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 1/19/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the powder" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of this office action, “the powder” will be interpreted as “a powder”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the powder" in lines 1-2 and line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of this office action, each instance of “the powder” will be interpreted as “a powder”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the powder" in line 1 and line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of this office action, each instance of “the powder” will be interpreted as “a powder”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 3-4, 6, 11, 14-15, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koga et al. (JP 2011/070976, see Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Koga et al. discloses in Figs 1-8, a secondary battery (ref 1.101), comprising an electrode assembly (ref 10.110), the electrode assembly (ref 10.110) comprising a main body part (main area at ref 50, Fig 3) and a tab extending from the main body part (main area at ref 50, Fig 3), the main body part (main area at ref 50, Fig 3) comprising a negative electrode plate (ref 20.120), and the negative electrode plate (ref 20.120) comprising a negative electrode current collector (ref 28) and a negative electrode film layer (ref 21.121) provided on at least one surface (Fig 5) of the negative electrode current collector (ref 28), wherein the negative electrode film layer (ref 21.121) comprises a first region (ref 21C,121C) and second regions (refs 21E,121E) provided on both sides (Fig 5) of the first region (ref 21C,121C) in the extension direction (Fig 5) of the tab (ref 5, “Tab” below), the first region (ref 21C,121C) comprises a first negative electrode active material ([0010], [0016], [0056], [0057], [0067]), the first negative electrode active material comprising artificial graphite ([0010], [0056]), and each of the second regions (refs 21E,121E) comprises a second negative electrode active material ([0010], [0016], [0056], [0057], [0067]), the second negative electrode active material comprising graphite ([0010], [0016], [0056], [0057], [0067]); and when the direct-current impedance of a part of the negative electrode plate (ref 20.120) corresponding to the first region (ref 21C,121C) is marked as R1 (ref R1ᾩ, Fig 5, below), and the direct-current impedance of a part of the negative electrode plate (ref 20.120) corresponding to the second regions (refs 21E,121E) is marked as R2 (ref R2ᾩ, Fig 5, below), the second battery satisfies that:R1<R2 ([0039], values in ohms ᾩ satisfy this relationship).
PNG
media_image1.png
374
598
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Koga et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses when the dimension of the first region (ref 21C.121C) in the extension direction of the tab (ref “Tab”, Fig 5, above) is marked as Li, and a sum of the dimensions of the two second regions (refs 21E.121E) on both sides (Fig 5) of the first region (ref 21C.121C) in the extension direction of the tab (ref “Tab”, Fig 5, above) is marked as L2, the secondary battery satisfies Li>L2 (Fig 5, above, depicts this relationship)
Regarding claim 4, Koga et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the two second regions (refs 21E.121E) provided on both sides (Fig 5) of the first region (ref 21C.121C) have the same dimension (Fig 5) in the extension direction (Fig 5) of the tab (ref “Tab” above).
Regarding claim 6, Koga et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses a ratio of a powder compacted density of the first negative electrode active material under a pressure of 25 kN to the powder compacted density of the second negative electrode active material under a pressure of 25 kN is 0.6 to 1 ([0011], both have same density, equals 1).
Regarding claim 11, Koga et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the volume-average particle size Dv50 of the second negative electrode active material is 10 – 22 microns ([0032], [0034], [0046], 17.2).
Regarding claim 14, Koga et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the second negative electrode active material comprises one or more of artificial graphite and natural graphite ([0010], [0016], [0056], [0057], [0067]).
Regarding claim 15, Koga et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the first negative electrode active material further comprises natural graphite ([0010], [0016], [0056], [0057], [0067]).
Regarding claim 17, Koga et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the maximum dimension of the main body part in the extension direction of the tab is >60 mm ([0038], [0059], Fig 3); and/or the maximum dimension of the main body part in a direction perpendicularly intersecting with the extension direction of the tab is >60 mm ([0038], [0059], Fig 5).
Regarding claim 18, Koga et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the main body part comprises a positive electrode plate (ref 30), the positive electrode plate (ref 30) comprises a positive electrode current collector (ref 38) and a positive electrode film layer (ref 31) provided on at least one surface (Fig 4, [0040]) of the positive electrode current collector (ref 38) and comprising a positive electrode active material ([0030]), and the positive electrode active material comprises one or more of lithium transition metal oxides ([0030]).
Regarding claim 20, Koga et al. discloses in Figs 1-8, a battery module (ref 210), comprising a secondary battery (ref 1.101) as set forth above.
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 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 non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 7, 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koga et al. (JP 2011/070976, see Machine Translation) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 2, Koga et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Koga et al. does not explicitly disclose 0.65 R1/R2<0.95, the change in the impedance/resistance is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. Koga et al. (see Abstract, [0020], [0023], [0039], [0046], [0047], [0070], [0072]) teaches that it was known in the art at the time of the invention that varying the impedance/resistance of the first and second regions will vary the electrical performance of said battery. Therefore the electrical performance is a variable that can be modified, among others, by varying the impedance/resistance of the first and second regions. For that reason, the impedance/resistance of the first and second regions, would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed. As such, without showing unexpected results, the impedance/resistance of the first and second regions cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the impedance/resistance of the first and second regions in the battery of Koga et al. to obtain the desired electrical performance of said battery (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 7, Koga et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above, but the reference does not explicitly disclose a powder compacted density of the first negative electrode active material under a pressure of 25 kN is 1.1 g/cm3 to 1.9 g/cm3. As the performance and structural integrity (see Koga et al. [0020], [0023], [0039], [0046], [0047], [0070], [0072]) are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said active material density, with said performance and structural integrity both varying as the active material density is varied, the precise active material density would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed active material density cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the active material density in the active material of Koga et al. to obtain the desired balance between the performance and structural integrity (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 12, Koga et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the number proportion of secondary particles in the first negative electrode active material is >60% ([0032], [0034]). While Koga et al. does not explicitly disclose the volume-average particle size Dv50 of the first negative electrode active material is 12 – 15 microns, the change in the particle size of the active material is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. Koga et al. (see [0032], [0034], [0045], [0046]) teaches that it was known in the art at the time of the invention that varying the particle size of the active material will vary the electrical performance of said battery. Therefore the electrical performance is a variable that can be modified, among others, by varying the particle size of the active material. For that reason, the the particle size of the active material, would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed. As such, without showing unexpected results, the particle size of the active material cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the particle size of the active material in the active material of Toga et al. to obtain the desired electrical performance (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 16, Koga et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above, but the reference does not explicitly disclose a compacted density the negative electrode film layer is 1.2 g/cm3 to 2.0 g/cm3. As the performance and structural integrity (see Koga et al. [0020], [0023], [0039], [0046], [0047], [0070], [0072]) are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said active material density, with said performance and structural integrity both varying as the active material density is varied, the precise active material density would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed active material density cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the active material density in the active material of Koga et al. to obtain the desired balance between the performance and structural integrity (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koga et al. (JP 2011/070976, see Machine Translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sato et al. (JP 2005/209411, see Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 5, Koga et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above, but the reference does not explicitly disclose the powder compacted density of the first negative electrode active material under a pressure of 25 kN is less than that of the second negative electrode active material under a pressure of 25 kN.
Sato et al. discloses in Figs 1-3, a secondary battery (Fig 1) including a negative electrode (ref 6) including a current collector (ref 6a) coated with a graphite negative active material (refs 6b, [0040]). End portions (refs 6c) of the negative active material has a higher compacted material density ([0046]) than a center portion (ref 6d) of the negative active material. This configuration enhances the charge / discharge cycling life of the battery ([0047]).
Sato et al. and Koga et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, negative electrode materials for batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the compacted density structure of end portions having higher densities than a middle portion as disclosed by Sato et al. into the negative electrode of Koga et al. to enhance charge / discharge cycling life and therefore enhance overall battery performance.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koga et al. (JP 2011/070976, see Machine Translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2019/0097271).
Regarding claims 8-10, Koga et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Koga et al. does not explicitly disclose changing the specific OI values as claimed for the negative electrode plate, the change in the specific OI values for the negative electrode plate is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. Wang et al. (see [0021], [0022], [0034]-[0036], [0091]) teaches that it was known in the art at the time of the invention that varying specific OI values for the negative electrode plate will vary the electrical performance of said battery. Therefore the electrical performance is a variable that can be modified, among others, by varying the specific OI values as claimed for the negative electrode plate. For that reason, the specific OI values as claimed for the negative electrode plate, would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed. As such, without showing unexpected results, the specific OI values as claimed for the negative electrode plate cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the specific OI values as claimed for the negative electrode plate of Koga et al. as taught by Wang et al. to obtain the desired battery electrical performance (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koga et al. (JP 2011/070976, see Machine Translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kwon et al. (US 2015/0155557).
Regarding claim 13, Kwon et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not disclose the tap density of the first negative electrode active material is 0.85 g/cm3 to 1.3 g/cm3; and/or the tap density of the second negative electrode active material is 0.95 g/cm3 to 1.5 g/cm3.
Kwon et al. discloses in Fig 1, a secondary battery (Abstract) including a negative active material including graphite having a tap density of 1 g/cm3 ([0014], [0022]). This configuration enhances battery cycle and life characteristics ([0025]).
Kwon et al. and Koga et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the negative active material of Koga et al. as having the tap density disclosed by Kwon et al. to enhance battery life and cycle characteristics.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH J DOUYETTE whose telephone number is (571)270-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8A - 4P 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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/KENNETH J DOUYETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights