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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10 June 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s most recent response (10 June 2025) amended claim 1; claims 8-10 remain cancelled. Claims 1-7, and 11-14 are pending and considered in the present Office action.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection(s) is/are maintained for the following reasons.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has narrowed the amount of the core-shell particles in the battery with respect to the total weight of the electrolyte (i.e., from 2 wt% - 18 wt% to 5 wt% - 10 wt%) and argued unexpected results. Applicant’s amendment and remarks appear to try to establish the newly cited claimed range (e.g., amount of particles is between 5 wt%-10 wt%) as providing unexpected results. A successful showing of unexpected results regarding a narrower range than was originally claimed/taught would bring forth a new matter issue, as it would show that the newly claimed range is a different invention than the originally disclosed range. See MPEP 2163(I)(B). No new matter issue has been made at this time, as arguments of unexpected results are not persuasive.
The prior art suggests the amended range of 5 wt% to 10 wt%; that is, Aichi’s teaching of 1-20 wt% overlaps with the amended range of 5 wt%-10 wt% with the expectation of maintaining battery performance, see page 8 of Final Office action from 19 May 2025. Thus, the amended claims are still obvious over the prior art.
Applicant argues the claimed range of the core/shell (i.e., 93-99 wt%/1-7 wt%) is critical. As stated in the last action, the criticality of the claimed range (e.g., 1-7 wt%) is not persuasive because there is an insufficient number of data points both inside and outside the claimed range (MPEP 716.02(d)). In short, this argument was not persuasive because the shell data presented (i.e., data inside the claimed range (1-7 wt%) and data outside the claimed range(< 1 wt% and >7 wt%)) have different variables (i.e., amounts of core-shell particles in the secondary battery based on a total weight of the electrolyte), which makes the data difficult to compare, and may lead to a false conclusion.
Claim 1 recites the shell is 1 w% - 7 wt%. With respect to the shell, applicant presents data inside the claimed range (e.g., 1 wt%, 4 wt%, and 7 wt%) when the amount of the core shell particles, based on a total weight of the electrolyte, is 5 wt%. Applicant also presents three data points outside the claimed range (0.5 wt%, 0.8 wt% and 10 wt%) when the amount of core shell particles, based on a total weight of the electrolyte, is 5 wt%. However, there is no data close to and outside the upper end of the claimed shell range (i.e., > 7 wt%, e.g., 7.5 wt%) when the amount of particles is set to 5 wt% based on a total weight of the electrolyte. It is impossible to tell if the claimed end points (i.e., 1 wt% and 7 wt%) are critical values of the claimed range; that is, with the only data point outside the upper end of the claimed range being 10 wt%, it is impossible to tell whether the allegedly unexpectedly improved performance occurs at the claimed range (i.e., 1-7 wt%), or at a larger range (1-8.5 wt%). Since the upper range lacks sufficient data points, criticality of the claimed range (i.e., shell of 1 wt% - 7 wt%) has not been established. Regarding the lower end of the claimed range (i.e., 1 wt%), while the capacity retention rate decreases outside the lower end of the claimed range (e.g., at 0.8 wt% capacity retention decrease by 3%), the extent of the decrease has not been shown to be unobvious, and the decrease is expected, as was discussed in a previous Office action dated 10 December 2024 (see e.g., pages 4-7, and discussion of Baginska and Kim), hence not fully detailed here. In short, Baginska and Kim suggest thinner shells (which are expected at the lower end of the claimed shell range, i.e., < 1 wt%) tear easily to release the fire retardant which is understood to degrade capacity; hence, the reduction in capacity retention is expected below the lower end of the claimed range (<1 wt%).
Applicant presents a chart on page 11 of the remarks (10 June 2025) and attempts to compare data outside the upper end of the claimed arrange (i.e., shell of 7.5 wt%, 8 wt%, 8.5 w%, 9 wt%, and 9.5 wt%) to data inside the claimed range (i.e., shell of 1 w%, 4 wt% and 7 wt) to show criticality. However, the variables/conditions for the data inside the claimed range are different from the data outside the claimed range, making a meaningful and accurate assessment of the differences difficult. The data inside the claimed range (i.e., shell of 1 w%, 4 wt% and 7 wt%) has a different amount of particles based on a total weight of the electrolyte compared to the data outside the claimed range (i.e., shell of 7.5 wt%, 8 wt%, 8.5 wt%, 9 wt%, and 9.5 wt%); the shells of 1 wt%, 4wt% and 7 wt% consider a particle amount based on a total weight of the electrolyte at 5 wt%, while the shells of 7.5 wt%, 8 wt%, 8.5 wt%, 9 wt%, and 9.5 wt% consider a particle amount based on a total weight of the electrolyte of 10 wt% (see e.g., Advisory, sent 19 May 2025, at page 5 which labels the particle amounts based on a total weight of the electrolyte for each data point presented). It is difficult to draw meaningful conclusions from the comparison in the chart when a variable (the amount of particles based on a total weight of the electrolyte) are not consistent. More helpful would be either more data point(s) outside the claimed range (e.g., 7.5 wt%, 8 wt%, 8.5 wt%) having an amount of particles based on a total weight of the electrolyte at 5 wt%, and/or providing data point(s) inside and outside the claimed shell range (e.g., 0.8 wt%, 1 wt%, 4 wt%, 7 wt%) having an amount of particles at 10 wt%, thereby ensuring the variables in the data (presented in either the disclosure or declarations (08 May 2025, 23 May 2024)) are constant.
It is further noted, applicant has narrowed the amount of particles in the battery based on a total weight of the electrolyte between 5 wt%-10 wt%, and argues the claimed shell content (i.e., 1-7 wt%) is unexpected when the particle addition amount is within the claimed range (i.e., 5-10 wt%). However, there is no data close to and outside the claimed range, e.g., amount of particles based on a total weight of the electrolyte at 4 wt%, 11 wt%, etc. It is impossible to tell if the claimed end points (i.e., shell of 1-7 wt% when amount of particles is between 5 wt% -10 wt%) are critical values because without more data it is difficult to tell whether the allegedly unexpectedly improved performance occurs at the claimed range (i.e., shell 1-7 wt% when amount of particles is 5-10 wt%), or at a larger range (i.e., shell 1-7 wt% when the amount of particles is 4-11 wt%). Examiner is unable to determine whether the observed performance characteristics are unexpected over the entire amended range, or whether this new range is critical, see MPEP 716.02(d).
Further, at issues is whether the difference(s) in the data inside the claimed range is/are greater than expected to an unobvious extent, and of a significant, practical advantage/significance (see MPEP 716.02(a), I., and 716.02(b), I.). In the data provided, the maximum temperature of the samples inside the claimed range varies by 6 °C (see e.g., Example 4 (250 °C) vs Examples1-3 (256 °C)); the difference in the maximum temperature between Example 9 (outside the claimed range) compared to Example 1 (inside the claimed range) is also 6 °C (i.e., 256 °C - 262 °C). In other words, it is not apparent from the data the maximum temperature for samples inside the claimed range is greater than expected to an unobvious extent, and the results are of a significant practical significance.
In summary, additional data is necessary to show criticality and to show the claimed data is greater than expected to an unobvious extent, and that the results are of a significant, practical advantage.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-6, and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao et al. (US 2022/0200039, of record) in view of Aichi (JP 2015-053211, or record), Sachdev et al. (US 2013/0143076), and Lee et al. (WO202124675), hereinafter Xiao, Aichi, Sachdev and Lee.
Regarding Claims 1-6, 11, and 14, Xiao teaches a secondary battery (10, 100, see e.g., Figs. 1-2, [0029-0031]) comprising core-shell particles (e.g., 38), the battery includes an electrode assembly (12, 14, 16) comprising a cathode 14, an anode 12, and a separator 16 interposed between the cathode and the anode, an electrolyte (i.e., separator infiltrated with electrolyte (not shown), see e.g., [0030]); and a case 102 configured to accommodate the core-shell particles, the electrode assembly, and the electrolyte.
Xiao teaches a core comprising a porous substrate (i.e., particulate host of mesoporous material, e.g., zeolites, aluminosilicate, aluminophosphates, silica gel, etc., see e.g., [0039-0042]), wherein the pore size of the porous substrate ranges from 1 nm to 100 nm (i.e., 2 nm to 50 nm, see e.g., [0038]), and a flame retardant comprising phosphorus based flamed retardants or an aromatic phosphate (i.e., flame retardant material disposed in open pores of particulate host material includes triphenyl phosphate, resorcinol bis(diphenylphosphate, tricresyl phosphate, etc., see e.g., [0035]); and a shell comprising a thermoplastic polymer comprises polyolefin-based resins, and covering the core (i.e., polymeric shell encapsulating the host material particles, e.g., polyolefins, polyethylene, ), see e.g., [0027].
Xiao does not teach the amount of particles in the battery. However, Aichi discloses a secondary battery comprising core shell particles (e.g., microcapsule 110), an electrode assembly (101, 102, 108, 103, 104); an electrolyte (105); and a case (109) configured to accommodate the core-shell particles (microcapsules 110), the electrode assembly (101, 102, 108, 103, 104), and the electrolyte (105), see e.g., [0007-0008], Fig. 1; the core-shell particle (e.g., microcapsule 110) comprising: a core comprising a porous substrate (i.e., cellulose, polyimide, see e.g., [0012, 0025]) and a phosphorus based flame retardant (i.e., see e.g., [0013]); and a shell comprising a polyolefin based thermoplastic polymer (i.e., polyethylene, see e.g., [0011]) covering the core [0025]). Aichi teaches the core-shell particles exhibit flame retardance, thereby preventing the combustion of flammable electrolyte at abnormal temperatures and the secondary battery comprises 5 wt% to 10 wt% (e.g., 1-20 % by wt.) of the core-shell particles (microcapsules) based on a total weight of the electrolyte from the view point of maintaining battery performance, see e.g., [0011]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the core-shell particles in Xiao are included in an amount of 5 wt% to 10 wt% based on a total weight of the electrolyte from the view point of maintaining safety without deteriorating battery performance, as suggested by Aichi.
Xiao does not teach the core-shell particle comprise 1 wt% to 7 wt% of the shell and 93 wt% to 99 wt% of the core based on a total weight of the core shell particle. However, Sachdev suggests the thickness of the shell of a core-shell particle is controlled with respect to the core diameter to partially or fully open above a temperature threshold to quickly release the chemical retardant from the core, [0044-0047]. Thus, Sachdev appears to suggest the amount of shell is a result effective variable with respect to opening the core to release the chemical retardant from the core. Further, Lee discloses core-shell particles (40; core 41, shell 42); the fire extinguishing agent in the core (41) makes up 80-97 wt% of the core shell particle (40), thereby suggesting 3-20 wt% for the shell, thereby providing efficient fire extinguishing effect and efficient fire suppression, page 4/12. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to minimize the weight of the shell while maximizing the weight of the core, such that the weight of the shell is between 1-7 wt% and the core is 93-97 wt%, with the expectation of providing efficient flame extinguishing effects and efficient fire suppression, as suggested by Sachdev and Lee. See MPEP 2144.05, I., II.
Regarding Claim 12, Xiao teaches a module comprising the secondary battery as a unit cell, [0016].
Regarding Claim 13, Xiao suggests a device (e.g., electronic device) comprising the module comprising the secondary battery as a power source, [0002].
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao, Aichi, Sachdev and Lee in view of Shi et al. (CN 106785126, of record), hereinafter Shi.
Regarding Claim 7, Xiao teaches the shell is a polyolefin (i.e., PE, PP, PA, PTFE, PVdF, and/or PVC), but does not teach carboxymethyl cellulose. However, Shi teaches a core-shell structure comprising a flame retardant covered with an organic shell comprising PE, PP, PMMA, PVDF, carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), etc, see e.g., 4/31 and 8/31; the flame retardant is separated from the battery electrolyte via the shell (thereby ensuring battery performance) until the organic shell melts and flame retardant is released, thereby inducing a flame retarding effect so the flammability of the electrolyte is reduced and safety is improved, see e.g., abstract, 2-3/31. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the shell of Xiao includes carboxymethyl cellulose with the expectation of (i) separating the flame retardant from the electrolyte during normal operation, thereby maintaining battery performance, and (ii) inducing a flame retarding effect to reduce the flammability of the electrode upon a combustion event, thereby improving safety of the battery, as suggested by Shi.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 KOROVINA whose telephone number is (571)272-9835. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 6 pm.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 5712721481. 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.
/ANNA KOROVINA/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729