulator particles are included in an appropriate amount (see paragraphs [0003]-[0004] and [0086]). Iwasaki also discloses using a lithium nickel cobalt manganese composite oxide (see paragraph [0062]), which is a high energy density achieving material as evidenced by Fan.
Fan discloses batteries comprising NMC materials (which are lithium nickel cobalt manganese composite oxides) achieve volumetric energy densities of 500-700 Wh/L (see Part 2.1 on Pages 6-7). So, the battery of Iwasaki using a lithium nickel cobalt manganese composite oxide and appropriate insulator particles would achieve a volumetric energy density of 500-700 Wh/L, which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of a volumetric energy density of 500 Wh/L or more.
Regarding Claim 15, modified Iwasaki discloses the lithium ion secondary battery according to claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above). Iwasaki further discloses the mass percent of the active material in the active material layer is 80% to 95%, and the density of the positive layer is 3 g/cm3 or more and the density of the negative layer is 2-2.9 g/cm3 (see paragraphs [0154]-[0158] and [0164]-[0168]).
A skilled artisan would expect using a large mass percent of the active material would lead to a large volume percent of the active material in the active material layer, and as such expect having a mass percent of 80% to 95% of the active material in the active material layer to result in a volume filling rate of the electrode active material with respect to a volume of the entire electrode material layer of 60% or more.
Regarding Claim 16, modified Iwasaki discloses the lithium ion secondary battery according to claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above). Iwasaki further discloses the lithium ion secondary battery electrode is a positive electrode (see paragraphs [0018] and [0022]-[0024]).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Iwasaki discloses the lithium ion secondary battery according to claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above). Iwasaki further discloses the lithium ion secondary battery electrode is a negative electrode (see paragraphs [0018] and [0022]-[0024]).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki in view of Kawai, Xia, Takeuchi, and Tanizaki and as evidenced by Kishimoto, FEC SDS, MTFEC SDS, and Fan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Iwasaki et al. US-20180277907-A1 (hereinafter “Iwasaki ‘907”).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Iwasaki discloses the lithium ion secondary battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Iwasaki further discloses the high dielectric oxide solid 12 and the electrolytic solution are disposed in gaps of the electrode active material in Fig. 1 (see paragraphs [0024]-[0027], [0071]-[0075], [0102]-[0107], and [0276]-[0277]. Iwasaki specifically discloses the electrode is impregnated with an electrolyte solution (see paragraphs [0276]-[0277]), so a skilled artisan would expect the electrolytic solution to also be disposed in the gaps of the electrode active material.
Alternatively, if Iwasaki is found to not be sufficiently specific, in the same field of endeavor of battery electrodes (see abstract), Iwasaki ‘907 discloses including an electrolytic solution in the gaps (pores) of the positive electrode active material-containing layer and negative electrode active material-containing layer so the layers can exhibit a more excellent ion conductivity (see paragraphs [0074] and [0098]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the secondary battery disclosed by Iwasaki, Kawai, Xia, Takeuchi, and Tanizaki wherein the electrolytic solution is disposed in gaps of the electrode active material, as disclosed by Iwasaki ‘907, in order to achieve a more excellent ion conductivity.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Iwasaki discloses the lithium ion secondary battery according to claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above). Iwasaki further discloses the volume ratio of insulating particles 12 (which function as a high dielectric oxide solid (see rejection of claim 1 above)) in the active material layer decreases towards the current collector, and parts not dominated by the insulating particles have gaps (are partly void) in Fig. 1 (see annotated Fig. 1 below) (see paragraphs [0024]-[0027] and [0101]-[0105]).
PNG
media_image1.png
590
702
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Annotated Fig. 1 of Iwasaki
Iwasaki additionally discloses side reactions are sufficiently suppressed when a relatively large number of insulator particles are present on the second face 1b-2 and the resistance acting on the active material particles included in the active material-containing layer during charge and discharge can be made more uniform when less insulator particles are present far from the second face 1b-2 (see paragraphs [0024]-[0027]), so a skilled artisan would be motivated to find an optimal volume ratio of the high dielectric oxide solid. The volume ratio disclosed by Iwasaki would be proportional to the area ratio, so a skilled artisan would expect that finding an optimal volume ratio of the high dielectric oxide solid (insulating particles) would result in finding an optimal area ratio between the high dielectric oxide solid and gaps (voids) as well.
As such, the ratio of a cross-sectional area of the high dielectric oxide solid to a cross-sectional area of the total gaps being 1 to 22% is seen as a result effective variable and the discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the secondary battery disclosed by Iwasaki, Kawai, Xia, Takeuchi, Tanizaki, and Iwasaki ‘907 wherein the ratio of a cross-sectional area of the high dielectric oxide solid to a cross-sectional area of the total gaps is 1 to 22% in order to find the optimum value for suppressing side reactions and make the resistance acting on the active material particles included in the active material-containing layer during charge and discharge more uniform.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki in view of Kawai, Nakagawa, Takeuchi, and Tanizaki and as evidenced by Kishimoto, FEC SDS, MTFEC SDS, and Fan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Iwasaki ‘907.
Regarding Claim 12, modified Iwasaki discloses the lithium ion secondary battery according to claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above). Iwasaki further discloses the high dielectric oxide solid 12 and the electrolytic solution are disposed in gaps of the electrode active material in Fig. 1 (see paragraphs [0024]-[0027], [0071]-[0075], [0102]-[0107], and [0276]-[0277]. Iwasaki specifically discloses the electrode is impregnated with an electrolyte solution (see paragraphs [0276]-[0277]), so a skilled artisan would expect the electrolytic solution to also be disposed in the gaps of the electrode active material.
Alternatively, if Iwasaki is found to not be sufficiently specific, Iwasaki ‘907 discloses including an electrolytic solution in the gaps (pores) of the positive electrode active material-containing layer and negative electrode active material-containing layer so the layers can exhibit a more excellent ion conductivity (see paragraphs [0074] and [0098]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the secondary battery disclosed by Iwasaki, Kawai, Nakagawa, Takeuchi, and Tanizaki wherein the electrolytic solution is disposed in gaps of the electrode active material, as disclosed by Iwasaki ‘907, in order to achieve a more excellent ion conductivity.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Iwasaki discloses the lithium ion secondary battery according to claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above). Iwasaki further discloses the volume ratio of insulating particles 12 (which function as a high dielectric oxide solid (see rejection of claim 1 above)) in the active material layer decreases towards the current collector, and parts not dominated by the insulating particles have gaps (are partly void) in Fig. 1 (see annotated Fig. 1 below) (see paragraphs [0024]-[0027] and [0101]-[0105]).
PNG
media_image1.png
590
702
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 2. Annotated Fig. 1 of Iwasaki
Iwasaki additionally discloses side reactions are sufficiently suppressed when a relatively large number of insulator particles are present on the second face 1b-2 and the resistance acting on the active material particles included in the active material-containing layer during charge and discharge can be made more uniform when less insulator particles are present far from the second face 1b-2 (see paragraphs [0024]-[0027]), so a skilled artisan would be motivated to find an optimal volume ratio of the high dielectric oxide solid. The volume ratio disclosed by Iwasaki would be proportional to the area ratio, so a skilled artisan would expect that finding an optimal volume ratio of the high dielectric oxide solid (insulating particles) would result in finding an optimal area ratio between the high dielectric oxide solid and gaps (voids) as well.
As such, the ratio of a cross-sectional area of the high dielectric oxide solid to a cross-sectional area of the total gaps being 1 to 22% is seen as a result effective variable and the discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the secondary battery disclosed by Iwasaki, Kawai, Nakagawa, Takeuchi, Tanizaki, and Iwasaki ‘907 wherein the ratio of a cross-sectional area of the high dielectric oxide solid to a cross-sectional area of the total gaps is 1 to 22% in order to find the optimum value for suppressing side reactions and make the resistance acting on the active material particles included in the active material-containing layer during charge and discharge more uniform.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYDNEY L KLINE whose telephone number is (703)756-1729. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
/S.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729