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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has complied with all of the conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 01/30/2026 and 02/14/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings received on 02/14/2024 were reviewed and are acceptable.
Specification
The specification filed on 02/14/2024 was reviewed and is acceptable.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US 20130147439 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Takahashi discloses an electrode structure [0007] for a secondary battery [0042], a composite layer [0105] including inorganic particles [0061], the composite layer including a first region and a second region [0105, the first region is disclosed as the adhesion layer of the electrode], the first region existing between the electrode and the second region [0105]. Takahashi discloses a secondary particle size of 5μm, within the claimed range [0414]. Takahashi discloses a cumulative frequency distribution of particles size 3μm or more such that the frequency of the inorganic particles in the first region is 0 and the frequency of the inorganic particles in the second region is 100 [0414, Takahashi discloses using primary particles in place of secondary particles in the adhesion layer. This necessarily means that in a cumulative frequency distribution of particles size with an average size of 3μm or more with respect to a thickness direction of the composite layer, the cumulative frequency of particles 3μm or more or in the first region is 0, and the cumulative frequency of particles in the second region is 100.]. Takahashi discloses a first region 5% or more and 40% or less of the thickness of the composite layer from an interface between the electrode and the composite layer [Fig. 3A]. Takahashi discloses an average particle size R1 of inorganic particles in the first region being smaller than an average particle size R2 in the second region [0414, in the disclosed examples, primary particles refined to about 0.1μm are used in the place of secondary particles with an average diameter as large as 5μm in the adhesion layer, resulting in a lower average particle size in the adhesion layer than in the region above].
Regarding claim 9, Takahashi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Takahashi discloses embodiments of their application, including a secondary battery [FIG. 1, 0013], and including a battery that has electrodes [0009]. In the disclosed embodiments, at least one electrode is necessarily a counter electrode to the other.
Regarding claim 10, Takahashi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Takahashi discloses an embodiment of their application wherein the counter electrode is a positive electrode [0034].
Regarding claim 11, Takahashi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Takahashi discloses a configuration example of a battery pack according to an embodiment of their application [0025].
Regarding claim 13, Takahashi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Takahashi discloses a plurality of the secondary batteries, wherein the plurality of secondary batteries are electrically connected in series, in parallel, or in combination of series connection and parallel connection [0218].
Regarding claim 14, Takahashi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Takahashi discloses a vehicle comprising the battery pack according to claim 11 [0229].
Regarding claim 15, Takahashi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Takahashi discloses a vehicle according to claim 14, further comprising a mechanism that converts kinetic energy of the vehicle into regenerative energy [0251].
Regarding claim 16, Takahashi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Takahashi discloses a stationary power supply, comprising the battery pack according to claim 11 [0237].
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 nonobviousness.
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, 3, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US 20130147439 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Takahashi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Takahashi fails to teach that the number of inorganic particles in the claimed range is greater in the first region than in the second region. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the ratio of number of particles of the claimed size since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The burden is upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the claimed ratio of number of particles of the claimed size is critical and has unexpected results. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the ratio of number of particles of the claimed size, motivated by the desire to suppress the delamination of the electrode interface, while further suppressing the decrease of the discharge capacity [0414].
Regarding claim 3, Takahashi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Takahashi fails to teach that the number of inorganic particles in the claimed range is greater in the first region than in the second region. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the ratio of number of particles of the claimed size since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The burden is upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the claimed ratio of number of particles of the claimed size is critical and has unexpected results. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the ratio of number of particles of the claimed size, motivated by the desire to suppress the delamination of the electrode interface, while further suppressing the decrease of the discharge capacity [0414].
Regarding claim 6, Takahashi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Takahashi fails to teach a ratio R1/R2 of the average particle size R1 to the average particle size R2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the ratio of the sizes of the particles since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The burden is upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the claimed ratio of number of particles of the claimed size is critical and has unexpected results. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the ratio of the sizes of the particles, motivated by the desire to obtain discharge capacity from the positive electrode active material particles and retain capacity [0414].
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US 20130147439 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Lee et al. (US 20210175539 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Takahashi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Takahashi does not disclose an average pore size in a first region P1 and an average pore size in a second region P2 such that P1 > P2. Lee teaches a porous layer configured such that the pore size in contact with the anode current collector layer is greater than the pore size in contact with the solid electrolyte interface to store a larger amount of precipitate in a current collector layer [Lee 0063]. Takahashi and Lee both pertain to the design of multilayered electrodes. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the pore sizes disclosed in Lee to the electrode structure disclosed in Takahashi, to improve the amount of precipitate stored on the current collector [Lee 0063].
Regarding claim 5, modified Takahashi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Takahashi fails to teach an average pore size in a first region P1 and an average pore size in a second region P2 such that a ratio P1/P2 is 1.01 or more and 5.0 or less. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the ratio of pore sizes P1 and P2 since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The burden is upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the claimed ratio of number of particles of the claimed size is critical and has unexpected results. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the ratio of pore sizes, motivated by the desire to store larger quantities of precipitate, and to increase charge-discharge efficiency [Lee 0063].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US 20130147439 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Hotta et al. (US 20240291107 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Takahashi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Takahashi does not disclose a porosity of the composite layer. Hotta discloses a porosity of a composite layer of 1% or more and less than 15%, to reduce a side reaction such as continuous decomposition of water [Hotta 0083]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to pick any part of the range. Takahashi and Hotta both pertain to the design of electrodes. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the porosity disclosed in Hotta to the electrode structure disclosed in Takahashi, to reduce side reactions such as the continuous decomposition of water [Hotta 0083].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US 20130147439 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of in view of Hotta et al. (US 20240291107 A1), and further in view of Murata (US 20240313222 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Takahashi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Takahashi discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte. Hotta teaches that non-aqueous electrolytes require certain safety measures be taken because they use a non-aqueous electrolyte containing a combustible substance such as ethylene carbonate [0003]. Hotta teaches that development of an aqueous electrolyte battery using an aqueous electrolyte containing a non-flammable aqueous solvent instead of a non-aqueous electrolyte is underway [0004]. Murata teaches that in place of a nonaqueous electrolyte, a liquid aqueous electrolyte may be used as the electrolyte, and may be prepared by dissolving electrolyte salt as solute in an aqueous solvent [0143]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply a liquid aqueous electrolyte as taught by Murata [0143] to the battery as disclosed by Takahashi, to achieve an aqueous battery using a non-flammable aqueous solvent not requiring certain safety measures as disclosed by Hotta [0003, 0004].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US 20130147439 A1) as applied to claim 11 above and further in view of Momma et al. (US 20220059830 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Takahashi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Takahashi does not disclose a battery pack comprising an external power distribution terminal and a protection circuit. Momma discloses a battery pack with a power distribution terminal [0287]. Momma discloses a protection circuit [0371]. Takahashi and Momma both pertain to electrodes for secondary batteries. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply the power distribution terminal and the protection circuit to the battery pack disclosed in Takahashi, as the prior art contains a base device upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement, the prior art contains a comparable device that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention, and the examiner finds that one having ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement technique in the same way to the base device, and the results would have been predictable to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE WOLFE STONE FENNELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5926. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8-5.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/G.W.F./ Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights