DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Amendments filed on December 10, 2025 in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed on September 11, 2025 have been received and entered. Claim 1 have been amended to include the limitations of claim 3, which have been cancelled. Claims 1, 2 and 4-11 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Claim 1 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okuda, N. and Oka, H. (JP 2016119180 A, see machine translation for citation).
Applicant argues (see Remarks p. 5) that Okuda and Oka do not disclose or suggest that the ratio (A/B) of the mole fraction (A) is in the range of amended claim 1 (0.5 or more and 14.8 or less). This feature leads to a reduction in the heat generated by the decomposition reaction of an electrolyte and to a reduction in the heat generated by the oxidation of an organic solvent through deoxidization and thus helps to improve thermal stability [0067]. Such an effect is neither disclosed nor suggested in the cited documents, and the amended claims are novel and non-obvious.
Regarding applicant arguments, it was acknowledged on the Non-Final Office Action mailed on September 11, 2025 that Okuda fail to teach or suggest the referred feature from cancelled claim 3 (see Office Action p. 6). Further applied references, Yoshikawa and Nishimura, allow the calculation of the claimed feature from which the argued effect could reasonably be achieved by an electrode which combines the teachings of Okuda, Yoshikawa and Nishimura as applied to cancelled claim 3.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, filed on December 10, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okuda, N. and Oka, H. (JP 2016119180 A, see machine translation for citation) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Because of the direct or indirect dependency of claims 2, 5 and 7-11 on claim 1, the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections applied to these claims have been withdrawn.
Because of the direct or indirect dependency of claims 4 and 6 on claim 1, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections applied to these claims have been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Okuda et al. (JP 2016119180 A, see machine translation for citation) evidenced by Yoshikawa et al. (Comb Polymer Architecture, Ionic Strength, and Particle Size Effects on the BaTiO3 Suspension Stability, see NPL documents for citation) in view of Nishimura et al. (WO 2017169126 A1, see machine translation).
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 non-obviousness.
Claim 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuda et al. (JP 2016119180 A, see machine translation for citation) evidenced by Yoshikawa et al. (Comb Polymer Architecture, Ionic Strength, and Particle Size Effects on the BaTiO3 Suspension Stability, see NPL documents for citation) in view of Nishimura et al. (WO 2017169126 A1, see machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Okuda teach a nonaqueous lithium secondary battery including a positive and negative electrode having their own active materials and an ion-conductive medium interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode. The positive electrode preferably has a porosity of 25-35% and dielectric particles dispersed in the voids, preferably 10% by volume or less, relative to the voids in the positive electrode [0012-0013]. Said dielectric particles, which can be BaTiO3 (oxide solid) among other materials [0011], have a relative dielectric constant of 500 or more (high dielectric) [0010]. Based on Example 1, the electrode assembly is inserted into a cylindrical case, impregnated (saturated) with a non-aqueous electrolyte (electrolytic solution), and then sealed to prepare a cylindrical lithium-ion secondary battery [0032]. From the above example, taking a positive electrode having a 30% porosity, with high-dielectric oxide solid particles occupying 10% of the porosity and the non-aqueous electrolyte (electrolytic solution) occupying the remaining 90%, can be said that the non-aqueous electrolyte (electrolytic solution) and the high-dielectric oxide solid particles are in a volume ratio of 90:10 relative to the voids in the positive electrode.
It is taught by Okuda the employment of a LiPF6 1M non-aqueous electrolyte (electrolytic solution) using a solvent mixture of ethylene carbonate (polar aprotic and boiling point: 248 °C) and diethyl carbonate in a ratio of 30:70 (volume %) [0032]. Taking an arbitrary value for the total non-aqueous electrolyte (electrolytic solution) volume of 5 mL:
ethylene carbonate (mol)= 5 mL (0.3)(1.321 g/mL)(1/(88.06 g/mol))= 0.02250 mol
diethyl carbonate (mol)= 5 mL (0.7)(0.975 g/mL)(1/(118.13 g/mol))= 0.02889 mol
From the above calculations, the ethylene carbonate molar fraction is 0.49, independent of the employed solvent mixture volume. Based on Example 1, BaTiO3 high-dielectric particles having a particle size (median diameter D50) of 50 nm were employed to impregnate the positive and negative electrodes [0011 and 0030-0031]. The amount of the positive electrode active material attached was about 7 mg/cm2 per side and the electrode has an area of 234 cm2 [0030].
Okuda does not teach an amount or the specific surface area of the high-dielectric oxide solid particles necessary to calculate “the electrode material mixture layer ratio (A/B) of the mole fraction (A) of the aprotic polar solvent to the total specific surface area (B) (m2) of the high-dielectric oxide solid to be 0.5 or more”.
Yoshikawa evidence that BaTiO3 powder (BT-005) from Sakai Chemical Industry Co. Ltd. with an average particle size of 50 nm (same manufacturer and particle size as the one employed by Okuda and Oka on Example 1) has a specific surface area of 26.3 m2/g [page. S42; par. 5].
Nishimura teaches a lithium-ion secondary battery (101) having a positive and negative electrode (108 and 108) and a separator (109) is housed in a battery container (102) in a sealed state [0014]. An electrolyte solution (L) is held on the surfaces of the separator (109) and the positive and negative electrodes (107 and 108) and inside its pores [0017].
The positive electrode (107) comprises a positive electrode mixture having dielectric particles and a positive electrode active material, where the dielectric particles may be BaTiO3 (same to Okuda’s work) [009, 0018 and 0021]. It is taught that it is preferable that the dielectric particles are in the range of 0.1-10 wt. % relative to the positive electrode active material, and the coverage rate of the dielectric particles relative to the active material is 1-50% [0024]. If the above taught ranges are met, an adequate amount of dissociated electrolyte is promoted and the lithium ion concentration on the surface of the positive electrode active material particles is increased, which results in resistance to the discharge reaction not to increase and an improvement of the output characteristics of the battery [0023 and 0025].
Based on the teachings above and because Okuda teaches that the amount of BaTiO3 disposed in the positive electrode mixture was about 30% of the void volume of the electrode mixture [0030], a 1 wt.% BaTiO3 relative to the positive electrode active material can be selected as a rational amount.
Combining the teachings from Okuda with Nishimura and Yoshikawa, for a 1 wt.% of employed BaTiO3 particles and considering the two sides of the positive electrode, the total specific surface area (B) of the particles will be:
T
o
t
a
l
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
a
r
e
a
B
=
0.01
7
x
10
-
3
g
c
m
2
2
)
(
234
c
m
2
26.3
m
2
g
=
0.86
m
2
Having this value, the ratio (A/B) of the mole fraction (A) of the aprotic polar solvent to the total specific surface area (B) (m2) of the high-dielectric oxide solid, employed on the positive electrode will be approximately 0.49/0.86 m2 = 0.57 m-2 (0.5 or more and 14.8 or less).
Okuda and Nishimura are analogous art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely a lithium-ion secondary battery electrode having an electrode material mixture layer comprising an electrode active material, a high- dielectric oxide solid and an electrolytic solution.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode material mixture of Okuda to meet the claimed ratio (A/B), because Nishimura teaches that when the dielectric particles are in the range of 0.1-10 wt.% relative to the positive electrode active material, and the coverage rate of the dielectric particles relative to the active material is 1-50%, an adequate amount of dissociated electrolyte is promoted and the lithium ion concentration on the surface of the positive electrode active material particles is increased, which results in resistance to the discharge reaction not to increase and an improvement of the output characteristics of the battery. When Okuda, Nishimura and Yoshikawa teachings are combined the referred feature is met.
Regarding claim 2, Okuda, Yoshikawa and Nishimura teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. It is interpreted from claim 1 teachings that “the high-dielectric oxide solid and the electrolytic solution are disposed in spaces between particles of the electrode active material” because the particles are disposed on a portion of the voids of the positive electrode and the non-aqueous electrolyte (electrolytic solution) has the ability to fill the remaining void space of the referred electrode [0012-0013 and 0032].
Regarding claim 4, Okuda, Yoshikawa and Nishimura teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1, except “wherein the electrode material mixture layer has a differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) curve with a reduction in exothermic peak at 270 °C”.
The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by Okuda, Yoshikawa and Nishimura. However, Okuda, Yoshikawa and Nishimura teaches an electrode having the recited limitations of claim 1. According to the original specification, an electrode having the recited limitation, which may comprise BaTiO3 as the high dielectric oxide solid, would have an improved thermal stability without decreasing the ionic conductivity and a differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) curve with a reduction in exothermic peak at 270 °C [0008-0011, 0050, 0058 and 0067]. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the recited differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) curve with a reduction in exothermic peak at 270 °C, would expectedly be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process of making. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant' s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant' s position; and (2) it would be the Office' s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process of making.
Regarding claim 5, Okuda, Yoshikawa and Nishimura teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. The taught dielectric particles, which can be BaTiO3 (oxide solid) [0011], are considered to act as solid oxide electrolytes. It is taught that these particles can pseudo-solvate lithium ions which is thought to improve the degree of dissociation of the lithium salt locally in the vicinity of the dielectric particles, promote the progress of the electrochemical reaction, and improve the short-time output characteristics [0008].
Regarding claim 7, Okuda, Yoshikawa and Nishimura teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. As stated for claim1, the porosity of the positive electrode is preferably 25-35 vol% [0012]. Based on Example 1, the positive electrode active layer was formed by employing 85 wt.% of the positive electrode active material, 10 wt.% of carbon black and 5 wt.% of a binder [0030]. Combining these teachings the positive electrode active layer has at least 65% of its volume without porosity from which can be reasonable said that because the positive electrode active material is on a 85 wt.%, it can have a “volume filling factor of 60 %, or more based on the total volume of the electrode material mixture layer”.
Regarding claim 8, Okuda, Yoshikawa and Nishimura teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. On Example 1 is taught a positive electrode prepared by applying a positive electrode mixture slurry to a thickness of 20 µm on both sides of an aluminum foil current collector [0030]. Because of the two-side feature on the application of the positive electrode mixture slurry, the resultant electrode material mixture layer thickness will be 40 µm.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Okuda, Yoshikawa and Nishimura teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. It is taught by Okuda and Oka that nonaqueous lithium secondary battery of its invention has dielectric particles having a relative dielectric constant of 500 or more dispersed in at least one of the positive electrode, negative electrode, separator, and ion-conducting medium [0007]. From this teaching the limitations of claim 1 can apply to either or both positive and negative electrode.
Regarding claim 11, Okuda, Yoshikawa and Nishimura teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. As stated for claim 1, it is taught a nonaqueous lithium secondary battery including a positive electrode which met the limitations of claim 1. In addition, based on Example 1, the electrode assembly is inserted into a cylindrical case, impregnated (saturated) with a non-aqueous electrolyte (electrolytic solution), and then sealed to prepare a cylindrical lithium-ion secondary battery [0032].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuda et al. (JP 2016119180 A, see machine translation for citation) evidenced by Yoshikawa, J. et al. (Comb Polymer Architecture, Ionic Strength, and Particle Size Effects on the BaTiO3 Suspension Stability, see NPL documents for citation) in view of Nishimura et al. (WO 2017169126 A1, see machine translation) as applied to claim 5 above, further in view of Anandan et al. (US 20170263975 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Okuda, Yoshikawa and Nishimura teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 5, except “wherein the solid oxide electrolyte is at least one selected from the group consisting of Li7La3Zr2O12 (LLZO), Li6.75La3Zr1.75 Ta6.25O12 (LLZTO), Li0.33La0.56TiO3 (LLTO), Li1.3Al0.3Ti1.7(PO4)3 (LATP) and Li1.6Al0.6Ge1.4(PO4)3 (LAGP)”.
Anandan teaches a battery (30) which may be a secondary or rechargeable battery (e.g., a lithium-ion battery) comprising an electrode (32) which may be a cathode and/or anode and other proper components [0024 and Fig. 2]. The electrode (32) may include solid electrolyte particles (36), along with the active material, electrically conductive material, binder, and/or solvent. In addition, when the electrodes (32) are fabricated and assembled a liquid electrolyte (34) is added and fills the remaining gaps, voids, and pores within the electrode (32) [0027]. The liquid electrolyte (34) may include solid electrolyte particle (24) suspended therein, among which LLZO, LATP and/or LLTO can be employed [0019 and claim 6]. Anandan teaches that by including a solid electrolyte such as (LLZO, LATP and/or LLTO) in its liquid electrolyte solution (comprised by its electrode) the flammability of the electrolyte may decrease and, in some situations, it could improve the safety margin of a Li-ion battery [0019].
Anandan is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely a lithium-ion secondary battery electrode having an electrode material mixture layer comprising an electrode active material, a high- dielectric oxide solid and an electrolytic solution.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solid oxide electrolyte of Okuda, Yoshikawa and Nishimura to be LLZO, LATP and/or LLTO, because Anandan teaches that by including a solid electrolyte such as (LLZO, LATP and/or LLTO) in its liquid electrolyte solution (comprised by its electrode) the flammability of the electrolyte may decrease and, in some situations, it could improve the safety margin of a Li-ion battery.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GILBERTO RAMOS RIVERA whose telephone number is (571)272-2740. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00 pm.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/G.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 02/25/2026