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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/08/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 06/08/2026 have been entered, and overcomes the 103 rejection as previously set forth in final office action mailed 03/09/2026
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.
Claims 1-2,5,7, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20160372741-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Chung’ in view of (US-20200303783-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Sekiguchi’ in view of (US-20230246221-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Jun’
Regarding Claim 1,
Chung teaches a negative electrode material which is a spirally wound stack (see Fig. 1) comprising an active material- containing layer and a current collector on which the active material-containing layer is provided (Chung, “The negative electrode 3 may be manufactured by preparing a composition for forming a negative electrode active material layer through mixing of a negative electrode active material, a binder and, selectively, a conductive material, and then by spreading the composition on negative electrode current collector such as copper foil.”, see [0054]), wherein a moisture content of the negative electrode material measured by a Karl Fischer method is in a range of 2000 ppm or more and 10,000 ppm or less (Chung, “In particular, the content of the moisture in the core of the negative electrode active material may be 500 to 2000 ppm.”, see [0046])(The examiner notes that the material makes up most of the electrode)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range 500 ppm to 2000 ppm overlaps the claimed range of 2000ppm or more and 10,000 ppm or less. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Chung does not teach the active material-containing layer comprising at least one of niobium titanium oxide or titanium dioxide.
Sekiguchi teaches the active material-containing layer comprising at least one of niobium titanium oxide or titanium dioxide (Sekiguchi, “The negative electrode active material includes one or two or more compounds selected from the group consisting of titanium oxide, lithium titanium oxide, and lithium titanium composite oxide. Examples of lithium titanium composite oxides include niobium titanium oxide and sodium niobium titanium oxide.”, [0053])
Sekiguchi teaches that this negative electrode has a small volume change (Sekiguchi, “. Since each compound has a Li storage potential in a range of 1.4 V (vs. Li/Li+) or more and 2 V (vs. Li/Li+) or less, for example, a high electromotive force can be obtained by combining with, for example, lithium manganese oxide as a positive electrode active material. Among these, lithium titanium oxide having a spinel structure is more preferable because the volume change due to charge and discharge reaction is extremely small.”, see [0058]).
Chung and Sekiguchi are analogous as they are both of the same field of battery materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electroactive material as taught in Chung to the one as taught in Sekiguchi in order have a material with smaller volume change.
Modified Chung does not teach a spiral excluding a separator.
Jun teaches a spiral excluding a separator (Jun, “On the other hand, the electrode sheet may be moved or carried out in the wound state on a roll during or after the process described above, and may be packaged to minimize the influence of external air or moisture when moving or taking it out.”, see [0007])
Jun teaches that the spiral formation of the electrode before final battery assembly allows for minimization of air or moisture influence (Jun, “On the other hand, the electrode sheet may be moved or carried out in the wound state on a roll during or after the process described above, and may be packaged to minimize the influence of external air or moisture when moving or taking it out. In order to minimize a defect rate of a final product, although the electrodes in the state before the assembly must be protected from the external environment, it is a fact that the electrode has been mainly packaged manually because there is no known electrode packaging device or known electrode packaging method in the prior art. ”, see [0007]).
Modified Chung and Jun are analogous as they are both of the same field of battery manufacturing and moisture.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrode as taught in Modified Chung to be spiral formed without the separator after manufacturing, as taught in Jun, in order to minimize contact to the air and damage caused by air or changes in moisture.
Regarding Claim 2,
Modified Chung teaches the negative electrode material according to claim 1, further comprising at least one of carboxymethylcellulose or a carboxymethylcellulose salt (Sekiguchi, “Examples of a binder include polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVdF), fluorocarbon rubber, ethylene-butadiene rubber, polypropylene (PP), polyethylene (PE), carboxymethylcellulose (CMC),”, see [0067]).
Regarding Claim 5,
Modified Chung teaches the negative electrode material according to claim 1, wherein the niobium titanium oxide comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of niobium titanium oxide represented by the general formula LixTi1-yM1yNb2-zM2zO7+δ and niobium titanium oxide represented by the general formula LixTi1-yM3y+zNb2-zO7-δ, where M1 is at least one selected from the group consisting of Zr, Si, and Sn, M2 is at least one selected from the group consisting of V, Ta, and Bi, M3 is at least one selected from the group consisting of Mg, Fe, Ni, Co, W, Ta, and Mo, x satisfies 0 ≤ x ≤ 5, y satisfies 0 ≤ y < 1, z satisfies 0 ≤ z < 2, and δ satisfies -0.3 ≤δ≤ 0.3 (Sekiguchi, “Examples of niobium titanium oxide include LiaTiMbNb2±βO7±σ (0≤a≤5, 0≤b≤0.3, 0≤β≤0.3, 0≤σ≤0.3, and M is at least one element selected from a group consisting of Fe, V, Mo, and Ta).”, see [0056]).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0≤a≤5, 0≤b≤0.3, 0≤β≤0.3, 0≤σ≤0.3 broadly overlaps the claimed range of 0 ≤ x ≤ 5, y satisfies 0 ≤ y < 1, z satisfies 0 ≤ z < 2, and δ satisfies -0.3 ≤δ≤ 0.3. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 7,
Modified Chung teaches the negative electrode material according to claim 1, wherein the titanium dioxide comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of monoclinic titanium dioxide, anatase titanium dioxide, rutile titanium dioxide, and bronze titanium dioxide (Sekiguchi, “Examples of titanium oxides include titanium oxides having a monoclinic structure, titanium oxides having a rutile structure, and titanium oxides having an anatase structure. The titanium oxide of each crystal structure can be represented by the composition before charging being TiO2, and the composition after charging being LixTiO2 (x is 0≤x)”, see [0054]).
Regarding Claim 10,
Modified Chung teaches the negative electrode material according to claim 1, wherein the active material containing layer further comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of lithium titanate having a ramsdellite structure, lithium titanate having a spinel structure, hollandite type titanium composite oxide, and orthorhombic titanium composite oxide (Sekiguchi, “Examples of lithium titanium oxides include spinel-type lithium titanium oxides (for example, general formula Li4+xTi5O12 (x is −1≤x≤3)”, see [0055]).
Regarding Claim 12,
Modified Chung teaches the negative electrode material according to claim 1, wherein the precursor is subjected to cutting. (Sekiguchi, “Thereafter, the laminate was dried in a vacuum oven at 130° C. for two hours and then punched into a circle having a diameter of 10 mm. The basis weight per unit area of the obtained positive electrode was 150 g/m2 and the density was 1.94 g/cm3.”, see [0207])
Claims 3,4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20160372741-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Chung’ in view of (US-20200303783-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Sekiguchi’ in view of (US-20230246221-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Jun’ , in view of (US-20210234158-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Washida’
Regarding Claim 3,
Modified Chung does not teach the negative electrode material according to claim 1, wherein the moisture content is in a range of 3000 ppm or more and 10,000 ppm or less.
Washida teaches wherein the moisture content is in a range of 3000 ppm or more and 10,000 ppm or less (Washida, “the moisture content (mass ppm) of the active material as measured up to 250° C. by the Karl-Fischer method may be, for example, 100 ppm or more, 150 ppm or more, 200 ppm or more, 250 ppm or more, 300 ppm or more, 350 ppm or more, 380 ppm or more, or 400 ppm or more, and the moisture content may be, for example, 10000 ppm or less, 6000 ppm or less, 3500 ppm or less, or 3000 ppm or less.”, see [0056])(The examiner notes that this the active material, but the active material makes up the majority of the electrode).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 100 ppm to 10,000 ppm broadly overlaps the claimed range of 3000 ppm or more and 10,000 ppm or less. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Washida teaches that an ideal amount of moisture can lead to a favorable interface (Washida, “ However, the inventors of the present invention have conducted research and found that, even in the case in which the moisture content of the active material is excessively low, the interface resistance between the active material and the sulfide solid electrolyte is likely to increase. The inventors of the present invention consider the reason for this as follows: when a small amount of moisture is present on the active material, the active material comes into closer contact with the sulfide solid electrolyte, and thus a favorable interface is formed, which reduces the interface resistance. The water to be measured for the moisture content of the active material includes both adhering water and water of crystallization contained in the active material.”, see [0062]).
Modified Chung and Washida are analogous as they are both of the same field of battery materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electroactive material as taught in Chung to the one as taught in Washida in order have form a favorable interface with the electrolyte.
Regarding Claim 4,
Modified Chung does not teach the negative electrode material according to claim 1, wherein the moisture content is in a range of 3000 ppm or more and 10,000 ppm or less
Washida teaches wherein the moisture content is in a range of 3000 ppm or more and 10,000 ppm or less (Washida, “the moisture content (mass ppm) of the active material as measured up to 250° C. by the Karl-Fischer method may be, for example, 100 ppm or more, 150 ppm or more, 200 ppm or more, 250 ppm or more, 300 ppm or more, 350 ppm or more, 380 ppm or more, or 400 ppm or more, and the moisture content may be, for example, 10000 ppm or less, 6000 ppm or less, 3500 ppm or less, or 3000 ppm or less.”, see [0056])(The examiner notes that this the active material, but the active material makes up the majority of the electrode)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 100 ppm to 10,000 ppm broadly overlaps the claimed range of 3000 ppm or more and 10,000 ppm or less. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Washida teaches that an ideal amount of moisture can lead to a favorable interface (Washida, “ However, the inventors of the present invention have conducted research and found that, even in the case in which the moisture content of the active material is excessively low, the interface resistance between the active material and the sulfide solid electrolyte is likely to increase. The inventors of the present invention consider the reason for this as follows: when a small amount of moisture is present on the active material, the active material comes into closer contact with the sulfide solid electrolyte, and thus a favorable interface is formed, which reduces the interface resistance. The water to be measured for the moisture content of the active material includes both adhering water and water of crystallization contained in the active material.”, see [0062]).
Modified Chung and Washida are analogous as they are both of the same field of battery materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electroactive material as taught in Chung to the one as taught in Washida in order have form a favorable interface with the electrolyte.
Regarding Claim 6,
Modified Chung teaches the negative electrode material according to claim 4, wherein the niobium titanium oxide comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of niobium titanium oxide represented by the general formula LixTi1-yM1yNb2-zM2zO7+δ and niobium titanium oxide represented by the general formula LixTi1-yM3y+zNb2-zO7-δ, where M1 is at least one selected from the group consisting of Zr, Si, and Sn, M2 is at least one selected from the group consisting of V, Ta, and Bi, M3 is at least one selected from the group consisting of Mg, Fe, Ni, Co, W, Ta, and Mo, x satisfies 0 ≤ x ≤ 5, y satisfies 0 ≤ y < 1, z satisfies 0 ≤ z < 2, and δ satisfies -0.3 ≤δ≤ 0.3 (Sekiguchi, “Examples of niobium titanium oxide include LiaTiMbNb2±βO7±σ (0≤a≤5, 0≤b≤0.3, 0≤β≤0.3, 0≤σ≤0.3, and M is at least one element selected from a group consisting of Fe, V, Mo, and Ta).”, see [0056]).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0≤a≤5, 0≤b≤0.3, 0≤β≤0.3, 0≤σ≤0.3 broadly overlaps the claimed range of 0 ≤ x ≤ 5, y satisfies 0 ≤ y < 1, z satisfies 0 ≤ z < 2, and δ satisfies -0.3 ≤δ≤ 0.3. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20160372741-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Chung’ in view of (US-20200303783-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Sekiguchi’ in view of (US-20230246221-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Jun’, in further view of ‘Toward practical all-solid-state lithium-ion batteries with high energy density and safety: Comparative study for electrodes fabricated by dry- and slurry-mixing processes’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Nam’
Regarding Claim 11,
Modified Chung does not teach the negative electrode material according to claim 1,wherein the active material-containing layer further comprises a lithium-ion conductive solid electrolyte.
Nam teaches the electrode material according to claim 1, further comprising a lithium-ion conductive solid electrolyte (Nam, “The premixing process was carried out by milling a mixture of NCM622 and SE powders with ZrO2 balls at 1000 rpm for 6 min using Thinky Mixer. LiNbO3.”, Experimental).
Nam teaches that this can improve electrochemical performance (Nam, “scalable process for premixing active materials and SEs prior to preparation of the slurry, as the proof-of-concept for achieving more intimate contacts, was demonstrated to significantly improve electrochemical performance, Conclusion).
Sekiguchi and Nam are analogous as they are both of the same field of battery cathode materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrode material as taught in Modified Chung to the material as taught in Nam in order to improve the ion transport kinetics and in turn the overall performance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pg. 7, the applicant argues:
“Therefore, Sekiguchi and Hanazaki fail to teach or suggest, at least, [a] negative electrode material which is a spirally wound stack comprising an active material-containing layer and a
current collector on which the active material-containing layer is provided, and excluding a separator,”
The examiner finds this convincing and has added to the record ‘Jun’ which teaches a roll without a separator prior to the formation of the full cell. This roll is analogous to the instant application which describes the roll as wound and stored (see [0046]). Jun states that this allows for the control of moisture and, therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Chung to roll the electrode in order to control moisture.
On pg. 9, the applicant argues:
“Because Hanazaki teaches that the positive and negative electrodes need very different moisture levels for different reasons, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to apply the moisture range that Hanazaki specified for the positive electrode material to the negative electrode material, or vice versa.”
The examiner finds this convincing. In view of amendments narrowing electrode to the negative electrode, the teachings of Hanazaki are moot. The examiner has found ‘Chung’ which teaches negative electrode material with the claimed moisture content. The material in Chung makes up the majority of the electrode.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAMUS PATRICK MCNULTY whose telephone number is (703)756-1909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00am to 5pm.
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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/S.P.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights