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 . If status of the application as subject to 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 a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Claims 11-16 are withdrawn. Claims 1-10 & 17-20 are presently examined.
Election/Restriction
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-10 & 17-20), in the reply filed on 7/1/2026, is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that:
“is would not be burdensome to the Office to Examiner the claims addressed to a method of making an electrode with the claims to the electrode itself” (Applicant Remarks p.6)
This is not found persuasive because the bipolar electrode of Group I can be made by another and materially different process than the process required under Group II, and the groups have different classifications, as described in the 6/22/2026 restriction. The different Groups will thus require different search strategies; therefore, there would be serious search and/or examination burden. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 17, & 19 refer to “high aspect ratio” particles. These claims provide no guidance for how “high” an aspect ratio must be to be considered a “high aspect ratio”. The present specification and figures also fail to quantify “high”.
Based on present specification paragraph 35 and figure 3, Examiner interprets “high aspect ratio” to mean that the particles have a short axis and a long axis, and the short axis is shorter than the long axis.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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.
The claims are in bold font, the prior art is in parentheses.
Claims 1-8 & 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20230097126A1 (Kawai) in view of US20240250305A1 (Takeshita) and US20120088148A1 (Leddy).
With regard to claim 1, Kawai teaches the following claim limitations:
A bipolar electrode (paragraph 125) for use in a lithium ion battery (paragraph 125), wherein the bipolar electrode comprises:
a current collector (paragraph 125);
an anode (paragraph 125: negative electrode active material layer) on a first side of the current collector (paragraph 125), the anode comprising… conductive carbon particles (paragraph 189: graphite) and an anode binder (paragraph 189: binding agent)
a cathode (paragraph 125: positive electrode active material layer) on an opposite side of the current collector from the anode (paragraph 125)
Regarding the anode, Kawai fails to teach high aspect ratio graphite as the anode conductive carbon particles. Takeshita teaches this claim limitation. Takeshita teaches graphite, with aspect ratio > 1.5, in the second negative electrode active material (paragraphs 70 & 80).
Kawai also fails to teach the following claim 1 limitation, which is taught by Takeshita:
wherein the high aspect ratio conductive carbon particles are aligned so that a long axis of the high aspect ratio conductive carbon particles is substantially perpendicular (paragraph 48; figure 3: angle θ ≥ 45o) to the current collector
Takeshita is directed to suppressing resistance increase caused by repetitive charge and discharge (abstract, paragraphs 6-7). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, for Kawai’s graphite to have an aspect ratio > 1.5, and to be aligned with an angle θ ≥ 45o with respect to the current collector, as taught by Takeshita, for suppressing resistance increase caused by repetitive charge and discharge.
For comparison with Takeshita, “substantially perpendicular” is the same as “substantially 90o”. The claim and the specification fail to provide guidance for the extent of “substantially”. Takeshita’s θ ≥ 45o (i.e. 45o - 90o) is interpreted to be the same as the claimed substantially perpendicular / substantially 90o.
If substantially perpendicular / substantially 90o is interpreted to exclude 45o, then MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A) provides the law for this issue:
“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)”
Given that Takeshita’s range of 45o - 90o is similar to and substantially overlaps the claimed range (substantially perpendicular / substantially 90o), and further given the fact that no criticality is disclosed for the claimed range, “substantially perpendicular” in claim 1 is an obvious variant of Takeshita’s range.
Kawai fails to teach the following claim 1 limitations, which are taught by Leddy:
the cathode comprising cathode active particles (paragraphs 43-44: paramagnetic microparticles distributed throughout the cathode) in a cathode binder (paragraph 64);
wherein (a) the cathode active particles are paramagnetic… or magnetic (paragraphs 43-44: magnetic or paramagnetic microparticles distributed throughout the cathode)… and have been magnetically aligned (paragraphs 45 & 59)
Leddy is directed to a magnetic or paramagnetic cathode material for battery improved performance, increased energy, and increased power (paragraph 43). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, for Kawai’s positive electrode active material layer to include an aligned magnetic or paramagnetic particles, as taught by Leddy, for battery improved performance, increased energy, and increased power.
With regard to claim 2, modified Kawai teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Kawai also teaches the following limitations of claim 2:
the current collector comprises a stainless steel (paragraph 89) having a thickness of 3 to 50 microns (paragraph 89: 1 μm to 100 μm)
Kawai, however, fails to teach the following limitations of claim 2:
the current collector… having… length and width of 10 to 100 centimeters
Current collector length and width is based on battery size. It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, to select current collector length and width based on battery size.
With regard to claim 3, modified Kawai teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Claim 3 states:
the high aspect ratio conductive carbon particles comprise plate shaped particles
As discussed under claim 1, Takeshita teaches high aspect ratio graphite. Graphite is plate shaped.
With regard to claim 4, modified Kawai teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Modified Kawai also teaches the following limitations of claim 4:
the anode comprise 90 to 97 weight percent of the high aspect ratio conductive carbon particles (Kawai paragraph 178: 97 wt% graphite. Takeshita paragraphs 70 & 80: high aspect ratio graphite.) and 3 to 10 weight percent of the anode binder based on total weight of the anode (Kawai paragraph 178: 3 wt% binding agent)
With regard to claim 5, modified Kawai teaches the limitations of claims 1 & 3, as described above. Claim 5 states:
plate shaped particles are graphite flakes
As discussed under claim 1, Takeshita teaches graphite as the high aspect ratio conductive carbon particles.
With regard to claim 6, modified Kawai teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Kawai also teaches the following limitation of claim 6:
the anode binder is a carboxymethylcellulose or a styrene butadiene rubber (paragraph 178)
With regard to claims 7-8, modified Kawai teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Kawai also teaches the following limitations of claims 7-8:
Claim 7
the cathode active particles comprise lithium transition metal phosphates (paragraphs 102 & 174: LiFePO4)
Claim 8
the cathode active particles comprise lithium iron phosphates (paragraphs 102 & 174: LiFePO4)
With regard to claim 17, Kawai teaches the following claim limitations:
An electrochemical cell (paragraph 135: lithium ion secondary) comprising
one or more bipolar electrodes located between a first anode on a first anode current collector and a first cathode on a first cathode current collector, wherein the bipolar electrode has a cathode and an anode on opposing surfaces of a third current collector, wherein the one or more bipolar electrodes, the first anode and the first cathode are positioned such that each anode is facing and is separated from an adjacent cathode by a separator (paragraph 135),
wherein the anode (paragraph 125: negative electrode active material layer) of the one or more bipolar electrodes comprises… conductive carbon particles (paragraph 189: graphite) and anode binder (paragraph 189: binding agent)…
Regarding the anode, Kawai fails to teach high aspect ratio graphite as the anode conductive carbon particles. Takeshita teaches this claim limitation. Takeshita teaches graphite, with aspect ratio > 1.5, in the second negative electrode active material (paragraphs 70 & 80). Kawai also fails to teach the following claim 17 limitation, which is taught by Takeshita:
wherein the high aspect ratio conductive carbon particles are aligned so that a long axis of the high aspect ratio conductive carbon particles is substantially perpendicular (paragraph 48; figure 3: angle θ ≥ 45o) to the third current collector
Takeshita is directed to suppressing resistance increase caused by repetitive charge and discharge (abstract, paragraphs 6-7). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, for Kawai’s graphite to have an aspect ratio > 1.5, and to be aligned with an angle θ ≥ 45o with respect to the current collector, as taught by Takeshita, for suppressing resistance increase caused by repetitive charge and discharge.
In comparison with Takeshita, “substantially perpendicular” is the same as “substantially 90o”. The claim and the specification fail to provide guidance for the extent of “substantially”. Takeshita’s θ ≥ 45o (i.e. 45o - 90o) is interpreted to be the same as the claimed substantially perpendicular / substantially 90o.
If substantially perpendicular / substantially 90o is interpreted to exclude 45o, then MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A) provides the law for this issue:
“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)”
Given that Takeshita’s range (45o - 90o) is similar to and substantially overlaps the claimed range (substantially perpendicular / substantially 90o), and further given the fact that no criticality is disclosed for the claimed range, “substantially perpendicular” in claim 17 is an obvious variant of Takeshita’s range.
Kawai fails to teach the following claim 17 limitations, which are taught by Leddy:
wherein the electrochemical cell further comprises an electrolyte (paragraph 44)…
the cathode of the one or more bipolar electrodes comprises cathode active particles (paragraphs 43-44: paramagnetic microparticles distributed throughout the cathode) in a cathode binder (paragraph 64);
wherein the cathode active particles are paramagnetic (paragraphs 43-44: magnetic or paramagnetic microparticles distributed throughout the cathode)… and have been magnetically aligned (paragraphs 45 & 59)
Leddy is directed to a magnetic or paramagnetic cathode material for battery improved performance, increased energy, and increased power (paragraph 43). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, for Kawai’s battery to include an electrolyte and a positive electrode active material layer with an aligned magnetic or paramagnetic particles, as taught by Leddy, for battery improved performance, increased energy, and increased power.
With regard to claim 18, modified Kawai teaches the limitations of claim 17 as discussed above. Kawai also teaches the following limitation of claim 18:
the cathode active particles comprise lithium transition metal phosphates (paragraphs 102 & 174: LiFePO4)
With regard to claim 19, modified Kawai teaches the limitations of claim 17 as discussed above. Claim 19 states:
the first anode comprises high aspect ratio conductive carbon particles aligned so that a long axis of the high aspect ratio conductive carbon particles is substantially perpendicular to the first anode current collector
As discussed under claim 17, Kawai teaches graphite as the anode conductive carbon particles, and Takeshita teaches aligned, high aspect ratio graphite. Kawai also teaches a stack of multiple bipolar electrodes (paragraph 135) so that this anode structure can be in the anode of each bipolar electrode, including in the claimed first anode.
With regard to claim 20, modified Kawai teaches the limitations of claim 17 as discussed above. Kawai also teaches the following limitation of claim 20:
at least two of the bipolar electrodes (paragraph 135: a stack of multiple bipolar electrodes)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20230097126A1 (Kawai) in view of US20240250305A1 (Takeshita) and US20120088148A1 (Leddy), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US20230155116A1 (Cao). Kawai fails to teach the following limitation of claim 9, which is taught by Cao:
the cathode includes the high aspect ratio conductive particles (abstract: cathode includes high aspect ratio carbon elements)
Cao teaches high aspect ratio carbon elements in the electrode for conducting electricity (paragraph 24). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, for Kawai’s positive electrode active material layer to include high aspect ratio carbon elements, as taught by Cao, for conducting electricity.
Claim 9 depends from claim 1. The high aspect ratio conductive particles in claim 1 are aligned so that a long axis of the high aspect ratio conductive particles is substantially perpendicular to the current collector. Kawai and Cao fail to teach this alignment.
Takeshita teaches aligning high aspect ratio conductive particles in the anode for suppressing resistance increase caused by repetitive charge and discharge (abstract, paragraphs 6-7). This benefit, of suppressing resistance increase caused by repetitive charge and discharge, is applicable to the cathode as well as to the anode.
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, to apply Takeshita’s teaching of aligning the high aspect ratio anode particles to the high aspect ratio cathode particles of Cao and Kawai, for suppressing resistance increase caused by repetitive charge and discharge, as taught by Takeshita.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20230097126A1 (Kawai) in view of US20240250305A1 (Takeshita) and US20120088148A1 (Leddy), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US20080220330A1 (Hosaka). Kawai fails to teach the following limitation of claim 10, which is taught by Hosaka:
The bipolar electrode of claim 1 having a thickness of 100 to 300 microns (paragraph 116: 90 μm thickness)
Hosaka is directed to a bipolar electrode battery with improved energy density (paragraphs 21-25 ). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, for Kawai’s to bipolar electrode to be 90 μm thick, as taught by Hosaka, as part of a bipolar electrode battery with improved energy density.
Hosaka discloses 90 μm thickness whereas claim 10 requires 100 to 300 μm thickness. MPEP 2144.05 (I) provides the law for this issue:
“Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985)… ‘The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.’”
Given that there is only a slight difference between Hosaka 90 μm thickness and 100 to 300 μm thickness in claim 10, and further given the fact that no criticality is disclosed for the claimed range, the claimed range is an obvious variant of Hosaka’s thickness.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT WEST whose telephone number is 703-756-1363 and email address is Robert.West@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am - 7 pm 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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684.
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.
/R.G.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights