RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
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 .
Amendments to the specification and claims, filed 19 May 2026, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Claims 1-19 remain pending in the application.
Withdrawn Objections/Rejections
The 35 U.S.C. §112b rejections of claims 2-9 and 14 made of record in the office action mailed 19 February 2026, pages 2-6, have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 19 May 2026.
The 35 U.S.C. §112d rejections of claims 4-6 made of record in the office action 19 February 2026, pages 6-8, have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s arguments and amendment in the response filed 19 May 2026.
The 35 U.S.C. §102 rejections of claims 1-12 and 15-17 as being anticipated by over Jo et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0185707) made of record in the office action mailed on 19 February 2026, pages 9-12, have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response 19 May 2026.
The 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections of claim 14 as unpatentable over Jo et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0185707) in view of Li (US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0108776) made of record in the office action mailed on 19 February 2026, pages 13-14, have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 19 May 2026.
The 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections of claims 18-19 as unpatentable over Jo et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0185707) in view of Abe (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0356695) made of record in the office action mailed on 19 February 2026, pages 14-15, have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 19 May 2026.
Claim Interpretation
For the purpose of examination, the limitation “a porosity of a surface area of the positive electrode active substance layer” in claim 1, line 5, and any further references to “a porosity” will be interpreted as either the porosity of the positive electrode active material layer as a whole, or the porosity of any of the substituents that the positive electrode active material layer comprises (i.e. the aqueous binder, positive electrode active material, conductive additive, or other components).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-12, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0185707) in view of Yang et. al (Chinese Patent Application Publication No. 103050704). For prior art discussion see English translations for CN-1030500704-A.
Regarding claims 1, 10-13, 15, and 17, Jo teaches an aqueous positive electrode sheet (multilayer electrode), comprising a current collector and a positive electrode active substance layer (electrode mixture layers) provided on at least one surface of the current collector (abstract). The positive electrode active substance layer comprising an aqueous binder ([0061]), which is both a methylcellulose and a soluble polysaccharide (carboxymethylcellulose), and a positive electrode active material (conductive material and cathode active material, abstract and [0064]).
A porosity of a surface area (second electrode mixture layer) of the positive electrode active substance layer is greater than a porosity of an inner area (first electrode mixture layer) of the positive electrode active substance layer ([0009], the porosity of the conductive material. Which is included in the positive electrode active material), and an average particle size of a positive electrode active material in the surface area is greater than an average particle size of the positive electrode active material in the inner area ([0011], the size of the conductive material, which is included in the positive electrode active material). A thickness of the positive electrode active substance layer is H (the total thickness of the first and second electrode mixture layers, fig. 1 ref. #110 and #130)
The electrode active substance layers contain a conductive agent comprising one or more of carbon black, conductive graphite (artificial graphite and natural graphite), acetylene black, ketjen black, and carbon nanotubes ([0014]).
The electrode active substance layers further contain the positive electrode active material which comprises one or more of lithium cobalt oxide, lithium nickel oxide, lithium manganese oxide, lithium nickel manganese oxide, lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide, or lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide ([0059]).
The positive electrode sheet has a membrane resistance of 0.31 Ω (current collector active material contact resistance, page 11, Table 1). Since the prior art recites a resistance value within the claimed range, the claimed range is made obvious by the prior art (MPEP 2131.03.II).
Jo also teaches a secondary battery comprising the aqueous positive electrode sheet ([0008]).
Jo does not explicitly teach a porosity in an area of H/3 from a surface in the positive electrode active substance layer is 10%-30%.
Jo does further teach that the porosity in an area of H/3 from a surface in the positive electrode active substance layer is larger than the porosity in an area of H/3 from the current collector in the positive electrode active substance layer ([0009] and [0015], the thickness of the second electrode mixture layer may range from 20% to 80% of the total thickness of both the first and second electrode mixture layers. Therefore, in an embodiment in which the thickness of the second electrode mixture layer is 50% of the total thickness of both layers, H/3 from a surface in the positive electrode active substance layer falls within the first electrode mixture layer, fig. 1 ref. #130, and H/3 from the current collector in the positive electrode active substance layer falls within the second electrode mixture layer, fig. 1 ref. #110).
Yang teaches a porous conductive additive for a lithium-ion battery (title) that is included in a positive or negative electrode active material layer (positive or negative electrode film, [0010]). The porous conductive additive comprises graphite and has a porosity ranging from 20% to 70% (abstract). This porosity allows for all of the characteristics of graphene-based materials in terms of electronic conduction, such as the "surface-to-point" contact mode and excellent electronic conductivity, as well as increased ion transport ([0010]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a conductive additive with a porosity of 20% to 70% as taught by Yang in an area of H/3 from a surface in the positive electrode active substance layer Jo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion due to the excellent electronic conductivity and increased ion transport.
The porosity range of 20% to 70% as taught by Yang overlaps with the claimed porosity range of 10%-30%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, modified Jo teaches the porosity in the area of H/3 from the surface in the positive electrode active substance layer (in the second electrode mixture layer) is 20% to 70% (Yang, abstract), and the porosity in the area of H/3 from the current collector in the positive electrode active substance layer (in the first electrode mixture layer) is 0%-30% (Jo, [0010]). The porosity in the area of H/3 from the current collector in the positive electrode active substance layer overlaps with the claimed range of 5%-25%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
A ratio of the porosity in an area of H/3 from a surface in the positive electrode substance material layer to the porosity in an area of H/3 from the current collector in the positive electrode active substance layer is r1, and r1 is 0.667 or greater (as derived from the possible ratios of the porosities listed above). This range overlaps with the claimed range of 1.05-6.5. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, the average particle size of the positive electrode active material in the area of H/3 from the surface in the positive electrode active substance layer is 0.01-0.5 µm, and the average particle size of the positive electrode active material in the area of H/3 from the current collector in the positive electrode active substance layer is 0.5-5 µm. The average particle size in the area of H/3 from the current collector in the positive electrode active substance layer overlaps with the claimed range of 0.5-1.5 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
A ratio of the average particle size in an area of H/3 from a surface in the positive electrode substance material layer to the porosity in an area of H/3 from the current collector in the positive electrode active substance layer is r2, and r2 is 1 to 500 (as derived from the possible ratios of the average particle sizes listed above). This range overlaps with the claimed range of 1.05-5. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 6, a value of r1xr2 is 0.667 or greater. This is found using the established ranges of r1 and r2 presented above, and overlaps with the claimed range of 1.2 to 10. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 7, a value of r1/r2 is 0.003 or greater. This is found using the established ranges of r1 and r2 presented above, and overlaps with the claimed range of 0.3 to 1.5. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 8, the positive electrode active substance layer comprises a conductive agent ([0008]). A portion of the positive electrode active substance layer in the area of H/3 from the surface in the positive electrode active substance layer comprises the aqueous binder of 2.5 parts by weight (2.5%) and the conductive agent of 1 part by weight (1%), based on the total weight of the portion of the positive electrode active substance layer in the area of H/3 from the surface in the positive electrode active substance layer ([0065]). Since the prior art recites the parts by weight of the aqueous binder and conductive agent within the claimed range of 1 to 5 parts by weight for each the aqueous binder and conductive agent, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 9, the positive electrode active substance layer comprises a conductive agent ([0008]). The portion of the positive electrode active substance layer in the area of H/3 from the current collector in the positive electrode active substance layer comprises the aqueous binder of 2.5 parts by weight (2.5%) and the conductive agent of 2.5 parts by weight (2.5%), based on the total weight of the portion of the positive electrode active substance layer in the area of H/3 from the current collector in the positive electrode active substance layer ([0064]). Since the prior art recites the parts by weight of the aqueous binder and conductive agent within the claimed range of 2 to 6 parts by weight for the aqueous binder and 1 to 5 parts by weight for the conductive agent, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “the positive electrode active substance layer is formed by multi-layer die head extrusion coating process” is a method limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the process produces unexpected results. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art (MPEP 2113). Furthermore, there does not appear to be (a or an unobvious) difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because Jo discloses an identical structure as claimed in claim 1.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0185707) in view of Yang et. al (Chinese Patent Application Publication No. 103050704), further in view of Li (US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0108776). For prior art discussion see English translations for CN-1030500704-A.
Jo and Yang are relied upon as described above.
Modified Jo does not explicitly teach the aqueous binder being a compound mixture of the xanthan gum and the polyethyleneimine with a ratio of the xanthan gum to the polyethyleneimine is 2:1-1:15, nor does Jo teach the average molecular weight Mn of the xanthan gum is 300000-2000000 g/mol, and the average molecular weight Mn of the polyethyleneimine is 2000-50000g/mol.
Li teaches a method of making a battery electrode with an active electrode material and a conductive additive in water (abstract). Li also teaches the aqueous binder is a compound mixture of xanthan gum ([0012]) and polyethyleneimine ([0020]). The ratio of the xanthan gum to the polyethyleneimine is ranges from 2.5:0-2.5:2 ([0089]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 2:1-1:15. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Li also teaches the average molecular weight Mn of the polyethyleneimine is 25,000 g/mol ([0089]), but does not teach the average molecular weight Mn of the xanthan gum is 300,000-2,000,000 g/mol. As this part of the claim is optional, claim 14 is still considered obvious over Jo in view of Li.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to use the aqueous binder containing xanthan gum and polyethyleneimine of Li in place of the aqueous binder of modified Jo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this change as the binder of Li has reduced agglomeration via addition of the polyethyleneimine dispersant, in turn increasing suspension stability of the electrode active material ([0005]-[0006], and [0054]).
Claim 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0185707) in view of Yang et. al (Chinese Patent Application Publication No. 103050704), further in view of Abe (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0356695). For prior art discussion see English translations for CN-1030500704-A.
Jo is relied upon as described above.
Jo does not explicitly teach battery pack comprising the aforementioned secondary battery, or a power consumption apparatus comprising the battery pack.
Abe teaches a battery including a positive electrode, a negative electrode, a separator at least including a porous film, and an electrolyte (abstract). Abe also teaches a battery pack comprising the positive and negative electrodes, the separator, and the electrolyte ([0002]), and a power consumption apparatus (electronic apparatus) comprising the battery pack ([0173])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to use the secondary battery as taught by Jo in a battery pack, and the battery pack in a power consumption apparatus as taught by Abe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the secondary battery in this manner as inclusion in a battery pack allows for the secondary batteries to be wired together either in parallel or in series ([0163]), in turn allowing for either increased current or voltage as compared to the secondary battery alone. Inclusion of the battery pack in a power consumption apparatus allows for the battery pack to power a device without connection to a stationary energy providing device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed on 19 May 2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. §112b rejections of record have been considered but are moot since the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed on 19 May 2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. §112d rejections of claims 3 and 5 of record have been considered and found convincing, therefore the rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed on 19 May 2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. §112d rejection of claim 6 of record has been considered but is moot since the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed on 19 May 2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. §102 of claims 1-12 and 15-17 of record have been considered but have not been found convincing.
Applicant argues, on page 8 of Applicant’s response, that Jo fails to disclose, expressly or inherently, that a porosity of a surface area of the positive electrode active substance layer is greater than a porosity of an inner area of the positive electrode active substance layer, and an average particle size of a positive electrode active material in the surface area is greater than an average particle size of the positive electrode active material in the inner area.
To this argument the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Jo teaches that the porosity in an area of H/3 from a surface (a surface area) in the positive electrode active substance layer is larger than the porosity in an area of H/3 from the current collector (an inner area) in the positive electrode active substance layer ([0009]). Jo further teaches an average particle size of a positive electrode active material in the surface area (second electrode mixture layer, fig. 1 ref. #130) is greater than an average particle size of the positive electrode active material in the inner area (first electrode mixture layer, fig. 1 ref. #120) ([0011]).
Applicant further argues, on page 8 in the Applicant’s response filed on 19 May 2026, that Jo merely discloses the porosity and the average particle diameter of the conductive material, rather than those of the positive electrode active substance layer, which comprises at least an aqueous binder and a positive electrode active material, let alone the relationships of those, as recited in amended claim 1 of the present application.
To this argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Jo does disclose the porosity and average particle diameter of the conductive material, however, as the conductive material is included in the positive electrode active substance, the limitation “a porosity of a surface area of the positive electrode active substance layer” and “an average particle size of the positive electrode active material” are both met by the porosity and size of one of the constituents of the positive electrode active substance layer, respectively. Regarding Applicant’s argument that the porosity and particle size of the positive electrode active substance layer must include the aqueous binder and a positive electrode active material, let alone the relationships of those, is not commensurate with the scope of the claims, as there is no limitation that explicitly states that the porosity size and particle diameter must be inclusive of the positive electrode active material and the aqueous binder.
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed on 19 May 2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. §102 of claims 1-12 and 15-17 of record not teaching the newly required limitation have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed on 19 May 2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. §103 of claims 14 and 18-19 of record have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection.
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 Myles Alan Lovasz whose telephone number is (571)272-0214. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at (571) 272-1490. 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.
/MAL/
Myles Alan LovaszExaminer, Art Unit 1788 07/08/2026
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights