CTNF 18/117,400 CTNF 94410 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims Claims 1-14, as filed 4 March 2023, are examined herein. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 line 9 contains “the battery pack, has diagonals …” It appears that the comma is not needed here . Appropriate correction is required. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretations Claims 7 and 9 contain the word “optionally”. The term "optionally" is an alternative limitation (see MPEP 2173.05(h), II). Here, it is interpreted that the claim does not require the limitations following the term "optionally" since the instant specification indicates (page 4, page 12) that these features are present in some embodiments and therefore the specification does not teach that these features are required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-3 and 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu (US 20140197794 A1) in view of Kaito (JP 2015090794 A as cited by Applicant in the IDS dated 4 March 2023, with paragraph numbering to the English translation provided herewith) . Regarding claims 1, 2, 10, 12, and 14, Gu teaches a battery pack comprising a first battery cell type and a second battery cell type (abstract: “mixed cell”; [0018] “at least one of the first battery pack or the second battery pack includes a plurality of mixed cells”; [0078] vehicle including battery pack), wherein the first battery cell type includes n first battery cells, and the second battery cell type includes m second battery cells, with n and m being each independently selected from an integer of 1 or more, ([0014] “a plurality of the first cells … a plurality of the second cells”) wherein the second battery cell has an internal resistance less than that of the first battery cell, with the difference in internal resistance between the first battery cell and the second battery cell being > 0.15 mohm; ([0016] “difference between the internal resistance … from about 0.5 mohm to about 1 mohm”) Gu teaches [0018] “at least one of the first battery pack or the second battery pack includes a plurality of mixed cells” and [0019] “a sub-battery pack including a plurality of the first cells and a second sub-battery pack including a plurality of the second cells”. Examiner notes that it is commonly understood that multiple modules (equivalent to sub-battery pack) can be used in one battery pack, and the person of ordinary skill would expect to use multiple modules based on Gu’s disclosure of multiple sub-packs at [0019] and Gu’s disclosure of a vehicle at [0078], in order to provide enough range for the vehicle. Gu is silent on the shape of the battery packs or sub-packs and is silent on the specific arrangement of cells within each battery pack, and therefore is silent on wherein the battery pack has diagonals Lc defined across length and width directions thereof, an area enclosed by connecting 4 points on the two diagonals Lc that are positioned at a distance of 1/4 Lc from each of the endpoints of the diagonals with lines in sequence, is defined as area A, and the remaining area is defined as area B, wherein the percentage by number of the first battery cells in the battery cells comprised in the area A is 20% to 100%, and the percentage by number of the second battery cells in the battery cells comprised in the area B is 5% to 100% . Kaito describes ([0014]) a battery pack having battery cells with lower resistance at low temperatures (battery A) “Battery A is arranged on the outside.” At ([0014]) Kaito discloses that the arrangement of lower resistance battery cells towards the outside will prevent or suppress deterioration of battery performance in low-temperature environments. Therefore, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill to modify Guo by forming a battery pack where each of the outermost perimeter battery cells were of the lower resistance type while each of the innermost battery cells were of the higher resistance type, with a reasonable expectation of achieving prevention or suppression of deterioration of battery performance in low-temperature environments. Therefore, since Area A is defining an inner area of the pack, it would further be obvious to approach, as close as possible, 100% of lower resistance cells an the outside of the pack (100% of the second cells in Area B) and 100% of higher resistance cells at the inside of the pack (Area A), thus meeting the instant claim limitation. Gu in view of Kaito also renders obvious ([0016]) the limitation of claim 2 , wherein the difference in the internal resistance between the first battery cell and the second battery cell is > 0.20 mohm , the limitations of claims 10 to 12 regarding placement of the batteries, and ([0078]) the limitation of claim 14 , a power consuming device comprising the battery pack according to claim 1 . Regarding claim 3, Gu in view of Kaito teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Gu does not explicitly teach wherein the ratio of the internal resistance of the first battery cell to that of the second battery cell is > 1.1 . However, Examiner’s back-of-the envelope calculations using Gu at [0011] (difference in internal resistance … 0.5 mΩ to 1 mΩ) and [0036] (rated voltage Type A 3.69V, Type B 3.5 V) suggest that the ratio of internal resistance is about 2, which falls within the claimed range of “≥ 1.1”. Further evidence that the ratio of the internal resistance is > 1.1 is provided by Kaito at FIG. 9 showing a resistance ratio A/B of 87% at -10 ˚C, which corresponds to a resistance ratio B/A of 1.14, which falls within the claimed range of “≥ 1.1”. At [0014] Kaito discloses that the arrangement of lower resistance battery cells towards the outside will prevent or suppress deterioration of battery performance in low-temperature environments. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to select a cell resistance range difference of 1.14 as taught by Kaito for the battery pack Gu in view of Kaito, a reasonable expectation of successfully preventing or suppressing deterioration of battery performance in low-temperature environments. Regarding claim 13, Gu in view of Kaito teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Gu does not teach wherein the discharge capacity at -7°C of the battery pack is 82% - 96% of the rated capacity of the battery pack . However, the electrochemical properties and structure of the claimed invention have been rendered obvious as set forth above. Because modified Gu has the claimed structure and properties, it will therefore necessarily meet the claimed discharge capacity, thus meeting the instant claim limitation . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu (US 20140197794 A1) in view of Kaito (JP 2015090794 A), as set forth in claim 1, above, and in further view of Doczy (US 20210265674 A1) . Regarding claim 4, Gu in view of Kaito teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Gu discloses (FIG. 3) battery internal resistance of about 12 to 18.5 mOhms, which is above the claimed range, and discloses [0054] that the use of mixed cells can improve cycle life of a battery. Kaito discloses an internal resistance difference but is silent on the internal value of the first and second cells. Gu does not explicitly teach wherein the first battery cell has an internal resistance of 1.5 mohm - 1.8 mohm, and the second battery cell has an internal resistance of 1.2 mohm - 1.5 mohm . A person of ordinary skill would expect that the improved battery of Gu in view of Kaito could achieve its improved cycle life outside of the internal resistance range taught by Gu. Doczy, in the field of secondary batteries, provides evidence [0014] that a battery cell can be made with a single cell resistance approximately 1.5 mOhm. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to replace the battery cells of modified Gu with the low-resistance battery cells of modified Doczy, based on one known element with another, with predictable results, with a reasonable expectation of successfully improving cycle life of the battery . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5- 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu (US 20140197794 A1) in view of Kaito (JP 2015090794 A), as set forth in claim 1, above, and in further view of Yoon (US 20140138591 A1) . Regarding claims 5 - 7, Gu in view of Kaito teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Gu is silent on the positive active material composition and Kaito at [0022] states that any known positive active material can be used. Therefore, Gu and Kaito do not disclose wherein the first battery cell comprises a first positive electrode active material represented by formula (I) [LiFe 1-x1 M 1 x1 PO 4 ] , and the second battery cell comprises a second positive electrode active material represented by formula (II) [LiFe 1-x1 M 1 x1 PO 4 ], where 0 <x1< 0.1, 0 < x2 <0.1, M 1 and M 2 are each independently selected from one or more of Cu, Mn, Cr, Zn, Pb, Ca, Co, Ni, Sr and Ti, and M 2 includes at least Mn . Yoon discloses (abstract) a positive electroactive material having a composition of Li Fe 1-x-y Mn X D y (PO 4 ) z (LFMP) where 1.0<a≤1.10, 0<x≤0.5, 0≤y≤0.10, 1.0<z≤1.10 and D is selected from the group consisting of Co, Ni, V. Nb and combinations thereof. This overlaps the claimed composition. At [0074] the Mn content is between 0.1 and 0.5, which overlaps the claimed range. At [0138] Yoon discloses that LFMP can be prepared with a markedly smaller particle size and much larger specific surface area than previously known positive active materials, such as LiCoO 2 , LiNiO or LiMnO and, thus improved transport properties. Improved transport properties reduce impedance and may contribute to low impedance growth.” At [0039]. High surface area LFMP with olivine structure, small particle size, and high surface are is exceptionally stable even at high temperatures. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to select the LFMP of Yoon for the battery of modified Gu, based on Yoon’s teaching improved transport properties, with a reasonable expectation of having an improved battery. The person of ordinary skill would be motivated to optimize the Mn amount and particle size of the positive active material of modified Gu, with a reasonable expectation of successfully having lower resistance cells on the outside of the battery, as taught, thus meeting the instant claim limitation. This also renders obvious the limitation of claim 6 , wherein the Mn element in the second positive electrode active material has a mass percentage greater than that of the Mn element in the first positive electrode active material, and the limitation of claim 7 , wherein the second positive electrode active material has a volume mean particle size less than that of the first positive electrode active material , based on Yoon at [0138] disclosing smaller particle size results in improved transport properties and therefore reduced impedance. Regarding claim 8, Gu in view of Kaito teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Gu does not explicitly teach wherein the first battery cell comprises a third positive electrode active material represented by formula (III), and the second battery cell comprises a fourth positive electrode active material represented by formula (IV). (Essentially, the third positive electrode active material is NCM and the fourth positive electrode active material may be LFMP with a halogen dopant.) Yoon at [0076], [0091-0093] discloses the use of NCM and LFMP as positive active material, and that the NCM may be doped with fluorine. At [0138] Yoon discloses that LFMP can be prepared with a markedly smaller particle size and much larger specific surface area than previously known positive active materials, such as LiCoO 2 , LiNiO or LiMnO and, thus improved transport properties. Improved transport properties reduce impedance and may contribute to low impedance growth.” At [0184-0185] a blend of LFMP and NCM can be used to achieve higher energy density and better abuse tolerance. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to select the NCM of Yoon as part of the active material for the 1 st cell and the LFMP of Yoon as part of the active material for the 2nd cell for the battery of modified Gu, based on Yoon’s teaching improved energy density and better abuse tolerance, with a reasonable expectation of having improved battery safety . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu (US 20140197794 A1) in view of Kaito (JP 2015090794 A), as set forth in claim 1, above, and in further view of Halalay (US 20080241699 A1) . Regarding claim 9, Gu in view of Kaito teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Gu does not explicitly teach wherein both of the first battery cell and the second battery cell contain an electrolyte, however a person of ordinary skill would understand that batteries require electrolytes, and therefore the battery cells of Gu should contain electrolytes. The person of ordinary skill would further understand that one way to achieve the difference in internal resistance taught by Gu is to use electrolytes of difference electrical conductivity. (Examiner notes that Ohm’s law, V=I*R, teaches an inverse relationship between conductivity and resistance.) Gu at [0054] teaches that using a mixed cell batteries can improve battery cycle-life. Gu does not explicitly teach wherein the electrolyte in the second battery cell has an electrical conductivity greater than that of the electrolyte in the first battery cell . Halalay, in the field of (abstract) electrolyte composition for lithium ion batteries, discloses [0008] that a combination of carbonate compound solvents can be used to achieve a preferred solvent electrical conductivity and battery performance. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to select electrolytes of different electrical conductivities as taught by Halalay for the battery cells of modified Gu, with a reasonable expectation of achieving improved cycle-life as taught by Gu. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE A RUTISER whose telephone number is (571)272-1969. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM M-F. 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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1292. 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. CLAIRE A. RUTISER Examiner Art Unit 1751 /C.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1751 /JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 1/12/2026 Application/Control Number: 18/117,400 Page 2 Art Unit: 1751 Application/Control Number: 18/117,400 Page 3 Art Unit: 1751 Application/Control Number: 18/117,400 Page 5 Art Unit: 1751 Application/Control Number: 18/117,400 Page 6 Art Unit: 1751 Application/Control Number: 18/117,400 Page 7 Art Unit: 1751 Application/Control Number: 18/117,400 Page 8 Art Unit: 1751 Application/Control Number: 18/117,400 Page 9 Art Unit: 1751 Application/Control Number: 18/117,400 Page 10 Art Unit: 1751