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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 18 March 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment and Claim Status
The amendment filed 18 March 2026 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection set forth in the Office Action mailed 18 November 2025. Claims 2 and 5 have been canceled. Claim 8–13 have been added. Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6–13 are pending in the 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, 3, 4, 6–8, 10, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneda et al. (US 2022/0285676 A1) in view of Kuroda et al. (JP 2010/0099873 A1; art already of record).
Regarding Claims 1, 4, 8, and 10, Kaneda discloses an energy storage device (see lithium ion secondary battery, [0033], [0098]) comprising:
an electrode assembly (see electrode body, [0125]) including a positive electrode (see positive electrode, [0098]), a negative electrode (see negative electrode, [0098]), and a separator (see separator, [0098]);
a nonaqueous electrolyte (non-aqueous electrolyte, [0098]); and
a case (see battery case, [0125]) for housing the electrode assembly and the nonaqueous electrolyte ([0125]),
wherein the positive electrode contains a positive active material (see positive electrode active material, [0033]; see specifically Example 11, [0237]–[0240] and Table 1),
the positive active material contains a plurality of particles satisfying condition (1) below (see mapping below),
the positive active material includes a lithium transition metal composite oxide (see lithium-nickel composite oxide, [0033]) containing nickel, cobalt, and manganese ([0043]–[0053]; see specifically Example 11, disclosed in [0237] and Table 1 to contain lithium, nickel, cobalt, manganese, and zirconium),
(1) a plurality of primary particles that do not form secondary particles, wherein an average diameter of the primary particles is 1.7 µm (see specifically Example 11, disclosed in [0240] to comprise a large number of single primary particles, and disclosed in [0240] and Table 1 to have an average primary particle size of 1.7 µm; note that [0067] discloses that the average primary particle size is determined by measuring the length of major axes, and can thus be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to be analogous to an average diameter).
Kaneda does not disclose wherein the electrode assembly is in a pressed state, and a pressure applied to the electrode assembly is 0.1 MPa or more (Claim 1), nor wherein the method for manufacturing the energy storage device comprises pressing the electrode assembly and a pressure applied to the electrode assembly is 0.1 MPa or more (Claim 4).
Kuroda discloses an energy storage device (see secondary battery 100, [0091], FIG. 10 and 13) comprising an electrode assembly (see electrode body 150, [0091], FIG. 10 and 13) including a positive electrode (see positive electrode 155, [0045] and [0093], FIG. 5), a negative electrode (see negative electrode 156, [0045] and [0093], FIG. 5), and a separator (see separator 157, [0045] and [0093], FIG. 5), a nonaqueous electrolyte ([0044]), and a battery case (see battery case 110, [0093], FIG. 13) for housing the electrode assembly and the nonaqueous electrolyte, wherein the positive electrode contains a positive active material (see positive electrode active material 153, [0045], FIG. 5), and the positive active material includes a lithium transition metal compositive oxide (see lithium-transition metal composite oxide, [0021]). Kuroda discloses wherein the method for manufacturing the energy storage device comprises pressing the electrode assembly and wherein the electrode assembly is in a pressed state, by teaching ([0091]–[0094]) that the energy storage device is placed between fixed pressing members (see first member 30 and second member 40, FIG. 10) which apply pressure to the electrode assembly when it expands upon charging, thus pressing the electrode assembly. Kuroda teaches ([0003], [0094]) that pressing the electrode assembly after charging can remove charge/discharge-inhibiting gas that is generated during the initial charging process between the electrodes and separator due to decomposition of non-aqueous electrolyte, thus improving battery performance, and that ([0102]) repeating this process multiple times reduces the charging unevenness that occurs in the positive and negative electrodes due to the initial charge, retaining battery capacity. Finally, Kuroda teaches ([0103]) that the pressure applied to the electrode assembly as described above is 0.7 MPa.
Kuroda and Hiratsuka are analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of energy storage devices capable of cycling lithium. It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the energy storage device (Claim 1) or the manufacturing of the energy storage device (Claim 4) of Kaneda such that the electrode assembly is in a pressed state, and a pressure applied to the energy storage device is 0.7 MPa (Claim 1), or such that the method comprises pressing the electrode assembly and an applied pressure to the electrode assembly is 0.7 MPa (Claim 4), as taught by Kuroda, for the purpose of removing charge/discharge-inhibiting gas that is generated during the initial charging process between the electrodes and separator due to decomposition of non-aqueous electrolyte, thus improving battery performance; repeating the discharge multiple times also reduces charging unevenness that occurs in the positive and negative electrodes due to the initial charge, retaining battery capacity.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Kaneda discloses the energy storage device as set forth above. Kaneda further disclose wherein a product of a BET specific surface area and a median diameter of the positive active material is 2.6 m2[Symbol font/0xD7]µm/g (see specifically Example 11, disclosed in Table 1 to have a D50 of 1.8 µm and specific surface area of 1.46 m2/g, the product of which is 2.6 m2[Symbol font/0xD7]µm/g; note that [0064]–[0065] disclose that D50 is analogous to a median diameter; note that [0069] discloses that the specific surface area is measured via the BET method).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Kaneda discloses the method for manufacturing an energy storage device as set forth above. Modified Kaneda discloses the method further comprising initially charging and discharging the energy storage device, wherein the pressing the electrode assembly is performed after the initially charging and discharging, by disclosing (Kuroda [0097]–[0103]) that the pressure is applied to the electrode assembly while the energy storage device undergoes multiple charging and discharging cycles (see e.g. Samples 10 and 11 described in [0102]), wherein pressure is applied to the electrode assembly by the pressing members when it expands during charging. In other words, pressing the electrode assembly is performed during each of the multiple charging and discharging cycles, including the second cycle which will be performed after the initial charging and discharging cycle.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Kaneda discloses the energy storage device as set forth above. Modified Kaneda further discloses an energy storage apparatus comprising: one or more of the energy storage devices according to Claim 1; and a pressing member, wherein the pressing member presses the electrode assembly of the energy storage device by pressing the case, by disclosing (Kuroda [0091]–[0094]) that the electrode assembly being in a pressed state is achieved by placing the energy storage device between pressing members (Kuroda FIG. 8 and 10) which are fixed in position and directly in contact with the case (FIG. 8); as such, expansion of the electrode assembly during charging applies force to the case, which due to the placement of the pressing members applies this force directly back to the electrode assembly, therefore the pressing members press the electrode assembly by pressing the case.
Regarding Claims 10 and 13, modified Kaneda discloses the energy storage device and the method for manufacturing an energy storage device as set forth above. Kaneda further discloses wherein a median diameter of the positive active material is 1.8 µm (see specifically Example 11, disclosed in [0240] and Table 1 to have a D50 of 1.8 µm; note that [0064]–[0065] disclose that D50 is analogous to a median diameter).
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneda et al. (US 2022/0285676 A1) in view of Kuroda et al. (JP 2010/0099873 A1; art already of record) as applied to Claims 1, 3, 4, 6–8, 10, 11, and 13 above, further in view of Okuda et al. (JP 2001/243949 A; see attached machine translation).
Regarding Claims 9 and 12, modified Kaneda discloses the energy storage device and method for manufacturing an energy storage device as set forth above.
Regarding the limitation wherein the plurality of particles satisfy the condition (2), Kaneda discloses that the positive active material contains a plurality of secondary particles formed by aggregation of a plurality of primary particles (see specifically Example 11, disclosed in [0240] to comprise a small number, or more specifically 27.0%, of secondary particles), wherein the average diameter of the primary particles is 1.7 µm (see specifically Example 11, disclosed in [0240] and Table 1 to have an average primary particle size of 1.7 µm; note that [0067] discloses that the average primary particle size is determined by measuring the length of major axes, and can thus be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to be analogous to an average diameter). However, Kaneda does not disclose a portion of condition (2), namely wherein the plurality of particles are having a ratio of an average diameter of the secondary particles to an average diameter of the primary particles of less than 11, and thus also does not disclose wherein the ratio of the average diameter of the secondary particles to the average diameter of the primary particles that form the secondary particles is 2.2 or less.
Okuda teaches an energy storage device (see lithium secondary battery, [0017]) comprising: an electrode assembly (see electrode body, [0039]) including a positive electrode (see positive electrode, [0035]), a negative electrode (see negative electrode, [0037]), and a separator (see separator, [0038]); a nonaqueous electrolyte (see non-aqueous electrolyte, [0038]); and a case (see battery case, [0039]) for housing the electrode assembly and the nonaqueous electrolyte ([0039]), wherein the positive electrode contains a positive active material (see positive electrode active material, [0018]), the positive active material contains a plurality of particles satisfying condition (2) below, the positive active material includes a lithium transition metal composite oxide (see lithium transition metal composite oxide, [0018]) containing nickel, cobalt, or manganese ([0019]), (2) a plurality of secondary particles formed by aggregation of a plurality of primary particles ([0020]), having a ratio of an average diameter of the secondary particles to an average diameter of the primary particles that form the secondary particles of 2 or more and 3 or less ([0025]; note that [0012] discloses that the average particle size is equivalent to a diameter of a sphere of the same volume, i.e. can be considered as analogous to an average diameter of the particle), wherein the average diameter of the primary particles is 0.2 µm or more and 10 µm or less ([0026]). Okuda teaches ([0025]) that when the ratio of the average particle size of the secondary particles to an average particle size of the primary particles that form the secondary particles is 2, most primary particles are located on the outer periphery of the secondary particles, and even when the secondary particles decay, most primary particles are able to ensure electron conduction within the positive electrode, and when the above ratio is 3 or less, since over 95% of the primary particles are located on the outer periphery of the secondary particles, cycle degradation is further reduced.
Okuda is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of energy storage devices capable of cycling lithium. It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the energy storage device or the method for manufacturing an energy storage device of modified Kaneda such that the ratio of the average diameter of the secondary particles to the average diameter of the primary particles that form the secondary particles is 2 or more and 3 or less, as taught by Okuda, for the purpose of ensuring that over 95% of primary particles are located on the outer periphery of the secondary particles such that when the secondary particles decay, most primary particles are able to ensure electron conduction within the positive electrode, and cycle degradation is further reduced.
When the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I). A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have thus found it obvious to select the overlapping portions of the ranges for the ratio of the average diameter of the secondary particles to the average diameter of the primary particles that form the secondary particles with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in over 95% of primary particles being located on the outer periphery of the secondary particles such that when the secondary particles decay, most primary particles are able to ensure electron conduction within the positive electrode, and cycle degradation is further reduced.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the Remarks filed 18 March 2026 with regards to the reference Hiratsuka (WO 2019/044205 A1) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments in the Remarks filed 18 March 2026 regarding unexpected results of the claimed invention have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant argues on p. 6–9 of Remarks that the claimed invention provides unexpected results sufficient to establish unobviousness within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103. Applicant specifically argues:
the results shown in Table 1 and particularly Examples 1 and 2, which Applicant alleges shown a suppressed increase in resistance associated with a charge-discharge cycle in comparison to Comparative Examples 1, 2, and 3 due to the combination of the ratio of the average diameter of the secondary particles to the average diameter of the primary particles being within a claimed range of less than 11 and the electrode assembly being in a pressed state, demonstrate unexpected results;
that this advantage is completely unexpected from the cited art, because the cited art does not contain any teachings regarding the combination of the claimed features, as well as the limited range of the ratio of the average diameter of the secondary particles to the average diameter of the primary particles, and that there would have been NO articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to combine the cited references to arrive at the invention of Claim 1;
that the assertion in the Advisory action that the advantageous effects would have been expected when combining the cited prior art references is the impermissible comparison of the claimed invention with subject matter that does not exist in the prior art, and the impermissible comparison of the results of the invention with the results of the invention, with none of the cited art teaching or suggesting the suppression of an increase in resistance associated with a charge-discharge cycle as provided by the claimed invention.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Firstly, for unexpected results, as per MPEP § 716.02(e), the evidence relied upon should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance." Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). See MPEP § 716.02(b). In the instant case, Applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated that the results shown in Table 1 are statistically significant/unexpected. Further, results which are argued as being unexpected must be commensurate in scope with the claimed invention, i.e. the showing of apparent unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range (In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980) (MPEP § 716.02(d)), and Applicant should demonstrate the criticality of the claimed range by comparing a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range (In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960)) (MPEP § 716.02(d)). In the instant case, for example, Applicant alleges unexpected results for the claimed range of the described particle size ratio of less than 11, but only provides two examples of particle size ratios within this range and one example outside the range. Further, for example, Applicant does not appear to show any examples pertaining to positive active materials which satisfy only condition (1) as claimed, i.e. are in the form of primary particles that do not form secondary particles.
Secondly, as set forth in the previous office action, the results are not completely unexpected from the prior art as asserted by Applicant, because Kuroda teaches ([0003], [0094]) that pressing the electrode assembly after charging provides advantageous effects, including improved battery performance by removing charge/discharge-inhibiting gas that is generated during the initial charging process between electrodes and separator due to decomposition of non-aqueous electrolyte, and retained battery capacity by reducing charging unevenness that occurs in the positive and negative electrodes due to the initial charge. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art, motivated to apply the teachings of Kuroda to the electrode assembly of e.g. Kaneda due to the advantageous effects described by Kuroda (note that this constitutes an articulated reasoning with rational underpinning) would not have found the improvement in battery performance to be unexpected.
Thirdly, Applicant’s assertion that comparison of the claimed invention to the closest prior art would be impermissible comparison of the claimed invention with subject matter that does not exist in the prior art, and the impermissible comparison of the results of the invention with the results of the invention, appears to be flawed as the combined prior art references do provide the subject matter, and thus it can be understood that the subject matter exists in the prior art. Further, in response to Applicant's argument that none of the cited art teach or suggest the suppression of an increase in resistance associated with a charge-discharge cycle, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA MARIE FEHR, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-0860. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, BASIA RIDLEY can be reached at (571)272-1453. 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.
/J.M.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights