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 Status
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted on June 10th, 2026 have been entered into the file.
Currently claim 1 is amended, resulting in claims 1-7 pending for examination.
Response to Amendments
The amendments filed on have been received.
The amendments to claim 1 have overcome the 35 USC § 112(a) and 112(b) rejection of claims 1-7 set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed April 1st, 2026.
The amendments to claim 1 have overcome the 35 USC § 103 rejection of claims 1-7 in view of Peebles set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed April 1st, 2026.
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.
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 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoon (Korean Patent Publication No. 20140024600 A) in view of Kim (Korean Patent Publication No. 20170103485) and Coowar (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20090136834 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hoon teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising: a cell stack having one or more unit cells, each of the one or more unit cells including a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a separator between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (Paragraphs 13-14);
a battery case (Paragraphs 13-14),
an electrolyte solution (Paragraph 41);
wherein the cell stack, and the electrolyte solution are in the battery case (Paragraph 28).
Hoon teaches a phase change material applied to the inside of the battery case in order to improve the safety of the battery by absorbing heat and maintaining the insulation state when the temperature of the lithium ion secondary battery rapidly rises (Paragraph 16). Hoon teaches that the phase change material is applied to the space between the pouch and the electrode assembly, specifically the upper surface of the electrode assembly inside the pouch (Paragraph 31). Hoon teaches examples of such phase change material including lithium nitrate (Paragraph 35). Therefore, as illustrated in Figure 4, the lithium nitrate phase change material (Element 3) applied to the inside of the battery case is considered to meet the instant claimed limitation of a lithium nitrate holder in the battery case, positioned between an outer surface of an outermost layer of the cell stack and an inner surface of the battery case.
Hoon teaches that in order to cool the interior of the battery case, the phase change material may change from a solid to a liquid phase (Paragraph 32). Therefore, the ordinary artisan would recognize that Hoon teaches an embodiment in which the lithium nitrate holder described above is in a solid state, meeting the instant claimed limitations of the nitrate holder in a solid state.
Hoon is silent as to the outermost layer of the cell stack is a separator.
Coowar discloses an electrode assembly for a battery comprising a stack of electrode elements (Abstract, Paragraph 0005). Coowar teaches the stack surrounded by an outer wrap of separator material to form an encapsulated electrode assembly (Paragraph 0006). When the electrode stack is surrounded by separating material, the electrodes are protected from damage, moisture ingress, and contamination in order to improve final cell performance (Paragraph 0025).
Kim teaches an electrode assembly which may include a supplementary separator on any one electrode, including the outermost electrode (Figures 15 and 16, Element 230) in order to provide additional protection (Paragraph 0109).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrode assembly of Hoon to incorporate the teachings of Coowar and Kim in which separators are located on the outermost surfaces of the stacked body. Doing so would advantageously result in additional protection of electrodes, as recognized by Coowar and Kim.
Regarding claim 3, Hoon teaches the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1.
As discussed above, Hoon teaches a phase change material coated on one surface of the inside of a pouch housing an electrode assembly.
As exemplified by the disclosure and figures of Hoon, the phase change material forms a layer that covers a surface of the pouch, and is therefore considered by the Examiner to be a film, meeting the instant claimed limitations of the lithium nitrate holder in the solid state is a lithium nitrate-containing film.
Claims 1-4, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano (W.O. 2022038835 A1) in view of Coowar (cited above) and Kim (cited above).
Regarding claim 1, Nakano teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising: a cell stack having one or more unit cells, each of the one or more unit cells including a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a separator between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (Paragraph 0011);
an electrolyte solution (Paragraph 0087);
a battery case (Paragraph 0104),
wherein the cell stack and the electrolyte solution are in the battery case (Paragraph 0104).
Nakano teaches the separator may be covered with a separator coating layer on both sides that is firmly bonded to the separator. Nakano teaches that the separator coating layer may comprise inorganic particles including lithium nitrate (Paragraph 0085).
Therefore, the separator coating layer of Nakano is considered to teach the instant claimed limitation of the lithium secondary battery comprising a lithium nitrate holder in the battery case.
In the method of manufacturing the separator, Nakano teaches that coatings may be applied to the separator and that the separator is sufficiently dried at room temperature to form the additional separator layers (Paragraph 0102). Thus, Nakano exemplifies that drying is performed on the separator to remove the moisture content of the resulting layers. Therefore, Nakano is considered by the Examiner to teach a lithium nitrate holder in a solid state.
Nakano is silent as to the lithium nitrate holder in the solid state is positioned between an outer surface of an outermost layer of the cell stack and an inner surface of the battery case, wherein the outermost layer of the cell stack is a separator.
As discussed above, Coowar discloses an electrode assembly for a battery comprising a stack of electrode elements (Abstract, Paragraph 0005). Coowar teaches the stack surrounded by an outer wrap of separator material to form an encapsulated electrode assembly (Paragraph 0006). When the electrode stack is surrounded by separating material, the electrodes are protected from damage, moisture ingress, and contamination in order to improve final cell performance (Paragraph 0025).
Also discussed above, Kim teaches an electrode assembly which may include a supplementary separator on any one electrode, including the outermost electrode (Figures 15 and 16, Element 230) in order to provide additional protection (Paragraph 0109).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrode assembly of Nakano to incorporate the teachings of Coowar and Kim in which additional separators are located on the outermost surfaces of the stacked body. Doing so would advantageously result in additional protection of electrodes, as recognized by Coowar and Kim.
As Nakano teaches that the separator coating layer may cover both sides of the separator, the ordinary artisan can imagine that when adding at additional separator at each end of the electrode assembly according the modification by Kim and Coowar, the lithium nitrate holder in the solid state (separator coating layer) would be positioned between an outer surface of an outermost layer of the cell stack and an inner surface of the battery case, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 2, Nakano teaches the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1.
As described in the above modification, Nakano in view of Kim and Coowar teaches the lithium nitrate holder in the solid state attached to the additional separators provided at the outermost portions of the electrode assembly.
Thus, modified Nakano is considered to teach the lithium nitrate holder in the solid state is on the first surface and a second surface of the cell stack (outer surfaces of the separators at each end of the electrode assembly), meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 3, Nakano teaches the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1.
As described in the above modification, Nakano in view of Kim and Coowar teaches the lithium nitrate holder in the solid state attached to the additional separators provided at the outermost portions of the electrode assembly.
As exemplified by the disclosure Nakano, the separator coating layer forms a layer that covers both sides of the separator, and is therefore considered by the Examiner to be a film, meeting the instant claimed limitations of the lithium nitrate holder in the solid state is a lithium nitrate-containing film.
Regarding claim 4, Nakano teaches the lithium secondary battery according to claim 3, wherein the lithium nitrate-containing film includes lithium nitrate and a binder (Paragraph 0085),
As described above, Nakano teaches a separator coating layer including lithium nitrate and a binder, which was equated with the aforementioned lithium nitrate-containing film.
As the lithium-nitrate containing film of Nakano includes both binder particles and inorganic lithium nitrate particles as described above, the binder particles and lithium nitrate particles of the separator coating layer of Nakano concentrated near the surface of the separator are considered the coating layer of the lithium nitrate-containing film which are formed on a first surface and a second surface of the substrate film (separator), meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 7, Nakano teaches the lithium secondary battery according to claim 4, wherein the substrate film comprises polyethylene (Paragraph 0084)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Nakano in view of Kim and Coowar as applied to claims 1-4, and 7 above, further in view of Ohara (W.O. 2014175355 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Nakano teaches the lithium secondary battery according to claim 4.
As discussed above, Nakano teaches the lithium nitrate-containing film comprises lithium nitrate and binder. Further discussed above, Nakano teaches the coating layer of the lithium nitrate-containing film comprises lithium nitrate and binder formed on the first and second surfaces of the substrate film.
Nakano is silent as to the lithium nitrate-containing film comprises the lithium nitrate and the binder having a solid content weight ratio of 80:20 to 98:2, or wherein the coating layer of the lithium nitrate-containing film comprising the lithium nitrate and the binder having a solid content weight ratio of 80:20 to 98:2.
However, Ohara discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery including a separator (Paragraph 0012). Ohara teaches that the separator may contain an additional layer including inorganic particles and a binder (Paragraph 0078). Ohara teaches that the role of the binder in this layer has the role of bonding the inorganic particles to each other and the inorganic particles to the base layer in order to stably establish the layer and prevent peeling between adjacent layers (Paragraph 0081). Ohara teaches the binder may be suitably polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), styrene-butadiene rubber, carboxymethyl cellulose, and isoprene (Paragraph 0082), which overlaps with the binders disclosed by Nakano (Paragraph 0085). Ohara teaches the content of the binder in the layer is preferably 2 to 20 wt% with respect to 100 wt% of the layer. Ohara teaches when the content of the binder is 2% by weight or more, the peel strength between the heat-resistant insulating layer and the porous substrate layer can be increased and when the content of the binder is 20% by weight or less, sufficient lithium ion conductivity can be ensured (Paragraph 0083).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the binder content in the lithium nitrate-containing film (and therefore the coating layer of the lithium nitrate-containing film as well) of Nakano to incorporate the teachings of Ohara in which the binder comprising 2 to 20 wt% with respect to 100 wt% of the layer adhered to the separator.
Because the lithium-nitrate containing film of Nakano comprises only inorganic particles (including lithium nitrate, discussed above) and binder, the ordinary artisan would recognize that in setting the binder content in the layer between 2 wt% to 20 wt% according the modification of Ohara, the quantity of lithium nitrate is necessarily 98 wt% to 80 wt%, respectively. This corresponds with the lithium nitrate and binder having a solid content weight ratio of 80:20 to 98:2 of the instant claim, meeting the limitations.
As discussed above in the rejection of claim 4, the lithium-nitrate containing film of Nakano coats the separator and the portion of inorganic and binder particles near the surface of the separator is considered a coating layer. Thus Nakano further teaches that the lithium nitrate-containing film includes a coating layer, the coating layer including lithium nitrate and a binder, in the aforementioned solid content weight ratio, being formed on the first surface and a second surface of the substrate film (separator), further meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Nakano in view of Kim and Coowar as applied to claims 1-4, and 7 above, further in view of Manthiram (Non-Patent Literature “Rechargeable Lithium-Sulfur Batteries”).
Regarding claim 6, Nakano teaches the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1.
Nakano is silent as to the positive electrode comprising at least one positive electrode active material selected from the group consisting of S8 elemental sulfur, Li2Sn (n≥1) lithium-sulfur compound, and a (C2Sx)n: x=2.5 to 50, n≥2 carbon-sulfur polymer.
Manthiram discloses lithium sulfur batteries as electrochemical storage devices comprising a lithium metal anode, an organic electrolyte, and a sulfur composite cathode. (Page 11752, Column 2). Manthiram teaches that octasulfur (cyclo-S8) is the most stable allotrope of sulfur at room temperature (Page 11753, Column 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode of Nakano to incorporate the teachings of Manthiram in which the sulfur is the S8 allotrope. Manthiram teaches that it is known in the art to include S8 elemental sulfur in the positive electrode material of batteries, and further provides the structural benefits of this allotrope. Thus, the modification above would advantageously result in large stability of sulfur in the positive electrode at room temperature, as recognized by Manthiram.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Hoon in view of Kim and Coowar as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, further in view of Manthiram (cited above).
Regarding claim 6, Hoon teaches the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1.
Hoon is silent as to the positive electrode comprising at least one positive electrode active material selected from the group consisting of S8 elemental sulfur, Li2Sn (n≥1) lithium-sulfur compound, and a (C2Sx)n: x=2.5 to 50, n≥2 carbon-sulfur polymer.
Manthiram discloses lithium sulfur batteries as electrochemical storage devices comprising a lithium metal anode, an organic electrolyte, and a sulfur composite cathode. (Page 11752, Column 2). Manthiram teaches that octasulfur (cyclo-S8) is the most stable allotrope of sulfur at room temperature (Page 11753, Column 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode of Hoon to incorporate the teachings of Manthiram in which the sulfur is the S8 allotrope. Manthiram teaches that it is known in the art to include S8 elemental sulfur in the positive electrode material of batteries, and further provides the structural benefits of this allotrope. Thus, the modification above would advantageously result in large stability of sulfur in the positive electrode at room temperature, as recognized by Manthiram.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5 of the Remarks, filed June 10th, 2026, provide that Peebles fails to disclose or suggest the newly amended limitation of claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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.
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 OLIVIA A JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-1718. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 AM - 4:30 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
/O.A.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights