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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments, filed 03/17/26, have been fully considered. Claim(s) 1, 17, 19, and 20 is/are amended; claim(s) 4–11, 13, and 14 stand(s) as originally or previously presented; and claim(s) 2, 3, 12, 15, 16, 18, 21–24, and 28 is/are canceled; no new matter is entered. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection set forth in the Office Action mailed 12/29/25 has/have been withdrawn. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection below.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to for the following informalities:
In claim 10, line 3, “a thickness of the insulation layer” should read “[[a]] the thickness of the insulation layer” to denote proper antecedence from claim 1.
In claim 25, line 2, “0.5 ≤ B1/A1 < 0.8” should read “0.50 ≤ B1/A1 < 0.80” for consistent recitation based on claim 1’s “0.50 ≤ B1/A1 ≤ 0.80”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 27 is 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.
Claim 27 recites “2.1 mAh/cm2 ≤ B1 ≤ 2.8 mAh/cm2” (line 2). The intended scope is unclear given that claim 1 recites the narrower upper bound of “1.7 mAh/cm2 ≤ B1 ≤ 2.72 mAh/cm2” (line 18).
The instant 2.1–2.8 appears to be from Table 2, though such are exemplary embodiments and, thus, non-limiting. Nonetheless, for this Office Action claim 27 will be interpreted to require values commensurate with parent claim 1’s upper bound and, thus, a B1 of 2.1–2.72, which appears consistent with at least claim 1 and the broader disclosure. Appropriate correction is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 27 recites “2.1 mAh/cm2 ≤ B1 ≤ 2.8 mAh/cm2” (line 2). As claim 1 recites the narrower upper bound of “1.7 mAh/cm2 ≤ B1 ≤ 2.72 mAh/cm2” (line 18), it is unclear that claim 27 further limits claim 1. See 112(b) rejection for interpretation.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “an insulation layer and a reaction layer sequentially provided on a surface of the negative electrode active material layer on a side opposite to the negative electrode current collector” (lines 7 and 8). The specification appears devoid of a special definition of “sequentially”, so this term is given its plain meaning. Although ¶ 0074 and fig. 1 envisage an active material layer, insulating layer, and reaction layer, in this order, such are exemplary embodiments (see also ¶ 0029) and, thus, non-limiting. Thus, under broadest reasonable interpretation, two interpretations of the layers’ order exist: 1) active material layer, insulating layer, and reaction layer, in this order, or 2) active material layer, reaction layer, and insulating layer, in this order. For purposes of this Office Action, however, the prior-art rejections are based on interpretation 1), consistent with, e.g., fig. 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text forming the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 may be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, 19, 20, and 25–27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (JP 2010272357 A) in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 20190372154 A1) (Yamamoto) and El-Kady et al. (US 20220077496 A1) (El-Kady).
Regarding claims 1, 17, 19, 20, and 25–27, Suzuki discloses a battery pack (ref. 300, FIG. 7 and ¶ 0076) and a power consuming device (EV, FIG. 7), each comprising a secondary battery (e.g., ¶ 0045–0046, FIG. 4) comprising a positive electrode plate (positive active material layer 12 plus positive collector 11, FIG. 4); and a negative electrode plate (FIG. 4 plus annotated FIG. 2B below) comprising a negative electrode current collector (ref. 14, FIG. 4, as well as ref. 2, annotated FIG. 2B); a negative electrode active material layer provided on at least one surface of the negative electrode current collector (ref. 15, FIG. 4, as well as ref. 6A, annotated FIG. 2B; see also ¶ 0034); and
an insulation layer (stress-relaxing layer 8, annotated FIG. 2B; per, e.g., Ex. 2, ¶ 0081, polypropylene, i.e., an insulator, was used as this layer; see also electrically insulating metal oxides, ¶ 0030 and 0031).
Suzuki further discloses that the stress-relaxing layer may preferably be 5–30 μm because such a range provides effective and uniform stress relaxation of the negative active layer (¶ 0036) but fails to explicitly disclose a thickness of the insulation layer of 1–10 μm.
One skilled in the art, however, would appreciate that Suzuki’s layer must necessarily be thick enough for stress relaxation, while a too thick layer would necessarily impede ion diffusion into the active material layer by increasing the distance ions must travel. Considering that Suzuki is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery negative electrodes, to balance these effects, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art, before the claimed invention’s effective filing date, to arrive at the recited range by routinely optimizing the stress-relaxing layer’s thickness, including within 5–10 μm (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Suzuki further discloses that the material forming the stress-relaxing layer is not particularly limited as long as the material exerts stress relaxation (¶ 0030)—disclosing exemplary metal oxides such as oxides of Ni, Al, or Cu for excellent heat resistance to withstand heating during electrode manufacture (¶ 0031)—but fails to explicitly disclose that the insulation layer comprises at least one from the recited group.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely incorporate an insulation layer of, e.g., aluminum oxide, as taught by Suzuki, with the reasonable expectation of providing excellent heat resistance to withstand heating during electrode manufacture, as taught by Suzuki.
Suzuki further discloses a reaction layer (negative active layer 6B, annot. fig. 2B; in comprising, e.g., SiO (¶ 0078), this layer is reasonably interpreted to be a “reaction layer”, as in the instant layer’s silicon (sub)oxide in claim 1 and Table 1) sequentially provided on a side opposite to the negative electrode current collector (annot. fig. 2B), the reaction layer comprising silicon (sub)oxide (SiO, ¶ 0078 and 0080).
PNG
media_image1.png
117
399
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Though Suzuki is concerned with improving battery capacity (e.g., ¶ 0089), Suzuki fails to specify areal-capacity values of the electrodes and, thus, fails to explicitly disclose that a capacity per unit area, A1 (mAh/cm2), of a positive electrode active material layer in the positive electrode plate and a capacity per unit area, B1 (mAh/cm2), of the negative electrode active material layer in the negative electrode satisfy 0.50 ≤ B1/A1 ≤ 0.80 (claims 1, 19, and 20), 0.5 ≤ B1/A1 < 0.80 (claim 25), or 0.6 ≤ B1/A1 < 0.7 (claim 26).
Yamamoto teaches a lithium battery (e.g., Abstract and exs.) satisfying a p/n of 1.25–1.6, where p and n are the areal capacities of the positive and negative electrodes, respectively, each in mAh/cm2 (¶ 0027 and 0028). Such would yield a B1/A1 (i.e., n/p) of 0.625–0.8. Yamamoto teaches that, below 1.25—i.e., above B1/A1 of 0.8—the positive electrode’s potential becomes excessively high, which leads to electrolytic decomposition and gas generation (¶ 0034, 0035). Meanwhile, beyond 1.6—i.e., below B1/A1 of 0.625—the positive electrode’s capacity is excessively limited relative to the negative electrode’s, making energy density excessively low and causing resistance to increase due to excessive Li insertion (¶ 0035). Yamamoto teaches a more preferable p/n of at least 1.3 to less than 1.45—i.e., 0.69 ≤ B1/A1 ≤ 0.77—from the viewpoint of balancing energy density with gas suppression (¶ 0037).
Yamamoto is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely capacity considerations in batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure Suzuki’s positive and negative electrode active material layers to exhibit 0.69 < B1/A1 ≤ 0.77 with the reasonable expectation of preventing the positive electrode’s potential from excessively increasing to risk gas generation while ensuring proper energy density and preventing resistance from increasing, as taught by Yamamoto.
The B1/A1 of > 0.69 ≤ 0.77 satisfies 0.50 ≤ B1/A1 ≤ 0.80 (claims 1, 19, and 20) and 0.5 ≤ B1/A1 < 0.80 (claim 25). Further, regarding claim 26’s B1/A1 of 0.6 to less than 0.7, to balance preventing the positive electrode’s potential from excessively increasing to risk gas generation with ensuring proper energy density and preventing resistance from increasing, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited range by routinely optimizing the B1/A1, including within 0.69 to less than 0.7, as taught by Yamamoto (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Though Yamamoto further teaches that the electrodes’ p/n may be controlled by tailoring the coating amounts of the active-material slurries (¶ 0038), in appearing unconcerned with the specific values of such as long as the p/n ratio is maintained, modified Suzuki fails to specify the areal-capacity values and, thus, fails to explicitly disclose an A1 of 3–5 mAh/m2 (claims 1, 19, and 20), B1 of 1.7–2.72 mAh/cm2 (claims 1, 19, and 20), A1 of 3–4 mAh/cm2 (claim 17), or a B1 of 2.1–2.8 mAh/cm2 (claim 27).
El-Kady teaches a lithium battery (¶ 0003) where the cathode may exhibit an areal capacity of at least 1~6 mAh/cm2 (¶ 0013), while the anode may exhibit an areal capacity at least 1~7 mAh/cm2 (¶ 0048).
El-Kady is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely electrodes in secondary batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention's effective filing date, that each of Suzuki's electrodes must necessarily be incorporated with some loading and capacity while conforming to Yamamoto’s 0.69 < “B1/A1” ≤ 0.77, and, as demonstrated by El-Kady, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to incorporate the positive electrode active layer with a capacity of at least 1~6 mAh/cm2 and the negative electrode active layer with a capacity of at least 1~7 mAh/cm2 and reasonably expect to achieve electrodes with suitable capacity.
This A1 of at least 1~6 mAh/cm2 overlaps claims 1, 19, and 20’s A1 of 3–5 mAh/cm2 and claim 17’s A1 of 3–4 mAh/cm2, and the B1 of at least 1~7 mAh/cm2 overlaps claims 1, 19, and 20’s B1 of 1.7–2.72 mAh/cm2 and claim 27’s B1 of 2.1–2.8 mAh/cm2 (while considering 112(b)/(d) issues above). Importantly, in conforming to Yamamoto’s 0.69 < B1/A1 ≤ 0.77, to balance the above effects while ensuring sufficient capacity from each electrode, it would have been obvious to arrive at the respectively recited ranges by routinely optimizing each of B1 and A1, including within each of the overlapping portions (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, modified Suzuki discloses the secondary battery according to claim 1.
Suzuki further appears to disclose that a thickness of the reaction layer may be > 0 μm and ≤ 25 μm (e.g., per ¶ 0078, 0080, and 0081, the first active layer is 30 μm thick, the “insulation layer” may be 5–30 μm thick (¶ 0036), and the total negative electrode active material layer (active layers separated by stress-relaxing layer) is 60 μm thick, yielding a “reaction layer” thickness of 0 < x ≤ 25 μm) but fails to explicitly disclose a thickness of 1–30 μm (claim 9) or 2–30 μm (claim 10).
Importantly, as discussed above, Suzuki discloses that a 5–30 μm thick “insulation layer” provides sufficient stress relaxation of the negative active layer (¶ 0036), while one skilled in the art would recognize that a too thick insulation layer would necessarily impede ion diffusion into the active layer by increasing ions’ traversal distance. Meanwhile, Suzuki further discloses that the active layer is preferably 10–100 μm thick because this range provides sufficient battery capacity while suppressing increased internal resistance from difficult Li+ diffusion (¶ 0040). To balance these effects, then, it would have been obvious to arrive at each recited range by routinely optimizing the thickness of the “reaction layer”, including within 2–25 μm (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, modified Suzuki discloses the secondary battery according to claim 1.
Modified Suzuki further discloses that the negative electrode active material–-which would be in the “reaction layer”–-may form secondary particles with an average primary particle size of 10 nm to 1 μm (Suzuki, ¶ 0028), i.e., 0.010–1 μm, but fails to explicitly disclose that a particle size is 0.1–4 μm (claim 13) or 0.1–0.8 μm (claim 14).
In incorporating the active particles as secondary particles with an average primary particle size of 10 nm to 1 μm, this range overlaps and renders obvious the recited 0.1–4 μm and, further, 0.1–0.8 μm such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within each overlap with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful active material (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (JP 2010272357 A) in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 20190372154 A1) (Yamamoto) and El-Kady et al. (US 20220077496 A1) (El-Kady), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Kang et al. (US 20200220218 A1) (Kang) and as evidenced by Lu et al. (Silicon Monoxide as Anode Material for Lithium Ion Batteries) (Lu).
Regarding claim 4, modified Suzuki discloses the secondary battery according to claim 1.
Though modified Suzuki is concerned with improving capacity and energy density (Suzuki, e.g., ¶ 0026 and 0089), modified Suzuki fails to explicitly articulate the reaction layer’s density and, thus, fails to explicitly disclose the recited relation of claim 4.
Kang, in teaching a battery (Title), teaches incorporating the anode with a density of 1.65~1.9 g/cm3 for an energy-density-focused design (¶ 0116).
Kang is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery negative electrodes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that Suzuki’s negative electrode must necessarily be incorporated with some packing density, and, as demonstrated by Kang, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to incorporate the electrode–-and, thus, “reaction layer”, i.e., Suzuki’s second active material layer–-with a density of 1.65~1.9 g/cm3 to achieve sufficient energy density.
Examiner notes, then, that 1) the reaction layer exhibits a density of 1.65~1.9 g/cm3; 2) the reaction layer’s gram capacity is 1710 mAh/g (i.e., Suzuki’s SiO second active material, ¶ 0078 and 0080, which, as evidenced by Lu’s Abstract, exhibits a specific capacity, i.e., gram capacity, of 1710 mAh/g); 3) the reaction layer may be ~ 10 μm thick or appears optimizable to achieve this value (see claims 9 and 10 above and note that 10 μm is based on Suzuki’s Ex. 2’s second active layer’s apparent thickness and is exemplarily used in the below calculations to demonstrate that modified Suzuki can meet the relation); and 4) modified Suzuki’s A1 and B1 are each optimizable within at least 1~6 and at least 1~7 mAh/cm2, respectively (per El-Kady, as in claim 1).
Accordingly, modified Suzuki’s relation appears to satisfy claim 4’s relation, per the below calculations:
Upper Bound (ρ = 1.65, A1 ≈ 1, B1 ≈ 7):
7
-
1
1710
1.65
×
1000
-
15
≈
-
12.87
≤
10
≤
7
-
1
1710
1.65
×
1000
+
20
≈
22.13
Lower Bound (ρ = 1.9, A1 = 6, B1 ≈ 1):
1
-
6
1710
1.9
×
1000
-
15
=
-
16.54
≤
10
≤
1
-
6
1710
1.9
×
1000
+
20
=
18.46
More importantly, because modified Suzuki’s reaction layer’s thickness and A1/B1—and, thus, the specific values of each—are optimizable (see claims 9/10 and 1, respectively), the above relation also appears achievable through routine experimentation, absent demonstrated criticality.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (JP 2010272357 A) in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 20190372154 A1) (Yamamoto) and El-Kady et al. (US 20220077496 A1) (El-Kady), as applied to claim 1, as evidenced by Lu et al. (Silicon Monoxide as Anode Material for Lithium Ion Batteries) (Lu).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, modified Suzuki discloses the secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein a gram capacity m1 of the reaction layer satisfies m1 ≥ 150 mAh/g and, more specifically, 1000 mAh/g ≤ m1 ≤ 2500 mAh/g (note SiO in “reaction layer”, Suzuki, ¶ 0078 and 0080; as evidenced by Lu, Abstract, SiO’s specific capacity, i.e., gram capacity, is 1710 mAh/g; note, additionally, that Suzuki’s SiO is substantially similar to the instant specification’s reaction layer’s comprising silicon suboxide (Tables 1 & 2), and, thus, Suzuki’s SiO’s gram capacity would necessarily fall within the recited range, absent evidence otherwise (MPEP 2112.01 (I)).
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (JP 2010272357 A) in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 20190372154 A1) (Yamamoto) and El-Kady et al. (US 20220077496 A1) (El-Kady), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Kang et al. (US 20200220218 A1) (Kang).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, modified Suzuki discloses the secondary battery according to claim 1.
Though Suzuki is concerned with improving capacity and energy density (e.g., ¶ 0026 and 0089), Suzuki fails to explicitly the reaction layer’s density and, thus, fails to explicitly disclose a density of 0.2 g/cm3 ≤ ρ ≤ 3 g/cm3 (claim 7) or 1 g/cm3 ≤ ρ ≤ 2 g/cm3 (claim 8).
Kang, in teaching a battery (Title), teaches incorporating the anode with a density of 1.65~1.9 g/cm3 for an energy-density-focused design (¶ 0116).
Kang is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery negative electrodes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that Suzuki’s negative electrode must necessarily be incorporated at some packing density, and, as demonstrated by Kang, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to incorporate the electrode–-and, thus, “reaction layer”, i.e., Suzuki’s second active material layer–-with a density of 1.65~1.9 g/cm3—falling within 0.2 g/cm3 ≤ ρ ≤ 3 g/cm3 and 1 g/cm3 ≤ ρ ≤ 2 g/cm3—to achieve sufficient energy density.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (JP 2010272357 A) in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 20190372154 A1) (Yamamoto) and El-Kady et al. (US 20220077496 A1) (El-Kady), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Roumi (US 20130224632 A1).
Regarding claim 11, modified Suzuki discloses the secondary battery according to claim 1.
Suzuki further discloses the stress-relaxing layer (¶ 0031) yet, while further disclosing that the stress-relaxing layer relaxes stress from expansion/contraction of the negative electrode material during Li+ absorption/release (¶ 0029)—and, thus, would reasonably be somewhat elastic to absorb such stress—Suzuki fails to explicitly articulate the layer’s Young’s modulus and, thus, fails to explicitly disclose a modulus of ≥ 6 GPa and, specifically, 6–30 GPa.
Roumi, in teaching electrochemical cells with highly mechanically strong insulation layers between the electrodes (Abstract; see also, e.g., FIG. 7), wherein the layers may comprise ceramics such as alumina (e.g., ¶ 0083), teaches that such layers should exhibit relatively high Young’s moduli—e.g., at least 10 GPa—because such prevents the electrodes from shorting due to dendrite growth and external objects in the cell such as metallic particles from fabrication (¶ 0195).
Roumi is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely insulating layers in electrochemical cells.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Suzuki’s stress-relaxing, i.e., insulating, layer with a Young’s modulus ≥ 10 GPa, as taught by Roumi, with the reasonable expectation of preventing electrode shorting due to dendrite growth and the presence of other external objects in the cell, as taught by Roumi.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 19, and 20 have been considered. Applicant’s amendment overcame the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection—which, as noted above, has been withdrawn—and necessitated the new grounds of rejection citing the new reference(s) Yamamoto, as established above. Examiner respectfully disagrees with the remaining arguments as follows:
Applicant argues that the B1/A1 of 0.50–0.80 is critical because below this range (Ex. 1–4 of Table 1), although volumetric energy density is high, cycle life is degraded, whereas above this range (Ex. 8–10), the opposite occurs. Examiner respectfully disagrees because Yamamoto appears to predict similar effects within the recited range.
As discussed, Yamamoto teaches that, below p/n of 1.25—i.e., above B1/A1 of 0.8—the positive electrode’s potential becomes excessively high, which leads to electrolytic decomposition and gas generation—both of which are well understood to degrade cycle characteristics. Meanwhile, beyond p/n of 1.6—i.e., below B1/A1 of 0.625—the positive electrode’s capacity is excessively limited relative to the negative electrode’s, making energy density excessively low and causing resistance to increase due to excessive Li insertion. Although Yamamoto’s trends may be opposite Applicant’s, Yamamoto demonstrates that the skilled artisan would have been apprised of differences within 0.5–0.8 and would have arrived at this range by routinely balancing the above factors.
Applicant then argues that Table 3 demonstrates that the insulation and reaction layers are synergistic with the B1/A1. Examiner respectfully notes that unexpected results must compare to the closest prior art (MPEP 716.02(e)), where Suzuki, as the primary reference, simply discloses the insulation and reaction layers. Thus, in considering the synergism when adding Yamamoto’s B1/A1, again, such results would seem overall expected given Yamamoto recognizes differences within the instant range.
Applicant then notes that Table 2 shows the effects of different variables. However, as Applicant seems to acknowledge, these examples vary multiple parameters (e.g., active material, insulation material, density, thickness, etc.) simultaneously, so it is unclear that a given variable(s) is/are critical. Further, again, Yamamoto seems to demonstrate that the B1/A1 of 0.50–0.80 is not critical.
Finally, assuming, arguendo, that the B1/A1 were critical, it appears that the results are incommensurate with claim 1 (or 19/20) at least as follows:
Claim 1 allows many types of negative active materials in the active layer and reaction layer, while the skilled artisan would understand that these materials exhibit different capacities and perform differently electrochemically (e.g., Si materials known to exhibit higher capacity than graphite but experience higher volume expansion during (dis)charge, as in Suzuki’s ¶ 0005 and 0006). It is unclear if such results would occur across all of these active materials.
Claim 1 allows any thickness and density of the reaction layer, whereas ¶ 0011 and 0012 envisage a specific relation between these variables and the B1/A1 (reflected in claim 4) to ensure safety and cycle performance. It is unclear if such cycle-life results would occur without this relation.
Claim 1 allows any positive active material, whereas ¶ 0070 envisages lithium metal oxides and phosphates. As such materials are known to exhibit different capacities, it is unclear if such results would occur using, e.g., a sulfur electrode.
Claim 1 allows any type of electrolyte, whereas the skilled artisan would recognize that cycle-life characteristics are based on electrolyte availability and, thus, electrolyte type. It is unclear if the results would occur for any electrolyte.
Claim 1 allows any particle size for the negative active material. As the skilled artisan would recognize that particle size affects Li+-diffusion distance (as in spec.’s ¶ 0058) and, thus, electrolyte availability and cycle-life characteristics, it is unclear if substantially similar results would occur using, e.g., 50 nm active material as 50 μm material.
Claim 1 allows any concentration of active material in either electrode. As the skilled artisan would recognize that active-material concentration affects capacity and cycling characteristics, it is unclear if substantially similar results would occur at, e.g., 70 wt% active material as at 95% in either electrode. The same is true for the other battery components such as binder and conductor (e.g., unclear if results would occur at 1 ppb binder).
Thus, absent additional evidence or declaration explaining each of these discrepancies, per MPEP 716.02(d), this argument is further unpersuasive.
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 JOHN S MEDLEY whose telephone number is (703)756-4600. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00–5:00 EST M–Th and 8:00–12:00 EST 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 on 571-270-192. 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.
/J.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 4/6/2026