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 .
SECONDARY BATTERY, AND BATTERY MODULE, BATTERY PACK, AND ELECTRIC APPARATUS CONTAINING SAME
Examiner: Adam Arciero S.N. 18/155,059 Art Unit: 1727 March 6, 2026
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 06, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 11 and 13-20 are currently pending. Claims 1 and 11 have been amended. Claims 3, 5, 9-10 and 12 have been canceled.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tang and Mizuta on claims 1 and 3-20 are withdrawn because Applicant has amended the independent claim.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-8, 11, 13 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (WO 2021/108995 A1; using US 2022/0123366 A1 for citation purposes and as found in IDS dated 5/24/23) in view of Tang et al. (CN 112640163 A; using US 2023/0049766 A1 as an English equivalent for citation purposes; both as found in IDS dated 11/22/2024).
As to Claims 1, 4, 6, 13 and 20, Jiang discloses an electric apparatus comprising a secondary battery having a negative electrode comprising a collector and graphite active material (Abstract and paragraph [0040]); an electrolyte that comprises: an electrolyte salt such as LiPF6 or in an amount of 10-20% mass (paragraph [0039]), ethylene carbonate in an amount of 25-32 wt% ([Abstract and paragraph [0033]; same as the claimed high-dielectric constant solvent of claim 5); dimethyl carbonate or methyl acetate in an amount of up to 37.5 wt% (the chain carbonate is present in an amount of 68-75% and dimethyl carbonate is present in an amount of 9-50 wt% in the chain carbonate [Abstract]; percentage B; same as the claimed low-viscosity solvent of claim 2) (Abstract and paragraphs [0030, 0035, 0039]). It is the position of the Office that the ethylene carbonate solvent of Jiang intrinsically comprises the claimed viscosity and the dimethyl carbonate solvent of Jiang intrinsically comprises the claimed dielectric constant given that the solvents used in the prior art and the present invention are the same, see MPEP 2112. Jiang further teaches wherein the negative electrode active material layer comprises a porosity suitable for full infiltration of the electrolyte (paragraph [0063]); and the OI of the negative electrode active material layer is 8-12 (paragraph [0064]), and these values fall within or overlap with the claimed ranges. The courts have held that 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 addition, Jiang recognizes the porosity of the negative electrode as a result-effective variable in providing an electrode with full infiltration of the electrolyte (paragraph [0063]). The courts have held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, see MPEP 2144.05, II, B. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the B, C, P and OI of Jiang to read on the claims because Jiang teaches that the volume expansion of the electrode during cycling is reduced and the cycle performance of the battery can be improved (paragraphs [0034 and 0064]). Jiang does not specifically disclose the porosity; or the claimed CW for the negative active material.
However, Tang further teaches wherein the negative electrode active material layer comprises a porosity (P) of 20-45% (paragraph [0025]); a coating weight (CW) of the negative electrode active material layer of 0.095-.105 mg/mm2 (paragraph [0026]); and the OI of the negative electrode active material layer is 10-20 (paragraph [0024]), and these values fall within or overlap with the claimed ranges. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the P and CW of Jiang to read on the claims because Tang teaches that an improved battery can be provided (paragraph [0004]). In addition, the electrolyte and negative electrode active material of modified Jiang comprises all of the claimed characteristics of the claimed invention and therefore the teachings of modified Jiang read on the claimed relational expression. It is further the position of the Office that the electrolyte of Tang comprises the claimed conductivity and viscosity given that the materials used in the prior art and the claims are the same, see MPEP 2112.
As to Claims 7-8, Jiang discloses wherein the electrolyte can comprise diethyl carbonate and/or vinylene carbonate (paragraphs [0031 and 0037]).
As to Claim 11, Jiang teaches wherein the OI is of the negative electrode active material layer is 8-12 which is very close to the claimed range (paragraph [0064]). The courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close, see MPEP 2144.05, I. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the negative active material of Jiang to have the claimed OI because Tang teaches that an improved battery can be provided (paragraph [0004]).
As to Claim 17, Jiang discloses a negative electrode with 0 wt% silicon (reads on the claimed range) (example 1, paragraph [0144]).
As to Claim 18, Jiang teaches wherein the positive active material comprises a lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide (claim 14). Jiang does not specifically disclose the claimed formula.
However, Tang teaches of a positive active material represented by LiyNidM2eO2, wherein 0.8≤y≤1.2, 0.3≤d≤0.98, 0.02≤e≤0.7 and wherein M2 can be cobalt and/or manganese (paragraph [0076]). These ranges overlap with the claimed ranges, and the courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05, I. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the positive electrode active material of Jiang to read on the claims because Tang teaches that an improved battery can be provided (paragraph [0004]).
As to Claim 19, Jiang does not specifically disclose the claimed materials.
However, Tang discloses a positive electrode having an active material such as lithium titanate paragraph [0125]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the positive electrode active material of Jiang to read on the claims because Tang teaches that an improved battery can be provided (paragraph [0004]).
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (WO 2021/108995 A1; using US 2022/0123366 A1 for citation purposes and as found in IDS dated 5/24/23) in view of Tang et al. (CN 112640163 A; using US 2023/0049766 A1 as an English equivalent for citation purposes; both as found in IDS dated 11/22/2024) as applied to claims 1, 4, 6-8, 11, 13 and 17-20 above an in further view of Mizuta et al. (US 2008/0138704 A1).
As to Claim 14, modified Jiang does not specifically disclose the claimed electrolyte salt.
However, Mizuta teaches of a secondary battery having an electrolyte comprising a salt such as LiPF6 or NaClO4 in an amount of 0.1-50 mass% (percentage C) and artificial graphite or natural graphite for a negative active material (paragraphs [0157, 0123, 0125 and 0210]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the salt of Jiang to comprise NaClO4 in the claimed amount because Mizuta teaches that a negative electrode with conductivity and an electrolyte with improved ionic conductivity and excellent low temperature property are provided (Abstract).
As to Claim 15, modified Jiang does not specifically disclose wherein the active material further comprises one of the claimed materials.
However, Mizuta teaches of a negative electrode active material that can comprise graphite and silicon (paragraph [0209]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrode active material that further comprises silicon because Mizuta teaches that such a mela is capable of alloying with alkali metals and therefore can occlude and release lithium ions (paragraph [0209]).
As to Claim 16, Jiang discloses wherein the negative electrode further comprises carbon nanotubes (paragraph [0082]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM ARCIERO whose telephone number is (571)270-5116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5 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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ADAM A ARCIERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727