Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after July 16, 2026, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed July 16, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Based on applicant’s amendments the rejection below has been updated to address the amendments.
Applicant argues that the cited references fail to disclose spacers that remain in the completed battery and define and maintain the claimed space, that Kano merely describes a gap produced during lithium deposition, and that the Office Action improperly reconstructed the invention using hindsight. Applicant further argues that the claimed spacer arrangement and the d/h ratio produce a coordinated technical effect that could not result from routine optimization.
The arguments have been considered but is not persuasive.
The rejection is not based on extracting isolated features from unrelated references. Rather, the rejection relies upon the combined teachings of references directed to lithium secondary batteries, each addressing accommodation of electrode expansion, mechanical support, and internal battery structure. One of ordinary skill would have recognized that maintaining a controlled separation between the separator and electrode using structural spacer members is a predictable implementation of Kano’s teaching of maintaining an expansion space in a wound electrode assembly while utilizing the structural battery configurations taught by Ueda and Arai. The modification merely substitutes one known technique for another to obtain the expected benefit of maintaining separator spacing during repeated charge/discharge cycles.
Applicant’s argument that Kano does not expressly disclose “spacers” is not persuasive. Obviousness does not require that every claimed feature be identically disclosed in a single reference. Rather, the question is whether the combined teachings would have suggested the claimed arrangement to one of ordinary skill. Kano expressly recognizes the desirability of maintaining a controlled space between the separator and electrode to accommodate lithium deposition. Employing structural protrusions or spacer members to define and maintain such spacing represents a well-known mechanical implementation and would have been an obvious engineering solution.
Applicant also argues that the claimed geometric arrangement of the spacers and the claimed d/h ratio produce unexpected results. However, no objective evidence of unexpected results, critically, or teaching away has been presented. The claimed spacing relationship merely defines dimensional relationships governing the density and height of spacer members used to maintaining the desired separation distance. Such dimensional relationships constitute result-effective variables. Where the prior art recognizes the desirability of maintaining separator spacing, optimization of spacer spacing, height, pitch, and corresponding dimensional ratios through routine experimentation would have been well within the ordinary level of skill.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-8, 10-13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda, Tomohiro (JP 2019121500 A), hereinafter Ueda, in view of Arai, Naoto et al. (US 20030198863 A1), hereinafter Arai, and in further view of Kano, Satoshi et al. (JP 2019192628 A), hereinafter Kano, S.
Regarding claim 1, Ueda teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising ([0001]):
A wound type electrode group including [(0009)]:
A positive electrode ([0009], positive electrode 11);
A negative electrode ([0009], negative electrode 12);
A separator interposed between ([0009]);
A nonaqueous electrolyte having lithium-ion conductivity (Claim 1, [0009]);
In the negative electrode a lithium metal deposits during charging and the lithium metal dissolves during discharging ([0010]);
Ueda fails to teach:
A core member inserted in a hollow of the electrode group;
The electrode group has space that allows the separator to be apart from and oppose at least one of the positive electrode and negative electrode;
a spacer interposed between the separator and at least one of the positive electrodes and the negative electrode, and the space is provided by the spacer;
Arai teaches: a core member inserted in a hollow of the electrode group ([0017-0018]).
Kano, S. teaches:
the electrode group has space that allows the separator to be apart from and oppose at least one of the positive electrode and negative electrode ([18-20], space 4);
providing a space between the separator and the negative electrode to accommodate lithium metal deposition and prevent expansion of the electrode group ([18-20], space 4).
Ueda, Arai, and Kano, S. are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of lithium secondary batteries. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode group of Ueda to include the core member inserted in the hollow space as taught by Arai and the spacing configuration as taught by Kano, S. The motivation for such modification would have been to improve electrolyte distribution, reduce internal resistance, and accommodate volume changes during charge and discharge, thereby enhancing battery performance and safety, recognized concerns in the field of lithium secondary batteries (Overview of Ueda). In particular, incorporating the core member of Arai into the electrode group of Ueda would provide mechanical stability to the central hollow region preventing deformation or collapse of the wound structure during repeated charge and discharge cycles. Additionally, the space taught by Kano, S. would further allow portions of the separator to be apart from and opposed to at least one electrode accommodating volume changes and improving ion transport. The combination of these techniques represents predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement such as space using a spacer interposed between the separator and the electrode as taught by Kano, S. Additionally, spacers are well-known structural elements used to maintain fixed distances between components in battery assemblies. Utilizing a spacer to define and maintain the space taught by Kano, S. would have been a predictable design choice to ensure consistent spacing during operation, improve mechanical stability, and reliably accommodate electrode expansion.
Furthermore, the particular alignment of multiple spacers along the short-side direction merely defines an arrangement for uniformly supporting the separator across the wound electrode assembly. Selecting the orientation and distribution of repeated spacer member to obtain uniform mechanical support would have constituted routine engineering design.
Finally, the claimed ratio d/h merely defines the relative spacing and height of adjacent spacer members. Both spacer spacing and spacer height are result-effective variables affecting separator support, electrolyte flow, and expansion accommodation. Optimization of these variables through routine experimentation to obtain suitable mechanical performance would have been obvious absent evidence of critically or unexpected results.
Regarding claim 2, Ueda, Arai, and Kano, S. teach all the limitations of claim 1, as stated above, including a core member provided in the hollow portion of the electrode group. Ueda fails to teach that the material of the core has a Young’s modulus of 100 MPa or more. Arai teaches that the core member may be formed of a metal material ([0017-0018]), which would logically follow that it possess a Young’s modulus greater than 100 MPa. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a material having sufficient mechanical rigidity, such as a material with a Young’s modulus greater than 100 MPa or more, in order to provide adequate structural support to the electrode group and prevent deformation during battery operation. Such selection involves routine optimization of known materials based on their mechanical properties.
Regarding claim 3, Ueda, Arai, and Kano, S. teach all the limitations of claim 2, as stated above, including a core member provided in the hollow portion of the electrode group. Ueda fails to teach the material of the core is stainless steel. Arai teaches that the core member may be formed of stainless steel ([0017-0018]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date to utilize stainless steel as the core material due to its high strength, corrosion resistance, and durability in battery environments.
Regarding claim 4, Ueda, Arai, and Kano, S. teach all the limitations of claim 1, as stated above, including a core member provided in the hollow portion of the electrode group. Ueda teaches the shape of the core member space is cylindrical (Claim 6, Fig. 5, hollow portion C). Additionally, Arai teaches the shape of the core member is cylindrical ([0017-0018]). Ueda and Arai are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of lithium secondary batteries. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode group of Ueda to include a cylindrical core member inserted in the hollow space as taught by Arai. The combination of these techniques represents predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
Regarding claim 5, Ueda, Arai, and Kano, S. teach all the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Ueda further teaches an outer can accommodating the electrode group, core member and the non-aqueous electrolyte (Claim 1, [0075], Fig. 5, 6, battery case 20). Additionally, Ueda further teaches an inner periphery of the outer can opposes an outer periphery of the electrode group (Claim 1, [0075], Fig. 5, 6, battery case 20).
Regarding claim 6, Ueda, Arai, and Kano, S. teach all the limitations of claim 5, as stated above. Ueda further teaches that the outer can may be formed of a metal material (Claim 1, [0076], battery case 20), which logically follows would possess a Young’s modulus greater than 100 MPa. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a material having sufficient mechanical rigidity, such as a material with a Young’s modulus greater than 100 MPa or more, in order to provide adequate structural support to the battery and prevent deformation during battery operation. Such selection involves routine optimization of known materials based on their mechanical properties.
Regarding claim 7, Ueda, Arai, and Kano, S. teach all the limitations of claim 5, as stated above. Ueda further teaches that the outer can may be formed of stainless steel (Claim 1, [0076], battery case 20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date to utilize stainless steel as the core material due to its high strength, corrosion resistance, and durability in battery environments.
Regarding claim 8, Ueda, Arai, and Kano, S. teach all the limitations of claim 1, as stated above, including a space between the separator and at least one of the positive electrode and negative electrode .Ueda fails to teach the separation distance between the separator and at least one of the positive electrode and negative electrode is 15 μm or more and 60 μm or less. Kano, S. teaches that providing a space between the negative electrode and the separator, where the thickness of the space (Y) is controlled relative to the thickness (X) of lithium metal deposited during charging, such that 1 ≤ X/Y < 1.20 ([18-20], space 4). Kano, S. explains that this relationship ensure that the deposited lithium metal is accommodated within the space, thereby preventing expansion of the electrode group. Although Kano, S. does not explicitly disclose the claimed numerical range, the thickness of the space (Y) is determined based on the design capacity per unit area of the electrode, which directly dictates the thickness (X) of deposited lithium metal. Because lithium metal deposition thickness in lithium secondary batteries is known to fall within micrometer-scale ranges under typical operating conditions, the resulting space thickness (Y) would inherently fall within a similar micrometer-scale range, including the claimed range. Ueda and Kano, S. are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of lithium secondary batteries. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a separation distance within the claimed range as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable to ensure sufficient accommodation of deposited lithium while minimizing unnecessary cell volume. Adjusting the space thickness within such micrometer-scale ranges would have been a predictable design choice based on the teachings of Kano, S.
Regarding claim 10, Ueda, Arai, and Kano, S. teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above, including a space between the separator and at least one of the positive electrode and negative electrode. Ueda fails to teach the space is provided on at least one of the following: surface of the positive electrode, surface of the negative electrode, or the surface of the separator. Kano, S. teaches providing a space between the negative electrode and the separator to accommodate lithium metal deposition ([18-20], space 4). Such a space is formed at the interface between opposing surfaces of the separator and the electrode. Therefore, the space taught by Kano, S. is inherently provided on at least one surface of the positive electrode, negative electrode, or the separator. Ueda and Kano, S. are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of lithium secondary batteries. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the space on the surface of one or more of the positive electrode, negative electrode, or separators, as these are the only interfacing components within the electrode group where such spacing can be implemented. Selecting which surface or combination of surfaces provides the space would have been a matter of routine design choice depending on manufacturing preferences and desired performance characteristics.
Providing the spacer on the surface of the positive electrode, negative electrode, separator, or combinations thereof merely represents selection among predictable interface locations capable of maintaining the desired separator spacing. The particular mounting location constitutes a matter of routine engineering choice depending upon manufacturing considerations and desired battery performance.
Regarding claim 11, Ueda, Arai, and Kano, S. teach all the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Ueda further teaches the negative electrode includes the negative electrode current collector and a sheet type lithium metal that is in close contact with a surface of the negative electrode current collector (Claim 1, 7, 8). The selection of a known composition for its intended purpose constitutes a routine design choice.
Regarding claim 12, Ueda, Arai, and Kano, S. teach all the limitations of claim 11, as stated above. Ueda further teaches the negative current collector is a copper foil or a copper alloy foil ([0025]). The selection of a known composition for its intended purpose constitutes a routine design choice.
Regarding claim 13, Ueda, Arai, and Kano, S. teach all the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Ueda further teaches the positive electrode includes a composite oxide including lithium and a metal Me other than lithium, and the metal Me includes at least a transition metal ([0037]). The selection of a known composition for its intended purpose constitutes a routine design choice.
Regarding claim 19, Ueda, Arai, and Kano, S. teach all the limitations of claim 1, as stated above.
Kano, S. teaches:
the electrode group has space that allows the separator to be apart from and oppose at least one of the positive electrode and negative electrode ([18-20], space 4);
providing a space between the separator and the negative electrode to accommodate lithium metal deposition and prevent expansion of the electrode group ([18-20], space 4).
Ueda, Arai, and Kano, S. are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of lithium secondary batteries. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode group of Ueda to include the core member inserted in the hollow space as taught by Arai and the spacing configuration as taught by Kano, S. The motivation for such modification would have been to improve electrolyte distribution, reduce internal resistance, and accommodate volume changes during charge and discharge, thereby enhancing battery performance and safety, recognized concerns in the field of lithium secondary batteries (Overview of Ueda).
The claimed ratio remains a result-effective variable governing spacer density and separator support. Selecting a narrower operating range within an optimization parameter would have resulted from routine experimentation to balance separator support, electrolyte transport, and accommodation of electrode expansion. Applicant has not provided evidence demonstrating that the narrower subrange exhibits unexpected results or critically relative to neighboring values.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda, Arai, and Kano, S., as applied to claim 13 above, in further view of Tabuchi, Mitsuharu et al. (US 20030198863 A1), hereinafter Tabuchi.
Regarding claim 13, Ueda, Arai, and Kano, S. teach all the limitations of claim 13, as stated above. Ueda fails to teach the molar ratio of the total amount of Li included in the positive electrode and the negative electrode mLi relative to an amount to the metal Me included in the composite oxide mMe where mLi/mMe is 1.2 or less.
Tabuchi teaches teach the molar ratio of the total amount of Li included in the positive electrode and the negative electrode mLi relative to an amount to the metal Me included in the composite oxide mMe where mLi/mMe is 1.2 or less ([0010-0012]). Specifically, Tabuchi teaches the molar ratio is 1.55 or less. Ueda and Tabuchi are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of lithium secondary batteries.
It is well established that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select thickness within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda, Arai, and Kano, S., as applied to claim 13 above, in further view of Kano, Akira et al. (WO 2021039178 A1), hereinafter Kano, A.
Regarding claim 15, Ueda, Arai, and Kano, S. teach all the limitations of claim 13, as stated above. Ueda fails to teach the composite oxide has a layered rock salt type crystal structure and the metal Me includes at least Ni as the transition metal. Kano, A. teaches the composite oxide has a layered rock salt type crystal structure and the metal Me includes at least Ni as the transition metal ([0021]). Ueda and Kano, A. are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of lithium secondary batteries. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the layered rock-salt composite oxide of Kano in the battery of Ueda because such materials are well known in lithium secondary batteries for providing high capacity and stable electrochemical performance. Substituting one known electrode materials for another represents a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
Regarding claim 16, Ueda and Kano, A. teach all the limitations of claim 15, as stated above. Ueda further teaches that the composite oxide is represented by formula (1): LiaNibM1-bO2, in the general formula (1), 0.9 < a < 1.2 and 0.65 < b < 1 are satisfied, and M is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Co, Mn, Al, Ti, Fe, Nb, B, Mg, Ca, Sr, Zr, and W ([0037-0040], specifically “a” corresponds to “X1” and “b” corresponds to “Y1”). It is well established that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select thickness within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable. Additionally, the selection of a known composition for its intended purpose constitutes a routine design choice.
Regarding claim 17, Ueda, Arai, and Kano, S. teach all the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Ueda fails to teach the non-aqueous electrolyte includes lithium ion and an anion, where the anion includes oxalate complex anion. Kano, A teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte including lithium ions and anions, where the anion includes an oxalate complex anion ([0013], [0014]). Ueda and Kano, A. are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of lithium secondary batteries. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the electrolyte composition of Kano, A. into the battery of Ueda because such electrolyte systems are known to improve stability, suppress side reactions, and enhance cycling performance in lithium secondary batteries. Substituting one known electrolyte composition for another to obtain predictable improvements is a routine optimization.
Regarding claim 18, Ueda, Arai, and Kano, S. teach all the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Ueda fails to teach the oxalate complex anion includes a difluorooxalate borate anion. Kano, A teaches the oxalate complex anion includes a difluorooxalate borate anion ([0057]). Ueda and Kano, A. are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of lithium secondary batteries. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the specific oxalate complex anion taught by Kano, A. as such species are known to enhance electrolyte stability and battery performance. The selection of a specific known anion from a finite number of identified, predictable options constitutes routine optimization.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 Tamara Orduna whose telephone number is (571) 431-1457. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/TAMARA ORDUNA/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights