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 .
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2018/0138493), and further in view of Anandan et al. (US 10,050,303).
Regarding independent claims 1, 11, and 17, as well as claims 2, 12, and 18, Liu et al. disclose a lithium-ion battery electrode and the method of which it is formed (abstract; paragraphs [0012]-[0022]; and Figures 1-5), in which the battery electrode and method comprise the following structural features and process steps:
exposing a slurry (116) comprising battery active material, an electrolyte, polymer-encapsulated magnetic pore-formers, binder, and a carbon additive to a magnetic field (120) – see paragraphs [0013]-[0022] that describe the preparation of tubes (114) comprising a magnetic, electrically conductive material (110) made from a core of magnetic particles and a lithium conductive polymer (112), with these materials being mixed with the slurry (116);
generating the magnetic field (120) to vertically align and form vertically aligned channels in the slurry (see paragraphs [0013]-[0015]; and Figures 1-5); and
drying the slurry (see paragraph [0022]).
Although Liu et al. fail to explicitly teach that the tortuosity of the channels is less than 2.0 (or 1.4), paragraph [0022] of Liu et al. discloses that the method produces a thick, dense electrode with high energy density.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the method of Liu et al. to obtain a tortuosity of channels to be less than 2.0 (or 1.4), since Liu et al. disclose the method in such a manner that the higher the density, the lower the tortuosity, and obtaining a tortuosity to be lower than 2.0 (or 1.4) is merely a design choice, for the purpose of obtaining high energy density and high power density (see paragraphs [0012] and [0022] of Liu et al.). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980).
Liu et al. fail to teach having a solid electrolyte.
However, Anandan et al. disclose rechargeable batteries that include both solid and liquid electrolytes (abstract; column 2, line 45 through column 4, line 65; and Figure 1), in which replacement of at least a portion of a liquid electrolyte with a solid electrolyte is advantageous for the purpose of reducing flammability (abstract; and column 3, line 60 through column 4, line 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants’ invention was made to replace at least a portion of the liquid electrolyte with a solid electrolyte, as taught by Anandan et al., into the lithium-ion battery electrode and the method of which it is formed, as disclosed by Liu et al., in order to reduce flammability (Anandan et al.; abstract; and column 3, line 60 through column 4, line 6).
Regarding claims 3, 4, 15, and 16, Liu et al. disclose that a dissolvable or thermally decomposable polymer coating encapsulating the polymer-encapsulated magnetic pore-formers comprises a polymer electrolyte (112), including poly(ethylene oxide) – see paragraph [0015] of Liu et al.
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Liu et al. disclose that the polymer-encapsulated magnetic pore-formers include magnetic particles that are rod-shaped (see Figures 2-5).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, although the rod-shaped magnetic particles would have a width greater than 1 µm (see paragraph [0016] of Liu et al.), a length of about 12 µm is not explicitly disclosed. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the length of the rod-shaped magnetic particles would be adjusted to optimize the value/range of tortuosity, as disclosed by Liu et al., for the purpose of obtaining high energy density and high power density (see paragraphs [0012] and [0022] of Liu et al.). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980).
Regarding claim 7, Liu et al. disclose that the magnetic particles include nickel ferrite (see paragraph [0014]).
Regarding claims 8-10, Liu et al. disclose the steps of partially removing the polymer-encapsulated magnetic pore-formers, and introducing an electrolyte in a soaking (or infiltration) process into the channels through solution infiltration with a solid polymer (see paragraph [0022]).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, although Liu et al. disclose an electrode (100) for a lithium-ion battery, and that carbon (such as graphite) is used as the anode electrode of claim 19 (see paragraph [0002]), Liu et al. do not explicitly disclose if the electrode (100) can be a cathode (of claim 20). However, since Liu et al. disclose that the method produces a thick, dense electrode with high energy density, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the electrode production method would be applicable to both anodes and cathodes with the claimed conventional material of lithium compounds as the active material. With regard to the types of materials (i.e. lithium compounds) that are suitable for use, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Response to Arguments
The examiner acknowledges the applicants’ amendment/response received by the USPTO on December 17, 2025. The amendment overcomes the prior objection to claim 4 and the prior 35 USC 112(b) rejection applied to claim 20. Claims 1-20 remain under consideration in the application.
Applicants' arguments filed December 17, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the applicants’ remarks/arguments on page 5 of the amendment, the applicants first argue that Liu et al. do not teach a core of magnetic particles that is encapsulated by a polymer coating. The examiner respectfully disagrees. In paragraph [0015] of Liu et al., Liu et al. disclose that the electrically conductive material is mixed with a lithium conductive polymer (112). Therefore, the examiner is taking the position that since the polymer is mixed, it is also encapsulating the electrically conductive material. In the instance that applicants would amend to include that the outer polymer coating layer is formed to cover the conductive material, then such an amendment can overcome the current prior art rejection. Otherwise, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim limitations would remain rejected under 35 USC 103.
Furthermore, the examiner disagrees with the applicants’ assertions (in the middle paragraph on page 5 of the Remarks section) that the combination of Liu et al. and Anandan et al. is improper. Although Liu et al. fail to teach a solid electrolyte, Anandan et al. disclose both solid and liquid electrolytes, in which replacement of at least a portion of a liquid electrolyte with a solid electrolyte is advantageous for the purpose of reducing flammability (see abstract; and column 3, line 60 through column 4, line 6), such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace at least a portion of the liquid electrolyte with a solid electrolyte, as taught by Anandan et al., into the lithium-ion battery electrode disclosed by Liu et al., in order to reduce flammability (Anandan et al.; abstract; and column 3, line 60 through column 4, line 6).
With regard to the applicants’ argument in the paragraph near the bottom of page 5 of the Remarks section, the applicants argue that since Liu et al. fail to teach “any numerical tortuosity value”, then the combined teachings would not render obvious a tortuosity value of less than 2.0 (nor less than 1.4). The examiner respectfully disagrees. Since the applicants do not provide any criticality of this tortuosity range, as well as that it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that Liu et al. inherently has a tortuosity value, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the method of Liu et al. to obtain a tortuosity of channels to be less than 2.0 (or 1.4), since Liu et al. disclose the method in such a manner that the higher the density, the lower the tortuosity, and obtaining a tortuosity to be lower than 2.0 (or 1.4) is merely a design choice, for the purpose of obtaining high energy density and high power density (see paragraphs [0012] and [0022] of Liu et al.). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980).
In view of the above 35 USC 103 rejection and for these additional reasons, claims 1-20 remain rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KEVIN P KERNS whose telephone number is (571)272-1178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached at (571)272-3458. 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.
/KEVIN P KERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735 January 8, 2026