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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 29 December 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 11 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 29 December 2025.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made that the instant application was effectively filed on 06 April 2023, but claims priority to Application No. CN 202110326552.1, filed on 26 Mar 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06 April 2023, 21 June 2024, 03 January 2025 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nobuhiro et al. (JP 2013073924, Machine Translation attached).
Regarding claim 1, Nobuhiro teaches an anode plate (2, Fig. 1) for a lithium-ion battery, wherein the anode plate comprises:
i) a current collector (10, Fig. 1);
ii) an anode active material layer (11, Fig. 1) located on at least one surface of the current collector (top of 10, Fig. 1); and
iii) a lithium-precipitation inhibiting layer (12, Fig. 1, see Pg2:L29-34) located on the anode active material layer (11, Fig. 1), wherein the lithium-precipitation inhibiting layer (12) contains at least one of following lithium-precipitation inhibiting materials: LiNixCoyMnzFewO2, LiMPO4, and Li4Ti5O12, (LTO, 20, Fig. 3A, see Pg1:L36-38, Pg4:L36-38) where 0≤x≤1, 0≤y≤1, 0≤z≤1, 0≤w≤1, and x+y+z+w=1, and M is selected from Fe, Co, Ni, Mn or a combination thereof.
Examiner’s Note: It is the position of the Examiner that, while Nobuhiro does not explicitly teach the formula Li4Ti5O12, it is known to one of ordinary skill in the art that LTO or lithium titanate spinel (see Pg1:L36-38 and Pg4:L36-38) are equivalent terms to Li4Ti5O12.
Regarding claim 2, Nobuhiro teaches wherein the lithium-precipitation inhibiting layer (12, Fig. 1) contains at least one of the following lithium-precipitation inhibiting materials: LiNi0.85Co0.075Mn0.075O2, LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2, LiNi0.7Co0.15Mn0.15O2, LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2, LiNi0.5Co0.2Mn0.3O2, LiNi1/3Co1/3Mn1/3O2, LiCoO2, LiNiO2, LiMnO2, LiFeO2, LiFePO4, LiCoPO4, LiNiPO4, LiMnPO4, and Li4Ti5O12 (LTO, 20, Fig. 3A, see Pg1:L36-38 and Pg4:L36-38).
Regarding claim 3, Nobuhiro teaches wherein the lithium-precipitation inhibiting layer contains no conductive material (see Pg3:L26-30).
Examiner’s Note: It is the position of the Examiner that, while Nobuhiro teaches that “in addition, the protective layer 12 may contain a predetermined amount of a conductive agent” (Pg3:L21-24), the embodiment shown in Figs. 1-3b is not taught or depicted to contain the conductive additive. Therefore, a protective layer containing a conductive agent is interpreted as an alternate embodiment. Thus, the protective layer 12 taught in the embodiment of Fig. 3 contains only LTO, which is known in the art to not be conductive.
Regarding claim 4, Nobuhiro teaches wherein the lithium-precipitation inhibiting layer contains no carbon-based conductive material (see Pg3:L26-30).
Regarding claim 9, Nobuhiro teaches a lithium-ion battery (100, Fig. 2), which comprises a cathode plate (1, Fig. 2), an electrolyte (see Pg3:L34), and the anode plate according to claim 1 (2, Fig. 2, see Pg3:L33-38).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nobuhiro et al. (JP 2013073924, Machine Translation attached), as evidenced by Yang et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2019/0044183).
Regarding claim 8, Nobuhiro teaches a lithium precipitation inhibiting layer comprising Li4Ti5O12 (12, Fig. 1, see Pg1:L36-38, Pg4:L36-38) and an anode active material layer comprising graphite (11, Fig. 1, see Pg4:L36-38),
but does not explicitly disclose a difference between the lithium precipitation inhibiting layer and the anode active material layer is 1-4 volts.
However, Yang teaches the potential vs Li/Li+ of Li4Ti5O12 is 1.55 volts and the potential of graphite is 0.1-0.2 volts (see [0130]).
Therefore, Nobuhiro teaches a difference between the lithium precipitation inhibiting layer and the anode active material layer is 1-4 volts (1.35-1.45 volts), by extension of the inherent properties of the materials taught in each layer, as evidenced by Yang.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nobuhiro et al. (JP 2013073924, Machine Translation attached).
Regarding claim 5, Nobuhiro teaches the lithium-precipitation inhibiting layer (12, Fig. 1) comprises lithium-precipitation inhibiting materials (20, Fig. 3A, see Pg2:L29-34),
but does not teach the lithium-precipitation inhibiting layer comprises one or more binders.
However, in an alternate embodiment, Nobuhiro teaches the lithium-precipitation inhibiting layer comprises one or more binders (Pg3:L21-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the lithium-precipitation inhibiting layer of the embodiment of Fig. 3 of Nobuhiro to comprise a binder because Nobuhiro teaches such is an effective equivalent that would yield the same predictable result. Further, it has been held that combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness and involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 14, Nobuhiro teaches the lithium-ion battery according to claim 9 (100, Fig. 2),
but does not teach a power consumption device comprising the lithium-ion battery.
However, in the background section, Nobuhiro teaches a power consumption device (electronic device, see Page1:L5-11) comprising a lithium-ion battery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add a power consumption device, as taught by Nobuhiro, such that it comprises the lithium-ion battery of Nobuhiro, so that the battery may provide a device with higher power and capacity output (see Page1:L5-11).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nobuhiro et al. (JP 2013073924, Machine Translation attached), in view of Zhamu et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2018/0175433).
Regarding claim 6, Nobuhiro teaches the lithium-precipitation inhibiting layer has a thickness of 1.8-20 microns (10 micrometers, see Pg4:L39-42) and anode active material layer (11, Fig. 1),
but does not teach the anode active material layer has a thickness of 30-340 microns, and the thickness of the lithium-precipitation inhibiting layer is 0.018-0.2 times that of the anode active material layer.
However, Zhamu teaches an anode active material layer (graphite layer, see [0205]) has a thickness of 30-340 microns (160 μm, see [0206]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the undisclosed thickness of the anode active material layer of Nobuhiro to be 160 microns, thereby making the lithium inhibiting layer thickness 0.063 times that of the active layer, as taught by Zhamu, to prevent cracking and maintain reduced lithium-ion diffusion path lengths (see [0073]).
Regarding claim 7, Nobuhiro teaches the lithium-precipitation inhibiting layer has a thickness of 2.3-15 microns (10 micrometers, see Pg4:L39-42) and anode active material layer (11, Fig. 1),
but does not teach the anode active material layer has a thickness of 55-260 microns, and the thickness of the lithium-precipitation inhibiting layer is 0.023-0.11 times that of the anode active material layer.
However, Zhamu teaches an anode active material layer (graphite layer, see [0205]) has a thickness of 55-260 microns (160 μm, see [0206]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the undisclosed thickness of the anode active material layer of Nobuhiro to be 160 microns, thereby making the lithium inhibiting layer thickness 0.063 times that of the active layer, as taught by Zhamu, to prevent cracking and maintain reduced lithium-ion diffusion path lengths (see [0073]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nobuhiro et al. (JP 2013073924, Machine Translation attached), in view of Son et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2016/0181603).
Regarding claim 10, Nobuhiro teaches the anode plate (2, Fig. 2) and the cathode plate (1, Fig. 2),
but does not teach wherein the capacity ratio of the anode plate and the cathode plate is 1.07 to 1.01.
However, Son teaches a lithium-ion battery cell (30, Fig. 3), wherein the capacity ratio of the anode plate and the cathode plate is 1.07 to 1.01 (1.05 to 1, see [0073 and 0075]).
Examiner’s Note: It is the position of the Examiner, that while the range claimed is not identical to the range taught by Son, Son teaches the lower bound of the range as “approximately” 1.0. Thus, routine experimentation requiring only ordinary skill in the art is necessary to optimize overlapping ranges.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cathode plate and anode plate of Nobuhiro such that there is a capacity ratio between 1.05 and 1.01, as taught by Son, to achieve high capacity and good cycling performance (see [0075]).
Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nobuhiro et al. (JP 2013073924, Machine Translation attached), in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2018/0040875).
Regarding claim 12, Nobuhiro teaches the lithium-ion battery according to claim 9 (100, Fig. 2),
but does not teach a battery module comprising the lithium-ion battery.
However, Kim teaches a battery module comprising a secondary lithium-ion battery (see [0086]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add a battery module, as taught by Kim, such that it comprises the lithium-ion battery of Nobuhiro, so that the battery module may be used as a power source for medium and large devices (see [0086]).
Regarding claim 13, Nobuhiro, in view of Kim, teaches a battery module (see [0086] of Kim),
but does not teach a battery pack comprising the battery module.
However, Kim teaches a battery pack comprising a battery module (see [0086]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add a battery pack, as taught by Kim, such that it comprises the battery module of Nobuhiro, in view of Kim, so that the battery pack may be used as a power source for medium and large devices (see [0086]).
Regarding claim 15, Nobuhiro, in view of Kim, teaches a battery module (see [0086]),
but does not teach a power consumption device comprising the battery module.
However, in the background section, Nobuhiro teaches a power consumption device (electronic device, see Page1:L5-11) comprising a lithium-ion battery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add a power consumption device, as taught by Nobuhiro, such that it comprises the battery module of Nobuhiro, in view of Kim, so that the battery may provide a device with higher power and capacity output (see Page1:L5-11).
Regarding claim 16, Nobuhiro, in view of Kim, teaches a battery pack (see [0086]),
but does not teach a power consumption device comprising the battery pack.
However, in the background section, Nobuhiro teaches a power consumption device (electronic device, see Page1:L5-11) comprising a lithium-ion battery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add a power consumption device, as taught by Nobuhiro, such that it comprises the battery pack of Nobuhiro, in view of Kim, so that the battery may provide a device with higher power and capacity output (see Page1:L5-11).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aidan L Papandria whose telephone number is (571)272-1831. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 ET.
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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at (571) 270-7078. 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.
/AIDAN LACHLAN PAPANDRIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723