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 with traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 7/17/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that an undue search burden exists between the three groups of inventions in the 5/28/2026 restriction requirement. This is not found persuasive because this application is a national stage application under 35 USC 371 and Applicants have not argued the lack of unity of invention outlined in the 5/28/2026.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teraoka (JP 2016/213106, see Machine Translation) in view of Pan et al. (US 2011/0123866).
Regarding claims 2 and 32-33, Teraoka discloses in Figs 1-8, an electrochemical cell (ref 100), comprising: a first layer (ref 251(2), “1st” with arrow, annotated Fig 6 below) comprising a first plurality of particles (Fig 6b); a second layer (refs 352(2) + 253(3), “2nd” with arrow, annotated Fig 6 below) adjacent to (Fig 6) the first layer (“1st” with arrow, below) comprising a second plurality of particles (Fig 6b), wherein the first and second layer are different (Fig 6, depicted differences between layers); and an interface (line / surface are between “1st” and “2nd”, Fig 6 below) between the first layer (“1st” with arrow, below) and the second layer (“2nd” with arrow, below).
PNG
media_image1.png
248
428
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Teraoka does not explicitly disclose the interface comprises a gradient of the first plurality of particles and the second plurality of particles, wherein the gradient of the first plurality of particles increases or decreases along an axis extending from a surface of the first layer to a surface of the second layer, nor a density of the first plurality of particles in the second layer is greater than or equal to 2 and / or less than or equal to 10 g/cm3, nor a density of the second plurality of particles in the first layer is greater than or equal to 0.8 and / or less than or equal to 5 g/cm3.
Pan et al. discloses in Figs 1-51, a secondary battery ([0005]) including an active material ([0013]) having a plurality of layers ([0013]), the layers have a particle size of between 2 – 4 g/cm3 ([0025]) and a gradient ([0036]) extending through a thickness of the active material layer ([0036]). This configuration enhances the electrical performance of the battery ([0134]-[0135]).
Pan et al. and Teraoka 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 particle sizes and gradient disclosed by Pan et al. into the material layers of Teraoka to enhance electrical performance of the battery.
Regarding claim 3, modified Teraoka discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses at least a portion of the first plurality of particles (Fig 6b) are fused to one another ([0037], [0061], [0127]], aggregated, Fig 6) and/or at least a portion of the second plurality of particles (Fig 6b) are fused to one another ([0037], [0061], [0127]], aggregated, Fig 6).
Regarding claim 18, modified Teraoka discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the first layer (“1st” with arrow, above Fig 6) comprises a cathode ([0031])
Regarding claim 19, modified Teraoka discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the second layer (“2nd” with arrow, Fig 6 above) comprises a solid electrolyte ([0163]).
Regarding claim 20, modified Teraoka discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses a third layer comprising a third plurality of particles and / or a fourth layer comprising a fourth plurality of particles (a plurality of layers stacked upon one another depicted in Fig 6).
Regarding claim 21, modified Teraoka discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses at least a portion of the third plurality of particles and / or at least a portion of the fourth plurality of particles are fused to one another ([0037], [0061], [0127]], aggregated, Fig 6).
Regarding claim 23, modified Teraoka discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses at least one additional layer comprising at least one plurality of particles (Fig 6 depicts multiple layers), wherein at least a portion of the at least one plurality of particles are fused to one another ([0037], [0061], [0127]], aggregated, Fig 6b).
Regarding claim 27, modified Teraoka discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses a porosity of the first layer and / or the second layer is greater than or equal to 0.1 % and / or less than or equal to 50% ([0049]).
Regarding claim 29, modified Teraoka discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the first plurality of particles (Fig 6b) comprises a cathode active material ([0031], [0040]).
Regarding claim 30, modified Teraoka discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the second plurality of particles comprises a ceramic material ([0042]-[0043], ceramics / oxides form ref 253(2)).
Regarding claim 31, modified Teraoka discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses a max cross-sectional avg dimension of the first plurality of particles and / or the second plurality of particles is greater than or equal to 0.1 microns ([0046]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teraoka (JP 2016/213106, see Machine Translation) in view of Pan et al. (US 2011/0123866) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Shimizu et al. (US 2006/0175704).
Regarding claim 4, modified Teraoka discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose a liquid electrolyte.
Shimizu et al. discloses in Figs 1-5, a secondary battery ([0001]) including a solid or liquid electrolyte ([0031]). A liquid electrolyte enhances the conductivity of the battery ([0031]).
Teraoka and Shimizu 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 a liquid as disclosed by Shimizu et al. into the electrolyte of Teraoka to enhance the conductivity and overall performance of the battery.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teraoka (JP 2016/213106, see Machine Translation) in view of Pan et al. (US 2011/0123866) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jeon et al. (US 2016/0359202).
Regarding claim 25, modified Teraoka discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose an adhesive layer adjacent to the second layer.
Jeon et al. discloses in Figs 1-43, a secondary battery (Abstract) including an active material element (ref AE14) comprising a plurality of active material layers ([0025], [0142]) with an adhesive layer (ref (AL14) between the active material layers ([0025], [0142]). This configuration enhances the structural integrity and electronic performance of the battery ([0006]).
Jeon et al. and Teraoka 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 adhesive layer of Jeon et al. into the structure of Teraoka to enhance the structural integrity and electronic performance of the battery.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teraoka (JP 2016/213106, see Machine Translation) in view of Pan et al. (US 2011/0123866) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kimura et al. (US 2018/0323439).
Regarding claim 26, modified Teraoka discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose a hardness of the first and / or second plurality of particles is greater than or equal to 5Gpa.
Kimura et al. discloses in Figs 1-8, a secondary battery (ref 100a) including an active material having a particle hardness of 10 – 20 GPa ([0027]-[0029]). This configuration enhances the energy density and performance of the battery ([0027]-[0029]).
Kimura et al. and Teraoka 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 particle hardness of Kimura et al. into the structure of Teraoka to enhance the energy density and performance of the battery.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teraoka (JP 2016/213106, see Machine Translation) in view of Pan et al. (US 2011/0123866) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gu et al. (US 2003/0148174).
Regarding claim 28, modified Teraoka discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose an interfacial resistance between the first layer and the second layer is between 0.1 – 1 m ohms. As the electrode active material adhesion and battery electrical performance properties are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said interfacial resistance (see Gu, [0043]), with said electrode active material adhesion and battery electrical performance properties both varying as the interfacial resistance is varied, the precise interfacial resistance 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 interfacial resistance 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 interfacial resistance in the structure of Teraoka as taught by Gu to obtain the desired balance between the electrode active material adhesion and battery electrical performance properties (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 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teraoka (JP 2016/213106, see Machine Translation) in view of Pan et al. (US 2011/0123866) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kinoshita et al. (US 2010/0099029).
Regarding claim 34, modified Teraoka discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose an RMS surface roughness of the first layer and / or the second layer is greater than or equal to 0.1 microns and / or less than or equal to 1 micron.
Kinoshita et al. discloses in Figs 1-9, a secondary battery (Abstract) including an active material layer having a surface roughness of 0.1 micron ([0033], [0054], P16/Claim 3). This configuration enhances adhesion of the electrode structure ([0033], [0054]).
Kinoshita et al. and Teraoka 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 surface roughness of Kinoshita et al. into the structure of Teraoka to enhance the structural integrity and performance of the battery.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ogg et al. (US 2015/0162572) discloses in Figs 1-4, a battery (Abstract) including an active material having a gradient through a thickness thereof ([0030]).
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