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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on February 25th 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-10 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s arguments to the previous rejections of the claims were fully considered but are not persuasive. The amendments to Claim 1 do not overcome the previous 103 rejections of the claims, and therefore the rejections are maintained. New rejections follow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 8 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 8 recites “the conductive layer having an outer shape that substantially conforms to an inner shape of the battery can”, and previous Claim 1, from which Claim 8 depends, recites the identical claim limitation “conductive layer having an outer shape that substantially conforms to an inner shape of the battery can”. Claim 8 fails to further limit the subject matter of Claim 1, from which it depends, and therefore Claim 8 has an improper dependent form. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-5 & 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. US 2021/0043881 A1 in further view of Lee et al. US 2018/0212273 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Wang discloses a battery cell [0027] comprising an electrode assembly (layers of a battery structure comprising current collectors, active material layers, and a separator) [0027] and a liquid electrolyte (electrolyte) [0029], and further discloses a battery can (housing) [0032] containing the electrode assembly and the liquid electrolyte (as shown in Figure 3 with housing 205 containing electrode assembly 305 and separator 312 [0036-0037], which holds the electrolyte [0029]).
Wang discloses that the electrolyte liquid comprises salt compounds dissolved in organic solvents [0029], and that the electrolyte is conductive (provides useful ion conductivities) [0030]. Wang discloses that the electrolyte liquid is injected into the battery cell [0049] and partially absorbed into a wrapping which surrounds the electrode assembly (Figure 4a Item 410) [0051], and further discloses that the wrapping comprises a grafted polymer such as polyethylene, which is a cross-linkable polymer, with siloxanes [0053], which are crosslinking agents with polyethylene. Thus, Wang discloses a conductive layer disposed between the electrode assembly and the battery can (liquid electrolyte that is conductive and comprises an organic solvent, absorbed by wrapping that comprises a cross-linkable polymer and a cross-linking agent, wherein the wrapping surrounds the electrode assembly). Additionally, Wang discloses that the conductive layer is polymeric [0052-0053], and therefore would be expected to “substantially conform” to the inner shape of the battery can (housing/enclosure), which is a rigid structure [0032], also shown in Annotated Wang Figure 4D.
However, Wang fails to specifically disclose a liquid solution that comprises an organic solvent, a cross-linkable polymer, and a cross-linking agent, wherein the liquid solution is converted into a conductive layer.
Lee discloses a battery cell comprising an electrode assembly [0018, 0076] and a liquid electrolyte (liquefied electrolyte solution) [0039], and further discloses a battery can (battery case) [0040, 0076] containing the electrode assembly and the liquid electrolyte [0040-0042, 0076]. Lee further discloses a liquid solution (mixed liquid) [0024] that comprises a cross-linkable polymer (electrolyte solution component that is a polymer in a liquefied monomer and/or oligomer state [0029] that also includes conductive lithium compounds [0030]), and a cross-linking agent (polymerization initiator) [0024, 0037].
In their invention, Lee discloses that the liquid solution (mixed liquid) is impregnated into pores of a separator material and polymerized for the benefit of structural stability of the separator layer [0027]. Lee discloses that the porous separator is made of polyethylene [0010], similar to the wrapping of Wang, which Wang additionally discloses can be the same material as a separator [0051].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the mixed liquid of Lee in the battery cell of Wang, which would result in a liquid solution comprised of Wang’s liquid electrolyte and Lee’s mixed liquid impregnating the pores of the polyethylene wrapping of Wang, and polymerized, to achieve wrapping with improved structural stability.
Thus modified Wang discloses a liquid solution (combination of Wang’s liquid electrolyte and Lee’s mixed liquid) that comprises an organic solvent [Wang 0029], a cross-linkable polymer [Lee 0029], and a cross-linking agent [Lee 0024, 0036] that is converted into a conductive layer (impregnated into pores of wrapping and polymerized as disclosed by Lee [Lee 0027]; electrolyte of Wang is conductive [Wang 0030]) disposed between electrode assembly and battery can (the wrapping surrounds the electrode assembly [Wang 0040, 0049]). By incorporating Lee’s mixed liquid with Wang’s liquid electrolyte to disclose a liquid solution, the liquid solution would thus be disposed at a bottom portion of the battery can, as when the liquid solution (modified liquid electrolyte of Wang incorporating mixed liquid of Lee) is injected into the battery cell [Wang 0033], the liquid solution would thus be throughout the battery cell [Wang 0050-0051], and therefore the liquid solution would be disposed at the bottom.
Regarding Claim 2, as mentioned with regards to Claim 1, modified Wang discloses that the conductive layer (wrapping impregnated with combined liquid solution of Wang and Lee) is the reaction product (polymerized liquid solution) of a cross-linkable polymer (electrolyte solution component of Lee) and a cross-linking agent (polymerization initiator of Lee) [Lee 0029, 0037], wherein the organic solvent (within the electrolyte liquid of Wang) is contained within the reaction product (polymerized liquid solution).
Regarding Claim 3, as mentioned with regards to Claims 1 & 2, modified Wang discloses that the reaction product is a polymer matrix containing the organic solvent (polymerized liquid solution in pores of wrapping containing organic solvent).
Regarding Claim 4, Wang discloses that the electrode assembly comprises an electrode stack [0037] comprising at least one separator layer (separator 312 Figure 3), at least one anode (an anode 307 Figure 3), and at least one cathode (a cathode 309 Figure 3) [0037]. As shown in Annotated Figure 3 below, Wang discloses that the anode is stacked on a first side of the separator and has a first length, and the cathode is stacked on a second side of the separator opposite of the first side and has a second length. Also shown in Annotated Figure 3 below, Wang discloses that one of the first length and the second length is longer than another of the first length and the second length (in this case, the first length is longer than the second length).
PNG
media_image1.png
375
563
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3
Regarding Claim 5, as shown in Annotated Figures 4b & 4d below, modified Wang discloses that the conductive layer is in contact with an end portion of at least one anode and spaced apart from an end portion of at least one cathode:
PNG
media_image2.png
364
1113
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figures 4b & 4d
Regarding Claim 8, modified Wang discloses that the conductive layer is polymeric [Wang 0052-0053], and therefore would be expected to “substantially conform” to the inner shaped of the battery can (housing/enclosure), which is a rigid structure [0032].
Regarding Claim 9, modified Wang discloses that the liquid solution (liquid electrolyte of Wang combined with mixed liquid of Lee) includes an ion conducting salt [Wang 0029-0030].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Lee as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Yu et al. US 2019/0067729 A1.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Wang is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 4, however is silent as to a protective film wrap comprising perforations.
Yu discloses a battery cell (electrochemical device) comprising an electrode stack (stack having at least one electrochemical cell with electrodes and a separator) [Abstract]. Yu discloses that the electrode stack comprises a protective film wrap (external housing or cladding 218 Figure 5) [0079]. Yu further discloses that the protective film wrap comprises an absorbent material layer comprising pores [0080], thus includes perforations.
Yu discloses that the protective film wrap (cladding) is impermeable to outside liquids and contaminants [0079], and the absorbent material layer of the cladding is electrically insulating and stable with the electrolyte and electrode stack [0079], thus providing protection and stability to the battery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the cladding of Yu as a protective film wrap in the battery of modified Wang to provide a battery with an electrode stack comprising a protective film wrap including perforations (pores of the absorbent material layer) to achieve protection for outside liquids and contaminants and stability within the battery.
Regarding Claim 7, Yu discloses that the cladding comprising the porous absorbent material layer absorbs liquid electrolyte into the pores [Yu 0079], thus modified Wang with the modification Yu’s protective film wrap (cladding) discloses that the perforations (pores of the absorbent material layer) facilitate infusion of the liquid solution (electrolyte of Wang) into the protective film wrap (cladding comprising porous absorbent material layer).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Lee as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Septiana et al. “Comparative study on the ionic conductivities and redox properties of LiPF6 and LiTFSI electrolytes and the characteristics of their rechargeable lithium ion batteries”.
Regarding Claim 10, Wang discloses that the ion conducting salt (lithium salt) has a conductivity of greater than or equal to 5-10 mS/cm [0030], however does not specifically disclose that the minimum conductivity is closer to the claimed value. Wang is also silent as to the specific lithium salt used.
Septiana discloses a comparison study of lithium salts for electrolytes in lithium batteries [Abstract], mainly comparing the commonly used lithium salt LiPF6 with a promising alternative lithium salt LiTFSI [Introduction]. Septiana further discloses that LiTFSI has an ionic conductivity of 2.7mS/cm [Results and Discussion], or 2.7x10-3 S/cm, which falls within the claimed range (minimum ionic conductivity of 1.0x10-5 S/cm).
Septiana discloses that LiTFSI has a higher ionic conductivity and higher capacity than the commonly used LiPF6, and overall superior characteristics as an electrolyte [Conclusions].
In the absence of a specific lithium salt disclosed by Wang, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to similar disclosures to find the suggestion to use LiTSFI as a lithium salt in an electrolyte for a battery, as suggested by Septiana, and select LiTSFI as the ion conducting salt, which has a conductivity of 2.7x10-3 S/cm, which reads on the claim limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the combination of Wang and Lee fail to disclose the limitations of amended Claim 1. Examiner respectfully points out that, as stated in the rejection above, Wang discloses a liquid electrolyte that is injected into a battery cell, that is partially absorbed in a polyethylene wrapping surrounding an electrode stack assemble. Wang does not specifically disclose a liquid solution that comprises an organic solvent, a cross-linkable polymer, and a cross-linking agent, wherein the liquid solution is converted into a conductive layer. Lee, in a similar disclosure to that of Wang, discloses a liquid solution (mixed liquid) comprising a cross-linkable polymer (electrolyte solution component that is a polymer in a liquefied monomer and/or oligomer state that also includes conductive lithium compounds) and a cross-linking agent (polymerization initiator), and further discloses that the liquid solution is impregnated into pores of a polyethylene separator and polymerized for the benefit of improved structural stability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the mixed liquid of Lee in addition to the liquid electrolyte of Wang into the battery cell of Wang to thereby provide a liquid solution (Lee and Wang) comprising an organic solvent, a cross-linkable polymer, and a cross-linking agent that is converted into a conductive layer (impregnated into pores of wrapping and polymerized as disclosed by Lee; electrolyte of Wang is conductive) disposed between electrode assembly and battery can (the wrapping surrounds the electrode assembly). By incorporating Lee’s mixed liquid with Wang’s liquid electrolyte to disclose a liquid solution, the liquid solution would thus be disposed at a bottom portion of the battery can, as when the liquid solution (modified liquid electrolyte of Wang incorporating mixed liquid of Lee) is injected into the battery cell, the liquid solution would thus be throughout the battery cell, and therefore the liquid solution would be disposed at the bottom. Additionally, Wang discloses that the wrapping is a polymeric material, and would thus “substantially conform” to the inner shape of the battery can. Thus, modified Wang reads on the limitations of amended Claim 1. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANNA E GOULD whose telephone number is (571)270-1088. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/A.E.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/DANIEL P MALLEY JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726