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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner notes the following amendments made to the claims:
Claim 1 amended to further include limitation regarding decreasing percentage of negative electrode active material from external to internal winding end
New claim 3 added
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, the amendment made to claim 1 does not fully encompass the arguments presented by applicant. Specifically, applicant argues that because Hosoya teaches two active materials on the inner and outer periphery respectively, that it fails to teach that the percentage of the second negative electrode active material decreases from external to internal winding end part at a certain proportion. Examiner does not find this persuasive, as Hosoya teaches a second negative electrode active material that decreases from 100% to 0%, at a certain proportion—i.e., the end of the portion that divides the internal and external peripheries of Hosoya. If applicant wishes to include the gradient decrease in negative electrode active material, examiner suggests further amending the claim in such a way that makes clear a gradient change is required and for both active materials to be present throughout the entirety of the winding portion, internal and external. If such amendments were made, the previously applied prior art would be overcome and further search and consideration would be required.
However, during updated search, examiner would also like to cite Tamura (US 20210218019 A1), which teaches a content of Si active material that decreases from the outer periphery of wound electrode to inner periphery (“It is preferable that the content of the Si active material in terms of Si decrease in the direction from the outer periphery of the negative electrode 12 to the inner periphery of the negative electrode 12, that is, in the direction from the first layer 41A of the negative electrode mixture layer 41 to the fourth layer 42D of the negative electrode mixture layer 42. In other words, the content of the Si active material in terms of Si is at maximum in the first layer 41A and at minimum in the fourth layer 42D.” Tamura [0029]). Tamura additionally teaches a gradient of ratios between graphite and Si, similar to the instant specification (“A graphite powder was mixed with a Si-containing material represented by SiO.sub.x (x=1) having a carbon coating deposited thereon at a mass ratio of 86.5:13.5. Hereby, a negative electrode active material was prepared.” Tamura [0043] … A second negative electrode mixture slurry was prepared as in the preparation of the first negative electrode mixture slurry, except that the graphite powder was mixed with the Si-containing material at a mass ratio of 38.5:11.5 Tamura [0044] … A third negative electrode mixture slurry was prepared as in the preparation of the first negative electrode mixture slurry, except that the graphite powder was mixed with the Si-containing material at a mass ratio of 90.5:9.5. [Tamura [0045]). While Tamura isn’t explicitly teaching the concentration gradient of active materials radially, it does still teach about the benefits of a decrease in Si content from the outer to inner periphery in a winding body. Thus, if combined with Hosoya, it would meet the limitations even if claim 1 were further amended to specify that the ratio changes in a gradual/gradient fashion.
Since no further arguments are made regarding the dependent claims other than the additional references failing to teach the amended subject matter applied to claim 1, the previous rejections remain in place and unchanged. New claim 3 is also rejected in view of Hosoya. Thus, there is currently not considered to be any allowable subject matter present in the claims.
If applicant can find a way to amend the claims to specifically include the ratio of first and second active materials being disposed from 0:1 to 1:0 from one end of wound body to the other and being disposed in alternating fashion, without including any new matter, it is possible the rejection could be overcome and further search and consideration required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hosoya (JP 2009070658A).
Regarding claim 1, Hosoya teaches all of the following elements:
A non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, comprising: an electrode assembly in which a positive electrode and a negative electrode are wound with a separator interposed therebetween: (“The non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery of the present invention is a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery in which a negative electrode and a positive electrode are stacked via a separator, and a wound battery element is housed in an exterior body.” Hosoya [11])
a non-aqueous electrolyte: (“The non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery of the present invention is a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery in which a negative electrode and a positive electrode are stacked via a separator, and a wound battery element is housed in an exterior body.” Hosoya [11])
and an exterior housing the electrode assembly and the non-aqueous electrolyte, (“The non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery of the present invention is a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery in which a negative electrode and a positive electrode are stacked via a separator, and a wound battery element is housed in an exterior body.” Hosoya [11])
wherein the negative electrode includes: a first negative electrode active material: (“As the negative electrode active material, a negative electrode active material used in a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, for example, a carbon, silicon, tin, polyacetylene, polypyrrole, or other conductive polymer material is used.” Hosoya [16])
and a second negative electrode active material having a larger expansion coefficient during charge than the first negative electrode active material, Koike is silent on the following elements of claim 1: (“For example, artificial graphite, which has a small battery capacity and is difficult to expand, is used for the inner peripheral portion, and natural graphite, which has a large battery capacity but easily expands, is separately applied at a predetermined ratio to the outer peripheral portion.” Hosoya [16]. In this case, artificial graphite and natural graphite are used as the two negative electrode active materials, having different expansion coefficients)
and when a proportion of a mass of the second negative electrode active material to a total mass of the first negative electrode active material and the second negative electrode active material is defined as a percentage of the second negative electrode active material, the percentage of the second negative electrode active material on an internal winding end part side is smaller than the percentage of the second negative electrode active material on an external winding end part side. (“A substance that is relatively small in expansion and contraction due to charging / discharging may be selected for the inner periphery of the battery element. For example, artificial graphite, which has a small battery capacity and is difficult to expand, is used for the inner peripheral portion, and natural graphite, which has a large battery capacity but easily expands, is separately applied at a predetermined ratio to the outer peripheral portion.” Hosoya [16]. In this case, Hosoya used one negative electrode active material in a higher proportion on the inner peripheral portion of the wound electrode, and a different negative electrode active material on the outer peripheral portion, thus meeting the above limitation.)
and the percentage of the second negative electrode active material decreases from the external winding end part side to the internal winding end part side at a certain proportion, or at a changing proportion. (As described above in arguments, the percentage of the second negative electrode active material would decrease from one proportion to another, even if that decrease is from 100% to 0%. Claim would need to be further amended to overcome Hosoya, and even more so to overcome Hosoya in view of Tamura.)
Regarding claim 3, Hosoya teaches all of the following elements:
The non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein a region where the percentage of the second negative electrode active material changes from the internal winding end part side to the external winding end part side is formed at an arbitrary position in a negative electrode mixture layer of the negative electrode. (In the case of Hosoya, the arbitrary position in which the percentage of second negative electrode active material changes from internal to external side is at the current collector. [Hosoya 22] Claim 3 provides no further specification as to where the change needs to happen or if it needs to happen gradually. Therefore, the teachings of Hosoya anticipate the claim as a whole.)
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosoya (JP 2009070658A) in view of Koike (US 20200161701 A1)
Regarding claim 2, Hosoya teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Hosoya also states that silicon can be used as a negative electrode active material in addition to graphite (“As the negative electrode active material, a negative electrode active material used in a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, for example, a carbon, silicon, tin, polyacetylene, polypyrrole, or other conductive polymer material is used” Hosoya [16]). However, Koike more explicitly teaches the use of silicon and a carbonaceous material used together specifically due to their differing expansion coefficients:
The non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the first negative electrode active material is a carbonaceous material. and the second negative electrode active material is a silicon-based material. (“the reason why the negative electrode active material layer 2 contains both the first negative electrode active material 200 (carbon-based material) and the second negative electrode active material 300 (silicon-based material) is because a high theoretical capacity (namely, battery capacity) is attained and the negative electrode hardly expands and contracts at the time of charge and discharge.” Koike [0055])
A silicon-based material would inherently have a higher expansion coefficient than a carbonaceous one, as evidenced by the limitations provided in claim 2. Additionally, Koike discusses this difference as why the two materials were chosen: (“The reason why the first negative electrode active material 200 contains a carbon-based material is because the carbon-based material hardly expands and contracts at the time of storage and release of lithium.” Koike [0045], “The reason why the second negative electrode active material 300 contains a silicon-based material is because the silicon-based material has excellent ability to store and release lithium and thus a high energy density is attained.” Koike [0050], and “In detail, the silicon-based material has an advantage of having a high theoretical capacity but has a concern of being likely to violently expand and contract at the time of charge and discharge. In contrast, the carbon-based material has a concern of having a low theoretical capacity but has an advantage of being less likely to expand and contract at the time of charge and discharge.” Koike [0056].)
Koike and Hosoya are considered to be analogous because they are both within the same field of wound electrode bodies used in non-aqueous electrolyte 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 two negative electrode mixtures of Hosoya to be a mixture of silicon and a carbonaceous material, as taught by Koike, in order to have a combination of materials which has both a high theoretical capacity while lowering the risk of expansion (“In detail, the silicon-based material has an advantage of having a high theoretical capacity but has a concern of being likely to violently expand and contract at the time of charge and discharge. In contrast, the carbon-based material has a concern of having a low theoretical capacity but has an advantage of being less likely to expand and contract at the time of charge and discharge.” Koike [0056].) Additionally, Hosoya states that the reason it uses artificial and natural graphite is also to control expansion (“For example, artificial graphite, which has a small battery capacity and is difficult to expand, is used for the inner peripheral portion, and natural graphite, which has a large battery capacity but easily expands” Hosoya [16]), and therefore it would be a simple substitution replacing two known negative electrode active materials with different expansion coefficients with a different set of two known negative electrode active materials with different expansion coefficients, and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Conclusion
The following references were found in updated search and considered to be relevant:
Kim (US 6258478 B1)—teaches an electrode assembly with a decreasing thickness/concentration gradient of active material from an inner to outer portion of an electrode winding body.
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 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
Prosecution Insights