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 .
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barde, et. al. (US12542282B2), in view of Saruwatari, et. al. (US2008241692A1) and Goto, et. al. (EP3734696A1).
Barde teaches a positive electrode (“[0039] a solid-state ceramic cathode”) comprising: a positive electrode current collector (current collector 2); a positive electrode active material-containing layer (active cathode material 61) provided on the positive electrode current collector; and a porous layer (“[0121] In some embodiments, the electrolyte layer is permeable to a metal ion. In some embodiments, the electrolyte layer permits the metal ion to pass without impediment. In some embodiments, the electrolyte layer is porous. In these embodiments, the metal ion may diffuse between the anode and the cathode e.g. during charging and discharging of the battery”); a thickness of the porous layer being 3.0 µm or less (“the electrolyte layer has a thickness of at most 30 µm, preferably at most 15 µm, so as to take up as little space as possible,” which presents an encompassing range with 3.0 µm or less). Barde at [0039, 68, 121, 147.] Barde does not teach, “and a ratio X/Y, between a mode diameter X in a log differential pore volume distribution curve according to mercury porosimetry with respect to the positive electrode active material-containing layer and the porous layer, and a mode diameter Y in a log differential pore volume distribution curve according to mercury porosimetry with respect to the positive electrode active material- containing layer, satisfying the following Equation 1: 1.0 < X/Y < 1.5 . . . (1).” .” However, Barde teaches “[0059] In some embodiments, the width of pores of the three-dimensional electronically conductive network is uniform. For instance, 95% of the pores may have a width within 10% of each other. It can be beneficial to have a narrow pore size distribution because it allows optimizing the performances for a given volume. It allows to have pores with similar size and coating thicknesses, and hence a similar amount of electrolyte. It also facilitates a uniform metal (e.g. Li) deposition. Therefore, in some embodiments, for a network with a certain porosity and certain volumetric surface area, a uniform magnitude of pores may result in the largest diffusion rate that may be achieved.” Id. at [0059]. The prior action argues “pores with similar size” reads upon a mode diameter because a mode is the amount of times a value occurs in a set, sequence, or distribution – while this standing alone does not present the mode diameter, it does support an inference that the relative uniformity of pores is a result effective variable. Further, not only does Barde teach a benefit to maintaining similarity in size for fast diffusion, but it also notes the importance of the solid electrolyte layer maintaining a threshold ion conductivity. Id. at [0132 – 135]
Saruwatari teaches “[0005] As shown in JP-A 5-151953 (KOKAI) and JP-A 2006-59690 (KOKAI), it is known that an improvement in the performance of a battery can be attained by knowing the state of particles in the battery electrode based on the measurement of the pore distribution of the battery electrode by using mercury porosimetry,” and applies this general teaching to a porous layer, comprising a negative electrode active material layer having a log differential pore volume distribution, wherein the mode diameter of the peak is 0.03 – 0.2 µm, or 30 nm to 200 nm. Saruwatari at [005, 44] (“[0044] FIG. 1 shows an example of a distribution curve of pore volume of the negative electrode which is measured by mercury porosimetry. In FIG. 1, the abscissa is the pore size diameter (radius), the right ordinate is the log differential intrusion and the left ordinate is the cumulative intrusion. The log differential intrusion curve is a curve expressed by the right ordinate to show a variation in the log differential intrusion as a function of the pore size diameter. As shown in FIG. 1, a peak exists in a pore size diameter range of 0.03 [mu]m to 0.2 [mu]m. Also, the curve attenuates with a decrease in pore size diameter from the apex. In other words, no other peak is present at a pore size diameter smaller than the pore size diameter of the apex of the peak. Here, the description "a peak exists in a pore size diameter range of 0.03 [mu]m to 0.2 [mu]m" means that the mode diameter of the peak which is the pore size diameter of the apex of the peak is 0.03 [mu]m or more and 0.2 [mu]m or less.” In terms of porosity, Saruwatari teaches “[0045] The reason for this is because if a negative electrode is used which is provided with pores mostly having a small diameter, as in the case where the ratio of pores having a pore size diameter of 0.05 [mu]m or less exceeds 90%, there is a concern that the negative electrode active material detaches from the current collector metal foil because it becomes less resistant to mechanical bending and to expansion and shrinkage thereof during charging and discharging.” By contrast, a lack of uniformity in the electrode leads to “greatly deteriorated output performance.” Id.
In other words, both Barde and Saruwatari support a teaching, for both a porous layer disposed upon an electrode or the electrode itself, that the uniformity of the pore distribution is desirable for output characteristics. See id. Saruwatari teaches this may be measured via the mode diameter of the log differential pore volume distribution according to mercury porosimetry. However, these are balanced by a decrease in effectiveness for pore volume distributions having a mode diameter wherein the pores are too uniform, because these are less resistant to mechanical bending. Further, Saruwatari teaches a mode diameter of 30 to 200 nm of the active material layer is preferable, and within Barde, the acceptable mean width of the pores is 10 to 500 nm, indicating similar desirable ranges for the pore diameter for both a three-dimensional conductive network as in Barde, and an electrode material. Finally, putting this together, because Saruwatari presents teachings which indicate the mode diameter of the log differential pore volume distribution according to mercury porosimetry of an active material layer is a result effective variable for output characteristics and mechanical strength based on overall uniformity of the pores within the distribution, this supports a strong inference that a ratio of the mode diameters of a porous layer sitting atop an electrode would also be effected by pore uniformity, giving rise to a ratio X/Y between the mode diameters of the two materials as a secondary result-effective variable.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify the battery of Barde, such that the porous layer and its cathode satisfy “and a ratio X/Y, between a mode diameter X in a log differential pore volume distribution curve according to mercury porosimetry with respect to the positive electrode active material-containing layer and the porous layer, and a mode diameter Y in a log differential pore volume distribution curve according to mercury porosimetry with respect to the positive electrode active material- containing layer, satisfying the following Equation 1: 1.0 < X/Y < 1.5 . . . (1),” because Barde and Saruwatari teach the uniformity of the pore diameters/widths within the pore size distribution (i.e., their mode diameter) is a result effective variable (improving output characteristics, ionic conductivity, mechanical strength), indicating that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would arrive at the claimed limitation by routine experimentation.
However, regarding the term “containing inorganic particles,” Barde is silent as to inorganic particles within the porous layer.
Goto teaches a separator 13 for a secondary battery, having a filler layer 31 and 32, wherein the second filler layer comprises inorganic particles 35. Goto at [0028, 49]. Goto teaches “[0049] The second filler layer 32 is a porous layer . . . in which pores through which lithium ions pass are formed in gaps between the inorganic particles 35. The porosity of the second filler layer 32 is preferably 30% or more and 70% or less, like the first filler layer 31. The second filler layer 32 has a function of improving the shape stability of the separator 13 by suppressing large deformation of the substrate 30 caused as a result of battery overheating. The provision of the second filler layer 32 which is a heat-resistant layer improves the shutdown effect of the separator 13 and sufficiently suppresses the exothermic reaction at the time of short circuit.” Id. at [0049]. Further, “the amount of the inorganic particles 35 is preferably 90 mass% or more, and more preferably 92 mass% or more and 98 mass% or less relative to the total mass of the second filler layer 32.” Id. at [0053]. This indicates that the primary source of the improved heat resistance of the filler layer 32 is the inorganic particles 35, which constitute up to 98 mass% of the layer. Id.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to further modify the battery of modified Barde, such that it comprises a porous layer comprising the inorganic particles 35 of Goto, because Goto teaches an improvement to heat resistance and suppression of an exothermic reaction at the time of a short circuit.
Claim 1 is obvious over Barde, in view of Saruwatari and Goto.
Regarding Claim 2, Claim 2 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Barde.
Goto teaches “[0050] The average particle size of the inorganic particles 35 is preferably, for example, 0.2 µm or more and 2 µm or less. If the average particle size does not satisfy the above range, the amount of heat generated at the time of overheating may be larger than that in the case where the average particle size satisfies the above range.” Goto at [0050]. This presents an overlapping range with
“the average particle size (D50) of the inorganic particles is within a range from 0.1 µm to 3.0 µm.” An overlapping range presents a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claim 2 is obvious over Barde, in view of Goto.
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Barde.
Goto teaches “[0050] Examples of the inorganic particles 35 include particles made of metal oxides, metal oxide hydrates, metal hydroxides, metal nitrides, metal carbides, metal sulfides, and the like. The average particle size of the inorganic particles 35 is preferably, for example, 0.2 µm or more and 2 µm or less. If the average particle size does not satisfy the above range, the amount of heat generated at the time of overheating may be larger than that in the case where the average particle size satisfies the above range. [0051] Examples of metal oxides and metal oxide hydrates include aluminum oxide, boehmite (Al2 O3 H2 O or AlOOH), magnesium oxide, titanium oxide, zirconium oxide, silicon oxide, yttrium oxide, and zinc oxide.” Goto at [0050-51]. This meets the term “the inorganic particles are at least one selected from the group consisting of aluminum oxide, titanium oxide, magnesium oxide, zinc oxide, lithium titanate, titanium hydroxide, barium titanate, iron oxide, silicon oxide, aluminum hydroxide, gibbsite, boehmite, bayerite, zirconium oxide, magnesium hydroxide, silica, barium titanate, lithium tetraborate, lithium tantalate, mica, silicon nitride, aluminum nitride, and zeolite.”
Claim 3 is obvious over Barde, in view of Saruwatari and Goto.
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 4 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Barde.
Goto teaches “[0053] The second filler layer 32 contains a binder, which bonds the inorganic particles 35 to each other.” Goto at [0053]. Goto teaches “[0049] The second filler layer 32 is a porous layer . . . in which pores through which lithium ions pass are formed in gaps between the inorganic particles 35. The porosity of the second filler layer 32 is preferably 30% or more and 70% or less, like the first filler layer 31. The second filler layer 32 has a function of improving the shape stability of the separator 13 by suppressing large deformation of the substrate 30 caused as a result of battery overheating. The provision of the second filler layer 32 which is a heat-resistant layer improves the shutdown effect of the separator 13 and sufficiently suppresses the exothermic reaction at the time of short circuit.” Id. at [0049]. This presents an overlapping range with “the porous layer further contains a binder, and a proportion of a mass of the inorganic particles accounting for a mass of the porous layer is within a range of 50 mass% to 100 mass%.” An overlapping range presents a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claim 4 is obvious over Barde, in view of Saruwatari and Goto.
Regarding Claim 5, Claim 5 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Barde.
As previously modified, Barde was modified to meet the limitation 1.0 < X/Y < 1.5, because as explained within the Claim 1 analysis it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the claimed ratio by routine experimentation because of mode diameter is a result effective variable which increases or decreases diffusion. For this reason, it would further be obvious to arrive at the ratio 1.20 or more through routine experimentation.
Claim 5 is obvious over Barde, in view of Goto.
Regarding Claim 6, Claim 6 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Barde.
Barde teaches “[0130] the three-dimensional electronically conductive network 10 may be a first electrode e.g. a cathode. . . [e.g.] a 35 µm thick three-dimensional electronically conductive network.” Barde at [0130- 132]. This presents an overlapping range with “a thickness of the positive electrode active material-containing layer is within a range of 5 µm to 100 µm.” An overlapping range presents a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claim 6 is obvious over Barde, in view of Saruwatari and Goto.
Regarding Claim 7, Claim 7 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Barde.
Barde teaches an electrode group (battery cell) comprising: the positive electrode (composite cathode 6) according to claim 1; a negative electrode (“[0148] the coated three-dimensional electronically conductive network 1 , which is the anode of the battery”); and a separator (“[0148] In some embodiments wherein the electrolyte separator 4 is a solid electrolyte, the separator comprises a second electrolyte that may be the same as or different from the electrolyte 12”) in contact with the porous layer (separator 4) and interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode. Barde at [0148].
Claim 7 is obvious over Barde, in view of Saruwatari and Goto.
Regarding Claim 8, Claim 8 relies upon Claim 7. Claim 7 is obvious over modified Barde.
Barde teaches the electrolyte layer has a thickness of at most 30 µm, preferably at most 15 µm, so as to take up as little space as possible,” which presents an encompassing range with 3.0 µm or less). Barde at [0121]. Further, Barde “[0148] In embodiments wherein the electrolyte separator 4 is a solid electrolyte, the separator comprises a second electrolyte that may be the same as or different from the electrolyte 12”). Because this indicates the electrolyte may be identical to the separator, this strongly implies a separator having a thickness of at most 30 µm, which fully encompasses the claimed range. An overlapping range presents a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claim 8 is obvious over Barde, in view of Saruwatari and Goto.
Regarding Claim 9, Claim 9 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Barde.
Goto teaches “[[0026] The negative electrode active material is any active material that can reversibly intercalate and deintercalate lithium ions. Examples of the negative electrode active material include carbon materials, such as natural graphite and synthetic graphite, metals, such as silicon (Si) and tin (Sn), to be alloyed with Li, and oxides containing a metal element, such as Si or Sn. The negative electrode mixture layer may contain a lithium-titanium composite oxide.” Goto at [0026]. This reads upon “the negative electrode comprises a negative electrode active material-containing layer containing a negative electrode active material, and the negative electrode active material contains at least one titanium-containing oxide selected from the group consisting of titanium oxide, lithium-titanium composite oxide, niobium-titanium composite oxide, and sodium- niobium-titanium composite oxide,” because of the presence of the lithium-titanium composite oxide in Goto.
Claim 9 is obvious over Barde, in view of Saruwatari and Goto.
Regarding Claim 10, Claim 10 relies upon Claim 7. Claim 7 is obvious over modified Barde.
Barde teaches a secondary battery (“In embodiments, advantageously, the battery may be charged and discharged cyclically, i.e. the battery may be a rechargeable battery”) comprising: the electrode group according to claim 7; and an electrolyte (electrolyte 12). Barde at [0124].
Claim 10 is obvious over Barde, in view of Saruwatari and Goto.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barde, in view of Saruwatari and Goto, and further in view of Iwase, et. al. (US 20150099158 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Claim 11 relies upon Claim 10. Claim 10 is obvious over modified Barde.
Barde and Goto are silent as to a battery pack.
Iwase teaches a battery having a porous heat resistance layer 30A, wherein “[0072] such non-aqueous electrolyte secondary batteries may be used in a form of pack battery where a plurality of the batteries are connected in series and/or in parallel.” Iwase teaches these battery packs “can preferably be used in applications where high energy density and input / output density are required or in applications where high reliability is required. An example of such applications may be a driving source (driving power source) for a motor installed in a vehicle.” Id.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify the battery of modified Barde, such that it is comprised within a battery pack, because Iwase teaches this produces high energy density suitable for applications like vehicles.
Claim 11 is obvious over Barde, in view of Saruwatari and Goto, and further in view of Iwase.
Regarding Claim 12, Claim 12 relies upon Claim 10. Claim 10 is obvious over modified Barde.
Barde and Goto are silent as to a battery pack.
Iwase teaches a battery having a porous heat resistance layer 30A, wherein “[0072] such non-aqueous electrolyte secondary batteries may be used in a form of pack battery where a plurality of the batteries are connected in series and/or in parallel.” Iwase teaches these battery packs “can preferably be used in applications where high energy density and input / output density are required or in applications where high reliability is required. An example of such applications may be a driving source (driving power source) for a motor installed in a vehicle.” Id. This reads upon “comprising plural of the secondary battery, the secondary batteries being electrically connected in series, in parallel, or in combination of in-series connection and in-parallel connection.”
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify the battery of modified Barde, such that it is comprised within a battery pack, because Iwase teaches this produces high energy density suitable for applications like vehicles.
Claim 12 is obvious over Barde, in view of Saruwatari and Goto, and further in view of Iwase.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/17/2026 have been fully considered; Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments / Remarks Filed in an Amendment, filed 06/17/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 pertaining to support for routine optimization have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Saruwatari, et. al. (US2008241692A1). Applicant’s arguments pertaining to paragraph citations are not persuasive, but are addressed below.
Regarding the paragraph citations, applicant notes “the grounds for rejection is entirely unclear and particularly on the grounds of Barde being cited. Barde does not designate portions of the disclosure by paragraph numbers such as [0059] and [0132-135], but instead only has column and line numbers. Those noted paragraph numbers also do not appear to match the earlier publication to Barde (U.S.2024/0021837). Thereby the grounds for the rejection are not at all clear.” The Office generally does not provide PDF copies of US Pre Grant Publications. A cursory investigation indicates that, among publicly available sources like Google Patents, uspto.gov, and the European Patent Office, the Google Patents version of US12542282B2 presents no paragraph numbers or column numbers, the PGPUB presents column numbers but no paragraph numbers, and the European Patent Office (worldwide.espacenet.com) version of Barde presents paragraph numbers. However, counting the original and Google Patents paragraphs manually, the Non-Final Rejection’s paragraph citations are accurate to the actual paragraphs cited. This indicates that despite any momentary confusion regarding column numbers, the paragraph numbers as cited are nevertheless accurate. However, for the limited purposes of ensuring compact prosecution, a PDF copy of Barde with the paragraph numbers is provided.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Iwasaki, et. al. (US 20160276652 A1), teaches “[0028] An electrode whose mode diameter in a pore diameter distribution obtained by the mercury porosimetry is less than 0.1 μm [100 nm] cannot achieve sufficient impregnation of the nonaqueous electrolyte. Also in such an electrode layer, for example, decomposition products of the nonaqueous electrolyte may be attached to the surface of pores after the repeated charge/discharge, leading to clogging of pores.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISHNA RAJAN HAMMOND whose telephone number is (571)272-9997. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:30 PM M-F.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/K.R.H./Examiner , Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights