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 .
The Applicant’s amendment filed on 8/12/2026 was received. Claim 1 was amended. Claims 2-5, 11-14, 16-19 were cancelled.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office action issued on 12/29/2025.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/22/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by He et al. (CN 101626099 A) on claims 1, 4-7, 13-15 are withdrawn because Applicant amended independent claim 1.
Claims 1, 6-8, 15, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Saruwatari et al. (US 20200112011 A1).
Regarding claim 1: Saruwatari et al. disclose a nonaqueous electrolyte battery including a positive electrode, a negative electrode, a nonaqueous electrolyte and a separator (abstract). The positive electrode (6) (par. 92, fig. 2), comprising:
a positive electrode current collector and a positive electrode material layer (6b) (equivalent to a positive electrode coating layer) (par. 92, fig. 2) that is coated on the positive electrode current collector (par. 27, 108) and contains a positive electrode active material (equivalent to a positive electrode active substance) (par. 108); the positive electrode active material contains lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide (par. 60); wherein the positive electrode material layer has a density (equivalent to a compaction density (α)) in a more preferable range of 2.8 g/cm3 or more and 4.0 g/cm3 or less (par. 67), the positive electrode material layer has a coating weight per unit area (equivalent to surface density (β)) in a more preferable range of 20 g/m2 or more and 220 g/m2 or less (equivalent to 0.002-0.02 g/cm2) (par. 66), and the positive electrode current collector has a thickness (γ) of preferably 20 μm or less (par. 65). (The formula: α^3*10*β/γ = 0.118 when α=3, β=0.007, γ=16). 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). See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 6: Saruwatari et al. disclose the positive electrode current collector is an aluminum foil or an aluminum alloy foil (par. 64).
Regarding claim 7: Saruwatari et al. disclose a preparation method for the positive electrode (6) according to Claim 1, comprising:
mixing the positive electrode active material with graphite, acetylene black, and PVdF (equivalent to auxiliary agents) to prepare slurry (par. 108); and
applying the slurry evenly on the positive electrode current collector (par. 108), drying and pressing to obtain the positive electrode (6) (par. 108).
Regarding claim 8: Saruwatari et al. disclose a lithium-ion secondary battery, comprising: the positive electrode (6) according to Claim 1, as well as a negative electrode (par. 109), a separator (equivalent to an isolation film) (par. 114), and an nonaqueous electrolyte (par. 111), wherein the positive electrode (6), the separator, and the negative electrode are used to stack and wind successively to obtain a spiral-shaped electrode group (equivalent to an electrical core) (par. 115), and the nonaqueous electrolyte with moisture adsorbents are injected into the cell (par. 119).
Regarding claim 15: Saruwatari et al. disclose the positive electrode current collector is an aluminum foil or an aluminum alloy foil (par. 64).
Regarding claim 20: Saruwatari et al. disclose the positive electrode current collector is an aluminum foil or an aluminum alloy foil (par. 64).
Claims 9, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Saruwatari et al. (US 20200112011 A1) as applied in claim 8 above and further in view of Wang et al. (US 20230223538 A1).
Regarding claim 9: Saruwatari et al. disclose a nonaqueous electrolyte battery including a positive electrode, a negative electrode, a nonaqueous electrolyte and a separator (abstract) as described in paragraph 4 above. Saruwatari et al. further disclose the negative electrode comprises a negative electrode current collector and a negative electrode material layer (equivalent to a negative electrode coating layer) that is coated on the negative electrode current collector and contains a negative electrode active material (equivalent to a negative electrode active substance) (par. 30, 31); wherein, the density (equivalent to the compaction density) of the negative electrode material layer is in a range of 1.5 g/cm3 or more and 3.2 g/cm3 or less (par. 56); the coating weight per unit area (equivalent to the surface density) of the negative electrode material layer is in a more preferable range of 20 g/m2 or more and 200 g/m2 or less (equivalent to 0.002-0.02 g/cm2) (par. 55); and the thickness of the negative electrode current collector is preferably 20 μm or less and more preferably 15 μm or less (par. 41).
Saruwatari et al. fail to explicitly disclose the compaction density of the negative electrode coating layer is 1.35 g/cm3. However, Wang et al. disclose an electrochemical device (abstract). The electrochemical device comprises a negative active material layer (par. 49). The compacted density of the negative active material layer can be 1.30 g/cm3 to 1.80 g/cm3 (par. 51). Wang et al. further recognize as the electrolyte infiltration capability and the energy density of the lithium-ion battery are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the compacted density of the negative active material layer, with the electrolyte infiltration capability increasing and the energy density decreasing as the compacted density of the negative active material layer is decreased (par. 58), the precise compacted density of the negative active material layer would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed compacted density of the negative active material layer cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the compacted density of the negative active material layer in Saruwatari et al. to obtain the desired balance between the electrolyte infiltration capability and the energy density of the lithium-ion battery as taught by Wang et al. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). “[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.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
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). See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 10: Saruwatari et al. disclose a nonaqueous electrolyte battery including a positive electrode, a negative electrode, a nonaqueous electrolyte and a separator (abstract) as described in paragraph 4 above. Saruwatari et al. further disclose examples of a negative electrode active material include graphite, hard carbon, soft carbon, or graphene (par. 42).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments filed on 08/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues:
HE discloses the respective value ranges of the thickness of the aluminum foil, the areal density of the positive electrode coating, and the compaction density of the positive electrode. HE fails to disclose the specific combined relationship among these three parameters. HE fails to disclose that controlling these three parameters within specific ranges can improve the cycle life and DCR performance. HE fails to disclose the test performance indicators such as cycle life, energy density, or DCR performance. It is not possible to derive the specific technical solution protected by the amended Claim 1.
HE teaches lithium vanadium phosphate instead of lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide.
The experimental data of the instant application shows the technical benefits.
HE and Murashi cannot be combined.
The combination of HE, Murashi, and Hotta cannot derive to claims 9, 10
In response:
Applicant’s arguments are moot. As HE reference is withdrawn because of the amendment of “lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide”.
Applicant’s arguments are moot. The newly cited Saruwatari reference disclose lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The experimental data are not commensurate in scope with the claim because:
Examples 1-10 cover only one NCM composition (NCM 111) instead of a wide composition range of the lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide.
There are a total of four key parameters (α, β, γ, and the specific formula) in claim 1. However, Table 1 does not show the DCR results when α, β, and γ are individually outside the claimed range while the rest of the parameters are within the claimed range.
Examples 6-8 do show β above the claimed range while the rest of the parameters are within the claimed range. However, Example 8 shows a better DRC result compared to Example 5 (which has all four parameters within the claimed range). It is unclear the criticality of the four parameters.
Applicant’s arguments are moot. The newly cited Saruwatari reference disclose the winding structure of the electrical core.
Applicant’s arguments are moot. The newly cited Saruwatari and Wang references disclose the limitations of claims 9, 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PIN JAN WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7057. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on 571-272-1295. 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.
/PIN JAN WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights