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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10, 12, and 16-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “a DC-DC converter couples only to the T battery cells of the second type” implies that the DC-DC converter is coupled to nothing else except the T cells. Further in the claim the phrase “wherein an output of the DC-DC converter is coupled to an output of the S-battery cells” appears and counters the previous limitation, if the DC-DC converter in coupled only to the T cells then it cannot also be coupled to the S cells. For the purposes of examination, the first phrase is being interpreted as “the input of a DC-DC converter is coupled only to the output of the T battery cells”.
Regarding claim 16, as the same phrases as claim 1 are present they are being interpreted the same way as discussed above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claims 2-10, 12, and 17-23, all are rejected due to their dependence and inclusion of the same issues in claims 1 and 16.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon (US 20250183431 A1) in view of De Breucker et al. (US 20190013681 A1), and further in view of Liu et al. (US 20230307720 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yoon teaches a battery comprising:
S battery cells of a first type, wherein each of the S battery cells includes a plurality of first cathode electrodes and a plurality of first anode electrodes (paragraph 0021, fig. 3; plurality of first positive and negative electrode plates);
and T battery cells of a second type, wherein each of the T battery cells includes a plurality of second cathode electrodes and a plurality of second anode electrodes (paragraph 0022, fig. 3; plurality of second positive and negative electrode plates);
where S and T are integers greater than one; wherein the T battery cells are arranged between the S battery cells (paragraph 0030, 0031 and 0043, n number of first independent drive cells and second independent drive cells that are sequentially placed along the stacking direction, where n is a natural number of 1 or more) and wherein at least one of:
the plurality of first cathode electrodes includes a first cathode active material that is different than a second cathode active material of the plurality of second cathode electrodes, and the plurality of first anode electrodes includes a first anode active material that is different than a second anode active material of the plurality of second anode electrodes (paragraph 0033 and 0062, the electrode design may vary as different types of electrode active materials are applied to the first and second independent drive cells which each contain a positive and negative electrode).
Yoon is silent to the exact thicknesses of the different battery cells as well as a first and second voltage sensor and a DC-DC converter.
Liu teaches two types of battery cells that each have different thicknesses where the thickness of the first cell is bigger than the thickness of the second cell by up to 20 times (Liu, 0011). It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill to have various cell thicknesses due to varying energy densities and resulting volumes and to use the range discussed above, as if the difference in thickness is too large adverse impact may be generated (Liu, 0059, 0061).
Yoon in view of Liu is silent to a first and second voltage sensor as well as a DC-DC converter.
De Breucker teaches a battery pack that is subdivided into subpacks that contain various cells which are then fed into separate DC-DC converters. It is shown in figure 5 that the subpacks can be coupled to separate DC-DC converters, meaning only one type of cell is coupled to the input of a DC-DC converter, and the resulting outputs are merged together before entering the load (De Breucker, Fig. 5, 0101, 0102). Further, De Breucker teaches a controller and diagnostic test circuit that can monitor voltage, state of charge, and state of health for any one or more of the modules (De Breucker, 0026, 0028). While the term “sensor” is not used, it is understood in the art that to monitor or derive these values a sensor of some kind is necessary and implied.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to take the battery of Yoon and be able to, with predictable results, vary the ratio of thickness between cell type 1 and cell type 2 by up to 20 times, depending on necessary adjustments to energy density, without making the thicknesses excessively different and generating adverse effects (Liu, 0061).
Further, it would have been obvious to connect the different types of cells of Yoon to the DC-DC converter and diagnostic testing units in the same way as present in De Breucker as doing so allows separate groups of cells to feed into a load through DC-DC converters which allows the original cell voltage to be boosted and mixed to the appropriate level as measured by the sensors present in the diagnostic unit (De Breucker, 0102, fig. 5).
Regarding claim 2, modified Yoon teaches the battery system of claim 1 as discussed above but does not explicitly teach, wherein S is greater than T.
Yoon does, however, explain in Paragraph 0031 that n independent drive cells may comprise at least one first independent drive cell to which the first electrode design is applied, and at least one second independent drive cell to which the second electrode design is applied, where n is a natural number of 2 or more, thus creating a workable range of values greater than 2. In this case, if a person decided to use, for example, more than 1 of the first type of independent drive cells then there would be the result of a greater number of the first type of drive cell over the second type. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application in view of routine experimentation (See MPEP 2144.05.II) to have a reasonable expectation of success for designing this battery where there is at least one more of the first independent drive cell than the second independent drive cell.
Regarding claim 3, modified Yoon teaches the battery system of claim 1 as discussed above but does not explicitly teach wherein T is equal to S-1.
Yoon does, however, explain in Paragraph 0031 that n independent drive cells may comprise at least one first independent drive cell to which the first electrode design is applied, and at least one second independent drive cell to which the second electrode design is applied, where n is a natural number of 2 or more. In this case, if a person decided to use, for example, 2 of the first type of independent drive cells then there would be the result of a greater number of the first type of drive cell over the second type by 1. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application in view of routine experimentation (See MPEP 2144.05.II) to have a reasonable expectation of success for designing this battery where there is one more of the first independent drive cell than the second independent drive cell.
Regarding claim 4, modified Yoon teaches the battery system of claim 1 as discussed above wherein the S battery cells of the first type and the T battery cells of the second type are arranged in repeating connection segments (Yoon, paragraph 0031 and 0043, n number of first independent drive cells and second independent drive cells are sequentially placed along the stacking direction and they are connected, where n is a natural number of 1 or more).
Regarding claim 5, modified Yoon teaches the battery system of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein, for each of the repeating connection segments, corresponding ones of the S battery cells of the first type are connected in series and corresponding ones of the T battery cells of the second type are connected in parallel between the S battery cells (Yoon, paragraph 0037, 0041, 0042, and 0046, independent drive cells of the same and different types can be connected in both parallel and series).
Regarding claim 10, modified Yoon teaches the battery system of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the S battery cells of the first type are connected in series and the T battery cells of the second type are connected in series (Yoon, paragraph 0037, 0041, 0042, and 0046, independent drive cells of the same and different types can be connected in both parallel and series).
Claim(s) 6-9 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon (US 20250183431 A1) in view of De Breucker et al. (US 20190013681 A1), Liu et al. (US 20230307720 A1), and further in view of Liu et al. (US 20180034094 A1).
Regarding claim 6, modified Yoon teaches the battery system of claim 1 as described above, however, it does not teach, wherein: the first cathode active material is selected from a group consisting of lithium cobalt oxide (LCO), lithium nickel cobalt manganese (NCM), lithium nickel cobalt aluminum (NCA), nickel cobalt manganese aluminum (NCMA), lithium manganese oxide (LMO), and combinations thereof, and the second cathode active material is selected from a group consisting of lithium iron phosphate (LFP), lithium manganese iron phosphate (LMFP), lithium metal polymer (LMP), and combinations thereof. Yoon does however teach that the first and second cells can have different types of electrode active materials (paragraph 0016). Yoon teaches exemplary active materials like NCMA or LTO or the like may be used (paragraph 0098), but does not specify the particular positive and negative active material in each of the two cells prompting one of ordinary skill to look to related art.
In the same field of endeavor, Liu 2018 teaches that Lithium cobalt oxide and Lithium iron phosphate can be used as positive electrode materials which are understood in the art to be considered active (Liu 2018, paragraph 0031).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to take the battery system of modified Yoon as described in claim 1 and combine it with the cathode materials as given by Liu et al. as both relate to batteries that can have a variety of cathode active materials and the use of these active materials facilitates the storage and release of energy in a predictable manner.
Regarding claim 7, modified Yoon teaches the battery system of claim 1 as describe above, however, it does not teach, wherein: the first anode active material is selected from a group consisting of graphite, silicon (Si), and combinations thereof, and the second anode active material is selected from a group consisting of lithium titanium oxide (LTO), niobium titanium oxide (NbTiOx), and combinations thereof. Yoon does however teach that the first and second cells can have different types of electrode active materials (paragraph 0016). Yoon teaches exemplary active materials like NCMA or LTO or the like may be used (paragraph 0098), but does not specify the particular positive and negative active material in each of the two cells prompting one of ordinary skill to look to related art.
In the same field of endeavor, Liu 2018 teaches that graphite and Lithium titanate (lithium titanium oxide, LI4TI5O12) can be used as negative electrode materials which are understood in the art to be considered active (Liu 2018, paragraph 0030).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to take the battery of Yoon as described in claim 1 and combine it with the anode materials as given by Liu et al. as both relate to batteries that can have a variety of anode active materials and the use of these active materials facilitates the storage and release of energy in a predictable manner
Regarding claim 8, modified Yoon teaches the battery system of claim 1 as describe above, however, it does not teach, wherein: the first cathode active material has an onset temperature that is less than or equal to 2000C, and the second cathode active material has an onset temperature that is greater than or equal to 2500C.
While a reference teaching the onset temperature of different materials is not exemplified, the onset temperature of active materials, a chemical composition and its properties, are inseparable. See MPEP 2112.01.II. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Modified Yoon in view of Liu 2018 as discussed above provides a hybrid cell having a first and second positive electrode active material that is the same as that used by applicant as listed in claim 6. As Yoon in view of Liu 2018 provides the same active materials for a similar battery arrangement the claimed property of onset temperature for the particular material would inherently be present. NOTE: Where … the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on “inherency” under 35 USC § 102, on prima facie obviousness” under 35 USC § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products.” In re Best, 562 F2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-4 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 9, modified Yoon teaches the battery system of claim 1 as describe above, however, it does not teach, wherein: the first anode active material has an onset temperature that is less than or equal to 1500C, and the second anode active material has an onset temperature that is greater than or equal to 1800C.
While a reference teaching the onset temperature of different materials is not exemplified, the onset temperature of active materials, a chemical composition and its properties, are inseparable. See MPEP 2112.01.II. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Yoon in view of Liu 2018 as discussed above provides a hybrid cell having a first and second negative electrode active material that is the same as that used by applicant as listed in claim 7. As Yoon in view of Liu 2018 provides the same active materials for a similar battery arrangement the claimed property of onset temperature for the particular material would inherently be present. NOTE: Where … the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on “inherency” under 35 USC § 102, on prima facie obviousness” under 35 USC § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products.” In re Best, 562 F2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-4 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 16, Yoon teaches a battery comprising:
S battery cells of a first type, wherein each of the S battery cells includes a plurality of first cathode electrodes and a plurality of first anode electrodes (paragraph 0021, fig. 3; plurality of first positive and negative electrode plates);
and T battery cells of a second type, wherein each of the T battery cells includes a plurality of second cathode electrodes and a plurality of second anode electrodes (paragraph 0022, fig. 3; plurality of second positive and negative electrode plates);
where S and T are integers greater than one; wherein the T battery cells are arranged between the S battery cells (paragraph 0030, 0031 and 0043, n number of first independent drive cells and second independent drive cells that are sequentially placed along the stacking direction, where n is a natural number of 1 or more) and wherein at least one of:
the plurality of first cathode electrodes includes a first cathode active material that is different than a second cathode active material of the plurality of second cathode electrodes, and the plurality of first anode electrodes includes a first anode active material that is different than a second anode active material of the plurality of second anode electrodes (paragraph 0033 and 0062, the electrode design may vary as different types of electrode active materials are applied to the first and second independent drive cells which each contain a positive and negative electrode).
Yoon is silent to the exact thicknesses of the different battery cells as well as a first and second voltage sensor and a DC-DC converter.
Liu teaches two types of battery cells that each have different thicknesses where the thickness of the first cell is bigger than the thickness of the second cell by up to 20 times (Liu, 0011). It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill to have various cell thicknesses due to varying energy densities and resulting volumes and to use the range discussed above, as if the difference in thickness is too large adverse impact may be generated (Liu, 0059, 0061).
Yoon in view of Liu 2025 is silent to a first and second voltage sensor as well as a DC-DC converter.
De Breucker teaches a battery pack that is subdivided into subpacks that contain various cells which are then fed into separate DC-DC converters. It is shown in figure 5 that the subpacks can be coupled to separate DC-DC converters, meaning only one type of cell is coupled to the input of a DC-DC converter, and the resulting outputs are merged together before entering the load (De Breucker, Fig. 5, 0101, 0102). Further, De Breucker teaches a diagnostic test circuit that can monitor voltage, state of charge, and state of health for any one or more of the modules (De Breucker, 0028). While the term “sensor” is not used, it is understood in the art that to monitor or derive these values a sensor of some kind is necessary and implied.
Modified Yoon does not teach, wherein the first cathode active material has an onset temperature that is less than or equal to 2000C, the second cathode active material has an onset temperature that is greater than or equal to 2500C, the first anode active material has an onset temperature that is less than or equal to 1500C, and the second anode active material has an onset temperature that is greater than or equal to 1800C. Yoon does however teach that the first and second cells can have different types of electrode active materials (paragraph 0016). Yoon teaches exemplary active materials like NCMA or LTO or the like may be used (paragraph 0098), but does not specify the particular positive and negative active material in each of the two cells prompting one of ordinary skill to look to related art.
In the same field of endeavor, Liu 2018 teaches that Lithium cobalt oxide and Lithium iron phosphate can be used as positive electrode materials, and that graphite and lithium titanium oxide can be used as negative electrode materials, all of which are understood in the art to be considered active as required by claim 17 and 18 which are both dependent upon claim 16 (Liu 2018, paragraph 0030-0031). Similar to the hybrid design of Yoon, Liu 2018 teaches an arrangement of different active materials for a lithium cell. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to take the battery of Yoon as described in claim 16 and combine it with the cathode and anode materials as given by Liu2018 as both relate to batteries that can have a variety of cathode active materials and the use of these active materials facilitates the storage and release of energy in a predictable manner.
While a reference teaching the onset temperature of different materials is not exemplified, the onset temperature of active materials, a chemical composition and its properties, are inseparable. See MPEP 2112.01.II. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Yoon in view of Liu as discussed above provides a hybrid cell having a first and second negative and positive electrode active material that is the same as that used by applicant as listed in claims 17 and 18. As Yoon in view of Liu provides the same active materials for a similar battery arrangement the claimed property of onset temperature for the particular material would inherently be present. NOTE: Where … the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on “inherency” under 35 USC § 102, on prima facie obviousness” under 35 USC § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products.” In re Best, 562 F2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-4 (CCPA 1977).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to take the battery of Yoon and be able to, with predictable results, vary the ratio of thickness between cell type 1 and cell type 2 by up to 20 times, depending on necessary adjustments to energy density, without making the thicknesses excessively different and generating adverse effects (Liu, 0061).
Further, it would have been obvious to connect the different types of cells of Yoon to the DC-DC converter and diagnostic testing units in the same way as present in De Breucker as doing so allows separate groups of cells to feed into a load through DC-DC converters which allows the original cell voltage to be boosted and mixed to the appropriate level as measured by the sensors present in the diagnostic unit (De Breucker, 0102, fig. 5).
Further, it would have been obvious to use the materials of Liu 2018 as the positive and negative electrode active materials of modified Yoon which have the necessary onset temperatures as discussed above and are obvious to use due to the storage and release of energy in a predictable manner.
Regarding claim 17, it is rejected as described above in claim 16 regarding positive electrode materials.
Regarding claim 18, it is rejected as described above in claim 16 regarding negative electrode materials.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon (US 20250183431 A1) in view of Taylor et al. (US 20160105042 A1), De Breucker et al. (US 20190013681 A1), and further in view of Liu et al. (US 20230307720 A1).
Regarding claim 12, modified Yoon of claim 1 teaches a controller that can calculate a state of charge of both sets of cells but is silent to the manner in which it is calculated. Taylor teaches that charging states can be acquired via multiple methods such as a chemical method, coulomb counting method, and a pressure method (Taylor, 0039). In this case it is obvious that the control unit would be capable of doing the functions as described in claim 12 by testing, deriving, or otherwise sensing a state of charge of both the first and second cell types in different ways.
Regarding claim 13, modified Yoon teaches a controller that can calculate a state of health of both sets of cells but is silent to the manner in which it is calculated. Taylor teaches that charging states can be acquired via multiple methods such as a chemical method, coulomb counting method, and a pressure method (Taylor 0039). In this case it is obvious that the control unit would be capable of doing the functions as described in claim 13 by testing, deriving, or otherwise sensing a state of charge of both the first and second cell types in different ways.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon (US 20250183431 A1) in view of De Breucker et al. (US 20190013681 A1), Liu et al. (US 20230307720 A1), and further in view of KIM (US 20190386259).
Regarding claim 14, modified Yoon teaches the battery system in claim 1 as described above but does not teach a polarity of external tabs of at least one of the S battery cells of the first type is inverted relative to others of the S battery cells of the first type.
KIM teaches that the battery cells can have polarized tabs that can be inverted to allow proper connection between cells, such as serially connecting groups of parallelly connected cells (KIM, Fig. 8, paragraph 0067).
PNG
media_image1.png
283
517
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine the battery of modified Yoon as described regarding claim 1 with the inverted polarity tabs shown by KIM to allow the proper connection between cell groups in parallel and series to prevent performance and safety problems (KIM, paragraph 0067).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon (US 20250183431 A1) in view of De Breucker et al. (US 20190013681 A1), Liu et al. (US 20230307720 A1), Liu et al. (US 20180034094 A1), and further in view of KIM (US 20190386259).
Regarding claim 20, modified Yoon in view of Liu et al. teaches the battery system in claim 16 as described above but does not teach a polarity of external tabs of at least one of the S battery cells of the first type is inverted relative to others of the S battery cells of the first type.
KIM teaches that the battery cells can have polarized tabs that can be inverted to allow proper connection between cells, such as serially connecting groups of parallelly connected cells (KIM, Fig. 8, paragraph 0067).
PNG
media_image1.png
283
517
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine the battery of modified Yoon as described regarding claim 16 with the inverted polarity tabs shown by KIM to allow the proper connection between cell groups in parallel and series to prevent performance and safety problems (KIM, paragraph 0067).
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 21, the closest prior art of record is Yoon (US 20250183431 A1) in view of Taylor et al. (US 20160105042 A1), De Breucker et al. (US 20190013681 A1), and Liu et al. (US 20230307720 A1) which discloses the limitations in claim 1. The references do not disclose wherein: the first cathode electrodes have a loading of 5 mAh/cm2, a specific capacity of 200 mAh/g, and a density of 3.3 g/cc; the first cathode active material is nickel cobalt manganese aluminum (NCMA),the first anode electrodes have a loading of 5.5 mAh/cm2, a specific capacity of 500 mAh/g, and a density of 1.5 g/cc; the first anode active material is graphite/silicon oxide (Gr/SiOx); the second cathode electrodes have a loading of 5 mAh/cm2,a specific capacity of 150 mAh/g, and a density of 2.0 g/cc; the second cathode active material is lithium manganese iron phosphate (LMFP), the second anode electrodes have a loading of 5.5 mAh/cm2, a specific capacity of 160 mAh/g, and a density 2.4 g/cc; the second anode active material is lithium titanium oxide (LTO). This limitation is not disclosed by the prior art; therefore, it is indicated as allowable subject matter. Claim 22 is indicated as containing allowable subject matter due to its dependence upon claim 21.
Regarding claim 23, the closest prior art of record is Yoon (US 20250183431 A1) in view of Taylor et al. (US 20160105042 A1), De Breucker et al. (US 20190013681 A1), and Liu et al. (US 20230307720 A1) which discloses the limitations in claim 1 and the second thickness of each T battery cell of the second is one quarter of the first thickness of each S battery cell of the first type. The references do not disclose wherein: a volumetric energy density ratio of the S battery cells of the first type to T battery cells of the second type is 2. This limitation is not disclosed by the prior art; therefore, it is indicated as allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SEAN ROBERT BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-0640. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 ET.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at (571)270-5516. 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.
/SEAN R. BROWN/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743