DETAILED ACTION
Introductory Notes
Any paragraph citation of the instant is in reference to the U.S. published patent application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4, 6-12, and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HOSHINA (US 20170365886 A1, cited in a previous office action) as evidenced by Product Specifications (MSE Supplies, product specifications for LFP and NMC811 cathode powders, cited in a previous office action).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 12, 14, and 18 HOSHINA discloses a battery module, wherein the battery module comprises a first-type battery cell and a second-type battery cell at least connected in series (“battery module includes a first battery unit and a second battery unit that is electrically connected in series to the first battery unit” [0015]), the first-type battery cell and the second-type battery cell are battery cells of different chemical systems (“at least two types of non-aqueous electrolyte secondary batteries” [0014]), the first-type battery cell comprises a first battery cell, wherein a number of the first battery cells in the first-type battery cell is N (“n first”, claim 1), the second-type battery cell comprises a second battery cell, wherein a number of the second battery cells in the second-type battery cell is M (“m second”, claim 1), and N and M are positive integers (“an integer of 1 or more” for n and m in claim 1), and a specific surface area of a positive active substance of a first battery cell is S1 (LiFePO4, or LFP, was used for the first battery unit in at least examples 1-8 per [0157]; LFP having an expected range of 10 – 14 m2/g for specific surface area as evidenced by Product Specifications), a specific surface area of a positive active substance of a second battery cell is S2 (“LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2”, or NMC811, was used in example 6 per [0234]; NMC811 having a typical specific surface area of 0.6 ±0.3 m2/g, in other words 0.3 to 0.9 range, as evidenced by Product Specifications), and S1 and S2 satisfy 1<S1/S2<18.8 (wherein [10 to 14] / [0.3 to 0.9] arrives at a number of values in the upper end of the claimed range, for example 10/0.53, 14/.75, 12/0.64 which is notably central to both ranges, etc. are all less than or equal to 18.8 and greater than 1; in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP § 2144.05; without showing unexpected results, the currently claimed S1/S2 therefore cannot be considered critical).
HOSHINA further discloses wherein the first battery cell comprises a polyanionic positive active substance (LiFePO4, or LFP, was used for the first battery unit in at least examples 1-8 per [0157]; LFP is polyanionic and matches the use of LiFePO4 in instant [0097] and instant Table 2), and the second battery cell comprises a layered transition metal oxide positive active substance (“LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2”, or NMC811, was used in example 6 per [0234]; NMC811 is a layered transition metal oxide and matches the NMC811 in instant [0057]; wherein example 6 notably utilizes both LFP and NMC811 as first and second batteries concurrently).
HOSHINA discloses a compacted density of a positive electrode sheet of the first battery cell is C1 (LFP with “2.0 g/cm3” [0159]), and a compacted density of a positive electrode sheet of the second battery cell is C2 (NMC with “3.2 g/cm3” [0175]), and 0.35<C1/C2<0.99 (2/3.2 = 0.625, central to the claimed range of claims 1, 12, and dependent claim 18).
Regarding claim 12 alone, HOSHINA discloses a manufacturing method to form the battery module (example 6 beginning at [0233] as well as Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 3 and 16, HOSHINA discloses the first battery unit comprises LFP per [0157] and the second NMC811 per [0234] wherein NMC was a higher gram capacity than LFP as evidenced by Product Specifications (205 mAh/g for NMC811 and 154 mAh/g for LFP per Product Specifications), reading on claim 3 option (1). Furthermore, the D50 of LFP / D50 of NMC as evidenced by Product Specifications (1.5 / 10 = 0.15) reads on option (2) and the evidenced D90 and Dmax values (D90 of 6 µm for LFP and D90 of 20µm for NMC = 6/20 = 0.3) also read on option (3).
Regarding claims 4, 15, and 17 HOSHINA discloses a volume average particle size (Dv50) D1 of the positive active substance of the first battery cell is 0.2-15 µm (LFP per [0157] with D50 of 1.5 µm per Product Specifications; wherein the claimed range is broad and lacks specificity and as such a commercially available LFP in combination with the disclosure of HOSHINA readily reads on the range),
and a volume average particle size (Dv50) D2 of the positive active substance of the second battery cell is 0.5-30 µm (NMC811 per [0234] with D50 of 10 µm per Product Specifications; wherein the claimed range is broad and lacks specificity and as such a commercially available NMC811 in combination with the disclosure of HOSHINA readily reads on the range).
Dividing these values, D1/D2, gives 1.5/10 or 0.15 which is within the broad range of claim 15.
Regarding claim 6, HOSHINA discloses a compacted density C1 of a positive electrode sheet of the first battery cell is 1.6- 3.0 g/cm3 (LFP with “2.0 g/cm3” [0159]), and a compacted density C2 of a positive electrode sheet of the second battery cell is 3.1-4.2 g/cm3 (NMC with “3.2 g/cm3” [0175]).
Regarding claim 7, HOSHINA discloses the positive active substance of the first battery cell comprises lithium containing phosphate shown in formula (I) (LiFePO4, or LFP, was used for the first battery unit in at least examples 1-8 per [0157]).
Regarding claim 8, HOSHINA discloses the positive active substance of the second battery cell comprises lithium transition metal oxide shown in formula (III) (“LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2”, or NMC811, was used in example 6 per [0234]).
Regarding claims 9 and 20, HOSHINA discloses a ratio of a number N of the first cells to a number M of the second cells is 0.1<N/M<50 (six first batteries and one second battery per [0144] and Fig. 1 giving an N/M of 6).
Regarding claim 10, HOSHINA discloses a battery pack, comprising the battery module according to claim 1 (“battery pack comprising the battery module according to claim 1” per claim 11)
Regarding 19, HOSHINA discloses a compacted density C1 of a positive electrode sheet of the first battery cell is 2.1-2.8 g/cm3 (LFP with “2.0 g/cm3” [0159]), and a compacted density C2 of a positive electrode sheet of the second battery cell is 3.2-3.7 g/cm3 (NMC with “3.2 g/cm3” [0175]).
Regarding HOSHINA’s disclosure of an example LFP having a density of 2.0 g/cm3 in relation to the claimed range of 2.1-2.8, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that an example at 2.0 encompasses a range around that value. See MPEP § 2144.05; In re Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985); and In re Brandt, 886 F.3d 1171, 1177, 126 USPQ2d 1079, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Regarding claims 11 and 21, HOSHINA discloses a power consumption apparatus (“a vehicle comprising the battery pack” per claim 14).
Response to Arguments
Regarding art-based rejections, applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
On page 8 of the remarks applicant states “table 1 and table 4 of the present application further demonstrates that the present invention creatively discovers the synergistic effect of matching the compacted density ratio of the positive electrode sheets in the first and second battery cells with an appropriate specific surface area ratio”. However, neither table 1 nor table 4 provide a compacted density ratio. The tables each give S1/S2 ratios, however the other ratios provided are D1/D2 and Dv99 where neither of these ratios is the compacted density ratio per [0009-0012]. It is not apparent from the instant disclosure what the compacted density of the cells were other than the examples were “controlled to satisfy: 0.35≤C1/C2≤0.99” [0180].
HOSHINA discloses the use of “at least two types of non-aqueous electrolyte secondary batteries” [0014] that are polyanionic and layered transition metal oxide, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Regarding the claimed range for C1/C2, this ratio is disclosed in HOSHINA and notably central to the claimed range. Regarding the claimed range for S1/S2, this range is large and encompass expected values for readily available stocked components, as evidenced by Product Specifications. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would be expected to arrive at the combination of ranges.
Furthermore, in the after-final filing of 2/9/2026 applicant presented amendments and remarks toward “a specific surface area of … S1 and S2 satisfy 20≤S1/S2≤60”. This range of S1/S2 is notably the opposite end of the spectrum from the currently claimed range of 1 to 18.8. The reversal of ranges calls into question any criticality of the currently claimed range.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (previously cited):
NAKURA (US 20110086248 A1) directed to the use of two differing cells, one being a lithium containing composite oxide having a layered structure, and the other being a lithium-containing manganese composite oxide having a spinel structure.
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 TRAVIS L MARTIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7am-4pm CT.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached on (303)297-4684. 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.
/T.L.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/KOURTNEY R S CARLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights