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 claims, filed 06/15/2026, have been entered in the above identified application.
Claims 1-2 and 4-14 are pending in the application.
Claim 3 is cancelled in the application.
WITHDRAWN OBJECTIONS/REJECTIONS
The 35 U.S.C. §112 rejection of the claim 3 and 4 made of record in the office action mailed on have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response
filed 06/15/2026.
The 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of claim 3 made of record in the office action mailed on 03/16/2026 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment/argument in the response filed 06/15/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 06/26/2026 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because: English translation of Office Action issued for corresponding Chinese Patent Application No. 202280019997.8, dated June 16, 2026 and Search Report issued for corresponding Chinese Patent Application No. 202280019997.8, dated June 11, 2026 was not provided.
Claim Interpretation
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a center part … configured to allow insertion and extraction” in claim 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
REJECTIONS
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, 2, 4, 7-9, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamo (US PG Pub. 2017/0040599) in view of Takami (WO 2019/058841, for purpose of prior art discussion refer to English language translation document US PG Pub 20190198876 for WO2019/058841).
Regarding claim 1, Kamo discloses a secondary battery (laminate film
secondary battery, ref. #30, figure 3, para. 0154) comprising of a positive electrode
(para. 0125), negative electrode (para. 0125) and an electrolytic solution (para. 0138).
Kamo discloses the negative electrode includes a negative electrode active material layer (ref. 12, figure 1, para. 0073) and the negative electrode active material layer includes a negative electrode active material (0028) and an inorganic metal salt (lithium compound, para. 0028, 0036).
Kamo fails to disclose the negative electrode also includes an organic fiber.
Takami discloses a secondary battery (figure 1, para.0125) with a positive
electrode (ref. #3, figure 1, para. 0127), negative electrode (ref. #4, figure 1, para. 0127)
and an electrolytic solution (electrolyte containing layer, ref. #5, figure 1, para. 0127).
Takami further discloses negative electrode active material layer includes an organic fiber compound (abstract, para. 0017, 0245) in example 30 (para. 0230). The organic fiber compound would reduce the interface resistance of the electrode/electrolyte which would improve the cycle life and discharge rate performance of the secondary battery (para. 0182, 0245).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filling
date of the claimed invention to have modified Kamo with the teaching of Takami
to include an organic fiber to negative electrode in the secondary battery. One of
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the negative electrode with
organic fiber in order to reduce the interfacial resistance, thereby improving the charge-
discharge cycle life of the electrode.
Regarding claim 2, Kamo further discloses the negative electrode active material (silicon compound) includes carbon compound (para. 0038-0039) and an inorganic metal salt Li2CO3 or LiF (para. 0028, 0036, 0089).
Kamo fails to disclose the organic fiber compound includes at least one of cellulose, chitin or chitosan.
Takami further discloses the organic fiber compound is cellulose fibers (para. 0024, 0052, 0230).
Regarding claim 4 and 13, Kamo discloses the negative electrode active material layer includes a center part including the negative electrode active material (para. 0038, 0097) and a covering part covering a surface of the center part (para. 0038, 0097). The center part comprises particles which contain the electrode active material silicon compound, i.e. a metalloid element, which can occlude and emit electrode reactant (lithium ions, para. 0073-0074). Thus, the center part is configured to allow insertion and extraction of an electrode reactant.
Kamo further discloses that the surface of the silicon compound is covered
with an inorganic metal salt, such as lithium fluoride and/or lithium carbonate (para. 0036).
Kamo fails to disclose the covering part covering a surface of the center part includes the organic fiber compound.
Takami further discloses that the cellulose fibers are attached to the
surface of the electrode active material (para. 0024). Thus, the combination of Kamo and Takami discloses that covering part included the inorganic metal salt and the organic fiber compound.
Regarding claim 7, Kamo discloses a secondary battery comprises a
lithium-ion secondary battery (non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, para. 0027,
0124).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kamo and Takami discloses a
negative electrode for a secondary battery, where the negative electrode comprises a negative electrode active material layer including a negative electrode active material,
inorganic metal salt and an organic fiber compound as described above.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Kamo and Takami discloses a
secondary battery where in the negative electrode active material includes the carbon material (para. 0038) and the metal-based material (silicon, para. 0028).
Regarding claim 13, Kamo discloses the secondary battery and the negative electrode active material comprises an inorganic metal salt LiF (para. 0028, 0036, 0089).
Kamo fails to disclose the organic fiber compound is cellulose.
Takami further discloses the organic fiber compound is cellulose fibers (para. 0024, 0052, 0230). Takami further discloses if the polymer fibers include cellulose fibers, the aspect ratio of the polymer fibers can be set to a large value, thereby encouraging formation of fine through holes arranged in a mesh shape by the polymer fibers. As a result, extraction of the electrolyte from the electrode is further suppressed, and it is thus possible to further decrease the ion conduction resistance in the electrode. Therefore, the secondary battery including the electrode can further improve the charge and discharge cycle life, the discharge rate performance, and the low temperature performance. (para. 0183).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filling
date of the claimed invention to have modified negative electrode active layer of Kamo with the teaching of Takami to include cellulose as the organic fiber. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the negative electrode active material with cellulose in order to improve the charge-and-discharge cycle life, discharge rate performance, and low-temperature performance.
Regarding claim 14, Kamo discloses the secondary battery with the negative electrode active material layer includes a center part as discussed with respect to claim 4 and Kamo further discloses the center part includes silicon oxide (para. 0075).
Claims 5, 6, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Kamo (US 2017/0040599) in view of Takami (WO2019/058841). For purpose of prior art discussion refer to English language translation document US PG Pub 20190198876 for WO2019/058841 as applied to claims 1-4, 7, 13, and 14 above, and further in view of Miyagi (US 20100015514-A1).
Kamo and Takami are relied upon as described above.
Regarding claim 5 and 12, Kamo and Takami fails to teach a secondary battery wherein the electrolytic solution includes lithium monofluorophosphate, lithium difluorophosphate or both.
Miyagi discloses a secondary battery (lithium secondary battery) with a positive electrode and a negative electrode (para. 0033) and a nonaqueous electrolyte which contains monofluorophosphoric acid salt, difluorophosphoric acid salt (abstract). Miyagi further discloses lithium difluorophosphate included in the electrolytic solution (para. 1145, 1321, 1333).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filling
date of the claimed invention to have modified secondary battery of Kamo and
Takami to include lithium difluorophosphate in the electrolytic solution. One of
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the secondary battery to
include lithium difluorophosphate in electrolytic solution to improve balance among cycle
characteristics, low-temperature discharge characteristics, high-temperature storability (in particular, residual capacity and high-load discharge capacity after high-temperature
storage), and the inhibition of gas evolution (Miyagi para. 1168).
Regarding claim 6, Miyagi further discloses the electrolytic solution includes
a chain carboxylic acid ester (para. 1103, 1117). The inclusion of chain carboxylic acid
ester in the electrolytic solution of the secondary battery would improve the low-
temperature characteristics of the battery (para. 1127, 1176).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Kamo (US 2017/0040599) in view of Takami (WO2019/058841). For purpose of prior art discussion refer to English language translation document US PG Pub 20190198876 for WO2019/058841 as applied to claims 1-4, 7, 13, and 14 above and further in view of Koike (US PG Pub. 20200161701A1)
Kamo and Takami are relied upon as described above.
Regarding claim 10, Kamo discloses the metal-base material is silicon dioxide (para. 0028) and the inorganic metal salt is lithium fluoride (para. 0036).
Kamo fails to teach a secondary battery where in the carbon material is mesocarbon microbead.
Koike discloses a secondary battery where in the negative electrode active layer includes carbon based material and silicon-based material (para. 0055). Koike further discloses the mesocarbon microbead as the carbon based material. (para. 0324, 0377). Koike further discloses such a negative electrode active material that contains a carbon-based material hardly expands and contracts at the time of storage and release of lithium, the crystal structure of the carbon-based material thus hardly changes and a high energy density is thus stably attained, and the carbon-based material also functions as a negative electrode conductive agent and thus the conductivity of the negative electrode active material layer is improved (para. 0045).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Kamo with the teaching of Koike to include mesocarbon microbead as the carbon material. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the negative electrode active material of Kamo in order to improve conductivity of the negative electrode active layer and to attain stable high energy density.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamo (US 2017/0040599) in view of Takami (WO2019/058841). For purpose of prior art discussion refer to English language translation document US PG Pub 20190198876 for WO2019/058841 as applied to claims 1-4, 7, 13, and 14 above, and further in view of and further in view of Koike (US PG Pub. 2020/0161701A1) and Miyagi (US PG Pub. 20100015514-A1).
Kamo, Takami and Koike are relied upon as discussed above.
Regarding claim 11, Kamo, Takami and Koike fails to disclose the electrolytic solution includes lithium monofluorophosphate, lithium difluorophosphate, or both.
Miyagi discloses a secondary battery (lithium secondary battery) with a positive electrode and a negative electrode (para. 0033) and a nonaqueous electrolyte which contains monofluorophosphoric acid salt, difluorophosphoric acid salt (abstract). Miyagi further discloses lithium difluorophosphate included in the electrolytic solution (para. 1145, 1321, 1333).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filling
date of the claimed invention to have modified secondary battery of Kamo and
Takami to include lithium difluorophosphate in the electrolytic solution. One of
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the secondary battery to
include lithium difluorophosphate in electrolytic solution to improve balance among cycle
characteristics, low-temperature discharge characteristics, high-temperature storability (in particular, residual capacity and high-load discharge capacity after high-temperature
storage), and the inhibition of gas evolution (Miyagi para. 1168).
ANSWERS TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed on 06/15/2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. §112 rejections of record have been considered but are moot since the rejections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the applicant’s argument “nowhere does Kamo and Takami provide sufficient guidance/motivation to one skilled in the art to use a negative electrode including both an inorganic metal salt and an organic fiber as compared to a negative electrode including an inorganic metal salt or an organic fiber, even if Kamo and Takami are properly combinable on page 4 and 5” is not persuasive. As indicated on page 7 of the office action Takami discloses the organic fiber compound would reduce the interface resistance of the electrode/electrolyte which would improve the cycle life and discharge rate performance of the secondary battery (para. 0182, 0245) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the negative electrode of Kamo to add organic fiber in order to reduce the interfacial resistance, thereby improving the charge-discharge cycle life of the electrode. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Regarding applicants’ argument “neither Kamo nor Takami teaches or suggests such results, nor would one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably have expected the claimed combination to provide demonstrated results” on page 5 is not persuasive. The absence of an express teaching in the references of applicant’s subsequently recognized advantage does not invalidate the said reason for making the combination. The test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success obtaining the claimed battery with the negative electrode which comprises of the inorganic metal salt and the organic fiber not whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have predicted every advantage resulting from the combination. Thus, the combination of these references does not teach away from the achievement of the claimed properties nor toward unexpected properties. That is, in combining the organic fiber taught by Takami to the negative electrode active material layer of Kamo, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect to still achieve the properties which render obvious the instantly claimed invention. Kamo and Takami are analogues art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the negative electrode of Kamo to add organic fiber in order to reduce the interfacial resistance, thereby improving the charge-discharge cycle life of the electrode as discussed on page 7 of the office action.
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 ISWARYA MATHEW whose telephone number is (571)272-9515. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 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.
/I.M./
Iswarya MathewExaminer, Art Unit 1788
08/19/2026
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights