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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Examiner notes the following amendments made to the claims:
Claim 1 amended to further limit the morphology of the lithium compound layer
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 1/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-11 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, the amendments made to claim 1 overcome the previously applied prior art. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Mikhaylik (US 20140272597 A1). Since there are no further arguments regarding the dependent claims, the rejections remain in place and unchanged other than now relying on Mikhaylik. Therefore, there is currently not considered to be any allowable subject matter present in the claims. If applicant were to amend claims to further differentiate how the structure/morphology of the lithium compound layer is different than that taught by Mikhaylik, then further search and consideration would be required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamano (US 6458483 A1) in view of Mikhaylik (US 20140272597 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hamano teaches all of the following elements:
An electrochemical device, comprising:
a positive electrode;
a negative electrode, comprising
a negative active material layer;
a separator,
wherein the separator is disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode;
an adhesive layer disposed between the negative active material layer and the separator; (“The invention provides a lithium ion secondary battery having an electrode body comprising a positive electrode made of a positive electrode active material layer joined to a current collector, a negative electrode made of a negative electrode active material layer joined to a current collector, a separator which retains an electrolytic Solution containing lithium ions and is disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, and a porous adhesive resin layer which retains the electrolytic Solution and joins each of the positive electrode active material layer and the negative electrode active material layer to the separator” Hamano page 5 column 2 lines 65-67 and page 6 column 3 lines 1-9)
PNG
media_image1.png
336
716
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hamano fails to teach the following elements of claim 1:
and a lithium compound layer, wherein the lithium compound layer is disposed between the adhesive layer and the negative active material layer, and the lithium compound layer comprises at least one of lithium carbonate or lithium oxide.
and the lithium compound layer has a bumpy and aligned ridge grain morphology.
However, Mikhaylik teaches all of the elements of claim 1 that are not found in Hamano. Specifically, Mikhaylik teaches:
and a lithium compound layer, wherein the lithium compound layer is disposed between the adhesive layer and the negative active material layer (“In one embodiment, a method may include: providing a first carrier substrate; depositing a first release layer on the first carrier substrate, wherein a mean peak to valley roughness of a surface of the first release layer opposite the first carrier substrate is between about 0.1 µm and about 1 µm; depositing a first protective layer on the surface of the first release layer; and depositing a first electroactive material layer on the first protective layer.” Mikhaylik [0006]. In this case, if the protective layer of Mikhaylik were added onto the surface of the electroactive material layer of Hamano, it would be in between the adhesive layer and the active layer, thus meeting the limitation.)
and the lithium compound layer comprises at least one of lithium carbonate or lithium oxide. (“The protective layer may be made from any suitable material capable of acting as a protective layer for the underlying electrode structure and that is conductive to the electroactive species … suitable materials for the protective layer may include, but are not limited to … lithium oxides ” Mikhaylik [0097])
and the lithium compound layer has a bumpy and aligned ridge grain morphology (Mikhaylik figures 10A-C depict lithium oxide layers 210 having a morphology that meets the claimed limitation. If claim were further amended to show how figures 4 and 5 of the instant invention differ from figure 10C of Mikhaylik, then further search and consideration would likely be required.)
The use of the negative electrode of Mikhaylik, which contains a layer of lithium oxide on the surface of the electroactive material, into the battery structure of Hamano, would meet all of the limitations of claim 1 as in this case the lithium oxide layer of Mikhaylik would be between the negative electrode active material layer and the porous adhesive resin layers of Hamano.
Mikhaylik and Hamano are considered to be analogous because they are both within the same field of lithium ion batteries containing surface modified negative electrodes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery structure of Hamano to include a lithium-containing layer on top of the negative electrode active material layer in order to improve multiple battery characteristics, including rate capability (“The inventors have recognized that it is desirable to reduce the thickness of one or more protective layers of an electrode structure to lower the cell internal resistance and increase the rate capability of the final electrochemical cell into which the electrode structure is incorporated.” Mikhaylik [0034])
The combination of Mikhaylik and Hamano is sufficient to meet the additional limitations of claims 2, 5-6, 8-10 without requiring any further modification or motivation.
Regarding claim 2, modified Hamano teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Hamano teaches all of the additional elements of claim 2:
The electrochemical device according to claim 1, wherein the adhesive layer comprises a polymer, the polymer comprises a main chain and a substituent, the main chain is formed of at least one monomer selected from the group consisting of methyl propylene, methacrylic acid, methyl methacrylate, imide, vinyl alcohol, and ethylene glycol; and the substituent comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of carboxyl, hydroxyl, amino, amido, methoxy, cyano, and ester group. (“formation of the resin film can conveniently be carried out by dipping the whole electrode laminate in a liquid resin material as demonstrated in Examples hereinafter given.” Hamano page 8 column 6 lines 47-51 and “ Twenty parts of 4,4'-diphenylmethane diisocyanate (MDI) having two isocyanate groups per molecule (liquid) and 80 parts of an ethylene glycol-propylene glycol copolymer having a hydroxyl groups at both terminals (hereinafter abbreviated as PEGPG (liquid; molecular weight: 1100) were mixed to prepare a liquid monomer mixture, in which the electrolytic solution-impregnated electrode body was dipped and taken out immediately to apply the liquid all over the electrode body. The electrode body was put in a packaging bag and vacuum sealed. The resulting package was heated at 50.degree. C. for 30 minutes to cure the resin film to obtain a lithium ion secondary battery shown in FIG. 4.” Hamano page 9 column 7 lines 62-68 and column 8 lines 1-8. In this case, the adhesive material comprises a resin made of an ethylene glycol monomer with hydroxyl substituents, and therefore meets all of the limitations of claim 2)
Regarding claim 5, modified Hamano teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. The usage of the lithium compound layer of Mikhaylik within the electrochemical device of Hamano would meet all of the additional limitations of claim 5:
The electrochemical device according to claim 1, wherein the lithium compound layer is in contact with the negative active material layer, (“FIG. 2A depicts one embodiment of an electrode structure including a carrier substrate 2. As shown illustratively in FIG. 2A, a release layer 4 is disposed on carrier substrate 2, a protective layer 6 is disposed on release layer 4, and an electroactive material layer 8 is disposed on protective layer 6” Mikhaylik [0040]. If this were applied to specifically a negative electrode, the above limitation would be met.)
and the lithium compound layer is in contact with the adhesive layer. (If the negative electrode of Hamano were replaced with the negative electrode of Mikhaylik, as described above, it would be in contact with the adhesive layer of Hamano. See below figures)
PNG
media_image1.png
336
716
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
287
584
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, modified Hamano teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Hamano is silent on the following elements of claim 6:
The electrochemical device according to claim 1, wherein more than 30% of the negative active material layer is covered by the lithium compound layer.
However, Mikhaylik teaches all of the elements of claim 6 that are not found in Hamano:
The electrochemical device according to claim 1, wherein more than 30% of the negative active material layer is covered by the lithium compound layer. (Mikhaylik figures 2a and 2b clearly depicts the protective layer covering at least 30% of the electroactive material layer, thus meeting all of the limitations of claim 6.)
Regarding claim 8, modified Hamano teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Hamano teaches the following additional elements of claim 8:
The electrochemical device according to claim 1, wherein the negative active material layer comprises a negative active material, (“wherein a positive electrode 11 having a positive electrode active material layer 13 joined to a positive electrode current collector 12, a negative electrode 14 having a negative electrode active material layer 16 joined to a negative electrode current collector 15, and a separator 17 which is interposed between the positive electrode 11 and the negative electrode 14” Hamano page 7 column 3 lines 35-40 and figure 1)
and the negative active material comprises at least one of artificial graphite, natural graphite, mesocarbon microbead, hard carbon, soft carbon, lithium titanium oxide, single crystal silicon, amorphous silicon, silicon-oxygen composite, or silicon-carbon composite. (“Examples of suitable negative electrode materials include carbonaceous materials such as graphite, graphitizing carbon, non-graphitizing carbon, coke, polyacene, and polyacetylene; and aromatic hydrocarbons having an acene structure such as pyrene or perylene. “ Hamano page 8 column 5 lines 20-25)
Regarding claim 9, modified Hamano teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Hamano teaches the following elements of claim 9:
The electrochemical device according to claim 8, wherein the negative active material layer further comprises at least one of a binder or a conductive agent, (“Any binder resin that is insoluble in an electrolytic solution and undergoes no electrochemical reaction in the electrode body can be used for binding an active material into an electrode plate. Examples of useful binder resins are homo- or copolymers of vinylidene fluoride, ethylene fluoride, acrylonitrile, and ethylene oxide, and ethylenepropylenediamine rubber.” Hamano page 8 column 5 lines 28-35)
the binder comprises at least one of polyvinylidene difluoride, poly(vinylidene difluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene), polyamide, polyacrylonitrile, polyacrylate, polyacrylic acid, polyacrylic acid sodium salt, sodium carboxymethyl cellulose, polyvinylpyrrolidone, polyvinyl ether, polymethyl methacrylate, polytetrafluoroethylene, polyhexafluoropropylene, or styrene butadiene rubber, and the conductive agent comprises at least one of carbon nanotubes, carbon fibers, conductive carbon black, acetylene black, graphene, or Ketjen black. (“Any binder resin that is insoluble in an electrolytic solution and undergoes no electrochemical reaction in the electrode body can be used for binding an active material into an electrode plate. Examples of useful binder resins are homo- or copolymers of vinylidene fluoride, ethylene fluoride, acrylonitrile, and ethylene oxide, and ethylenepropylenediamine rubber.” Hamano page 8 column 5 lines 28-35. In this case, PVDF is a homopolymer of VDF, and thus meets the above limitation.)
Regarding claim 10, modified Hamano teaches all of the elements of claim 9, as shown above. Hamano is silent on the following elements of claim 10:
The electrochemical device according to claim 9, wherein the lithium compound layer comprises neither the binder nor the conductive agent.
However, Mikhaylik teaches all of the elements of claim 10 that are not found in Hamano/ Specifically, Mikhaylik does not mention the inclusion of a binder or a conductive agent regarding certain embodiments of its lithium-ion-conductive material layer.
The electrochemical device according to claim 9, wherein the lithium compound layer comprises neither the binder nor the conductive agent. (“The PET carrier substrate was delaminated from the polysulfone polymer layer resulting in an electrode structure including a metallic lithium electroactive layer 205, a lithium oxide layer 210, and a polysulfone polymer layer 215 (FIGS. 10A and 10B). The two examples presented in FIGS. 10A and 10B had lithium oxide layers 210 with thickness of about 2.57 micrometers and 0.548 micrometers respectively.” Mikhaylik [0165]. There is no teaching that binder or conductive agent is present in the lithium oxide layer.)
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamano (US 6458483 B1) in view of Mikhaylik (US 20140272597 A1), and further in view of Toyoda (US 20150333308 A1).
Regarding claim 3, modified Hamano teaches all of the elements of claim 2, as shown above.
Hamano and Mikhaylik are silent on the following:
The electrochemical device according to claim 2, wherein the polymer is embodied as particles, and a particle size of the polymer is 0.01 µm to 20 µm.
However, Toyoda teaches all of the elements of claim 3 that are not found in Hamano or Mikhaylik. Specifically, Toyoda teaches:
The electrochemical device according to claim 2, wherein the polymer is embodied as particles, and a particle size of the polymer is 0.01 µm to 20 µm. (“The adhesive layer in the present invention contains a particulate polymer” Toyoda [0102] and “The volume average particle diameter D50 of the particulate polymer is preferably 0.01 to 2 μm” Toyoda [0130]),
Toyoda is analogous to Hamano because they are both in the field of secondary batteries containing polymeric adhesive layers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polymer adhesive layer of Hamano to include the particulate polymer of Toyoda in order to have an adhesive layer with optimal dispersibility and applicability of the adhesive layer as well as good void space controllability of the adhesive layer once formed (Toyoda [0130]). Additionally, the polymer adhesives used in both Toyoda and Hamano are commonly known in the art, and 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).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamano (US 6458483 B1) in view of Mikhaylik (US 20140272597 A1), further in view of Toyoda (US 20150333308 A1) and further in view of Shimomura (US 20050142431 A1)
Regarding claim 4, Hamano and Mikhaylik teach all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Hamano is silent on the following elements of claim 4:
The electrochemical device according to claim 1, wherein a thickness of the lithium compound layer is 0.01 µm to 3 µm,
a thickness of the adhesive layer is 0.1 µm to 10 µm,
and a surface roughness of the negative electrode is 0.5 µm to 4.0 µm.
Mikhaylik teaches the following elements of claim 4:
The electrochemical device according to claim 1, wherein a thickness of the lithium compound layer is 0.01 µm to 3 µm, (“The two examples presented in FIGS. 10A and 10B had lithium oxide layers 210 with thickness of about 2.57 micrometers and 0.548 micrometers respectively. It should be understood that other thicknesses greater than or less than the above noted exemplary thicknesses also could have been provided.” Mikhaylik [0165]. The thickness taught in example 1 anticipates the claimed range.)
Mikhaylik is silent on the following elements of claim 4:
a thickness of the adhesive layer is 0.1 µm to 10 µm,
and a surface roughness of the negative electrode is 0.5 µm to 4.0 µm.
Toyoda teaches the following elements of claim 4:
a thickness of the adhesive layer is 0.1 µm to 10 µm, (“The secondary battery separator according to (1), wherein a thickness of the adhesive layer is 0.1 to 5 μm.” Toyoda [0019])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.1-5 µm for the thickness of the adhesive layer anticipates the claimed range of 0.1-10 µm, and thus no further motivation is needed.
Toyoda is silent on the following elements of claim 4:
and a surface roughness of the negative electrode is 0.5 µm to 4.0 µm.
However, Shimomura teaches all of the remaining elements of claim 4 not found in Hamano, Mikhaylik, and Toyoda. Specifically, Shimomura teaches:
and a three-dimensional (“the reason why the laser optical manner three-dimensional shape measuring device, which is of a non-contact type, is used in the present invention to evaluate the surface roughness is based on the following. In the case of the electrode support substrate of the invention, which is porous and has a surface on which innumerable pores are opened, the surface roughness is not smoothly and easy measured with any surface roughness meter of a contact type, such as a stylus type, since the stylus is caught by the pores; moreover, the surface roughness cannot be precisely measured in the contact manner since the pores opened in the surface are relatively deep.” Shimomura [0062])
surface roughness of the negative electrode is 0.5 µm to 4.0 µm. (“As described, an anodic electrode or an electrolyte layer is formed on a single surface of the electrode support substrate of the present invention by screen printing or the like. In order to make the electrode or electrolyte printing even and sure with close adhesion, it is necessary to control the surface thereof into an appropriate surface roughness. The present inventors have made it evident by experiments that the maximum roughness depth (Rmax: German Standard "DIN 4768") thereof is set to 1.0 µm or more and 40 µm or less.” Shimomura [0060])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 1-40 µm for the three-dimensional surface roughness of the negative electrode overlaps the claimed range of 0.5-4 µm. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Shimomura is analogous to Hamano as it is within the same field of lithium secondary batteries. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the negative electrode of Hamano to have the surface roughness of Shimomura in order to improve adhesion properties and optimize gas permeability/diffusibility (“In order to make the electrode or electrolyte printing even and sure with close adhesion, it is necessary to control the surface thereof into an appropriate surface roughness” Shimomura [0060] and “If the Rmax is less than 1.0 µm, the surface is too smooth so that the electrode printing tends to be insufficient in close adhesion. Thus, it is feared that the printed electrode layer is peeled from the substrate by thermal shock receiving when the fuel cell is handled or operated. Additionally, the gas permeability/diffusibility tend to turn insufficient. On the other hand, if the Rmax exceeds 40 µm, the thickness of the electrode layer becomes uneven when the electrode is printed, or a part of the electrode-constituting material is embedded in concave portions in the surface. Thus irregularities are formed in the electrode layer surface to result in an increase in electric conductance loss.” Shimomura [0061]) This modification would be desirable in a secondary battery as improved adhesion and the optimization of gas permeability would improve output characteristics without having any negative effects on battery function.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamano (US 6458483 B1) in view of Mikhaylik (US 20140272597 A1), and further in view of Liao (US 20160072132 A1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Hamano teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Hamano and Mikhaylik are silent on the following elements of claim 7:
The electrochemical device according to claim 1, wherein a porosity of the negative active material layer and the lithium compound layer is 10% to 60%.
However, Liao teaches all of the elements of claim 7 that aren’t present in Hamano or Mikhaylik:
The electrochemical device according to claim 1, wherein a porosity of the negative active material layer and the lithium compound layer is 10% to 60%. (“The porous electroactive-material-containing layer may have any suitable porosity. For example, the porous electroactive-material-containing layer may have a porosity of up to about 10%, up to about 15%, up to about 20%, up to about 25%, up to about 30%, up to about 40%, up to about 50%, up to about 60%, or up to about 70%” Liao [0082] and “The porous lithium-ion-conductive layer may have any suitable porosity. For example, the porous lithium-ion-conductive layer may have a porosity of up to about 1%, up to about 2%, up to about 5%, up to about 10%, up to about 15%, up to about 20%, up to about 25%, up to about 30%, up to about 40%, up to about 50%, up to about 60%, or up to about 70%” Liao [0060]).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0-70% for the porosity of both the negative electrode active layer (electroactive material layer) and lithium compound containing layer (lithium-ion-conductive layer) encompass the claimed range of 10-60% porosity for the same parameters. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Liao is considered to be analogous to both Hamano and Mikhaylik because it is within the same field of lithium ion batteries having surface modified electrodes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lithium oxide layer of Mikhaylik and the active material layer of Hamano to have a porosity within the range taught by Liao in order to provide pores to be filled by electrolyte, thus improving electrochemical properties of the battery without losing structural integrity (i.e. if the porosity were too high). (“In some embodiments, some or all of the porosity can be filled by electrolyte. In some cases, at least some of the pores of the electroactive-material-containing layer are filled with an electrolyte that is a liquid, a gel, a solid polymer, and/or a solid inorganic compound.” Liao [0083]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamano (US 6458483 B1) in view of Mikhaylik (US 20140272597 A1), further in view of Lee (US 20220059909 A1):
Regarding claim 11, Hamano and Mikhaylik teach all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above.
Hamano and Mikhaylik are silent on the following:
An electronic device, comprising the electrochemical device according to claim 1.
However, Lee teaches all of the elements of claim 11 that are not found in Hamano and Mikhaylik. Specifically, Lee teaches the usage of an electrochemical device containing a positive and negative electrode, separator, and adhesive layer in a variety of electronic devices:
An electronic device, comprising the electrochemical device according to claim 1. (“ The battery 189 may supply power to at least one component of the electronic device 101.” Lee [0042] and “The electronic device according to various embodiments may be one of various types of electronic devices. The electronic devices may include, for example, a portable communication device (e.g., a smart phone), a computer device, a portable multimedia device, a portable medical device, a camera, a wearable device, or a home appliance.” Lee [0052])
Lee and Hamano are considered to be analogous because they are both within the same field of secondary batteries. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the electrochemical device of Hamano in an electronic device. This is obvious both because that is how a similar device is used in Lee, and also because one skilled in the art would understand that the function of a battery/electrochemical device is to provide power to an electronic device, and thus it would be obvious to use it for this function.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET whose telephone number is (571)272-0156. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-6pm except for the first Friday of bi-week.
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, NICHOLAS SMITH can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752