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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-12, in the reply filed on July 16, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 16, 2025.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification repeatedly refers to active material areal densities on the order of 100 g/cm2, which is impossibly high for coating thicknesses of less than tens of centimeters. Typical densities are on the order of 100 g/m2.
Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification consistently confuses the words “cathode” and “anode”. All of the examples describe cathodes comprising graphite (an anode active material) and anodes containing NCM (a cathode active material).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 7-9 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite active material areal densities on the order of 100 g/cm2, which is impossibly high. Appropriate correction is required.
For the purpose of examination, the claims will be read as reciting densities in g/m2, consistent with typical values for such coatings.
Claims 8-10 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims confuse the terms “cathode” and “anode” consistent with the specification. Appropriate correction is required.
For the purpose of examination, the claims will be read as switching the words “cathode” and “anode”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Taheri et al. (“Temperature Rise in Prismatic Polymer Lithium-Ion Batteries: An Analytic Approach”, SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars - Electron. Electr. Syst. 5(1):164-176, 2012, https://doi.org/10.4271/2012-01-0334).
Regarding claim 1, Taheri teaches a prismatic battery with a thickness (i.e. distance L) of 7 mm and a height of 195 mm (Table 1).
When discharged at 40A (i.e. 2C) at an ambient temperature of 20 °C, the temperature at every point along the midline of the face of the battery differs by less than 0.2 °C (Fig. 6b on x1=0 face or x1=7mm face). Selecting points 0-10 mm from the top and bottom surfaces of a battery 195 mm in height gives a value of H from 175-195 mm, so (T1-T2)*3L/H is at most approximately 0.02 °C, which falls within the range of the instant claim.
These values are for an ambient temperature of 20 °C. However, similar results are expected at 25 °C.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to construct a battery with consistent performance at typical ambient temperatures, including 20-25 °C.
Regarding claim 2, T1-T2<0.2 °C (Fig. 6b), which falls within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 3, selecting points 0-10 mm from the top and bottom surfaces of a battery 195 mm in height gives a value of H from 175-195 mm, which falls within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 6, the battery is prismatic with a width and height of more than 100 mm and a thickness of 7 mm (Fig. 1 and Table 1), so the first side walls are much larger than the second side walls, with an angle of approximately 90°, which falls within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 11, the battery includes electrode leads (i.e. poles) at the top (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, the conditions of Fig. 6b (heat transfer rates of 30 W/m2K) require forced convection (Conclusion, 2nd paragraph), so the battery is necessarily included in a battery device that provides that convection.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taheri as applied to claim 2 above.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Taheri does not teach the claimed temperatures. Taheri teaches that selection of appropriate heat transfer conditions can prevent overheating (Conclusion, 2nd paragraph), and that the operating temperature of the battery is up to 50 °C (Table 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select heat transfer conditions that keep the battery within its operating range, or less than 50°C, which overlaps the range of the instant claim. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taheri as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhao et al. (“The effects of electrode thickness on the electrochemical and thermal characteristics of lithium ion battery”, Applied Energy 139, pp. 220-229, February 2015).
Regarding claims 7-9, Taheri does not teach the claimed areal densities. Taheri teaches an areal density of approximately 400 g/m2 for the cathode and 240 g/m2 for the anode (Table 1; calculated as density * thickness * 2). Zhao teaches that reducing thickness of electrodes improves battery life and power output at the expense of energy density (Conclusion). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to reduce the thickness (and therefore areal density) of the electrodes, including to densities within the ranges of the instant claim, in order to improve battery life and power output. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taheri in view of Zhao as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Cao et al. (US 2020/0006801 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Taheri does not teach any particular particle size. Cao teaches that selecting a cathode D50 of 3-12 µm and an anode D50 of 4-15 µm prevents side reactions and improves ionic conductivity (Cao [0021]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select a cathode D50 of 3-12 µm and an anode D50 of 4-15 µm, each of which falls within the ranges of the instant claim, to prevent side reactions and improve ionic conductivity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A CORNO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-0745. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.A.C/ Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722