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 .
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received on July 24, 2026 are entered into the file. Currently, claim 1 is amended; claims 5 and 11-15 are withdrawn; claims 6 and 17-19 are cancelled; resulting in claims 1-4, 7-10, and 16 pending for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/31/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
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 1, 4, 7-9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoshima et al. (US 2020/0106126, previously cited) in view of Zheng et al. (US 2017/0338471, previously cited), Fukumoto et al. (JP 2019-029205, machine translation previously provided), and Pytlik et al. (US 2023/0352765, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Yokoshima et al. teaches an electrochemical device (100; non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery), for example, a lithium-ion secondary battery, comprising an electricity storage device (110; electrode assembly) and a container (120) ([0056]-[0057], Figs. 1-3). The container (120) includes an exterior can (121; bottomed cylindrical exterior) having a cylindrical shape and a sealing body (122; sealing assembly) which is joined to a side wall portion (121b) of the exterior can at an upper end thereof to seal the internal space of the can ([0058]-[0060]), Figs. 1-2).
As shown in Figs. 3-6, the electricity storage device (110) comprises a band-shaped positive electrode (140) and a band-shaped negative electrode (130) which are wound with a separator (150) interposed therebetween [0062]. The positive electrode (140) includes a positive electrode current collector (141) and a positive electrode active material layer (142; positive electrode mixture layer) formed on a surface of the positive electrode current collector ([0071]-[0071], Fig. 6). As shown in Figs. 6-8, the positive electrode further includes three positive electrode lead plates (143) which extend out from the electricity storage device and which serve to electrically connect the sealing body (122) and the positive electrode (140) [0075].
Although Yokoshima et al. generally teaches that the electrochemical device may be a lithium secondary battery comprising a positive electrode active material layer (142) formed on a surface of a positive electrode current collector (141) ([0070]), the reference does not expressly teach that the positive electrode mixture layer contains a positive electrode active material and a phosphorous compound, wherein the active material includes a lithium-containing composite oxide having a layered rock-salt structure, the lithium-containing composite oxide includes secondary particles formed by aggregation of primary particles, and the phosphorous compound adheres to an outer surface of the secondary particles and to a surface of the primary particles located in an interior of the secondary particles.
Zheng et al. teaches high energy density cathode materials, such as NMC cathode materials, with improved discharge capacity and enhanced cycle life (Abstract). Zheng et al. teaches that these NMC cathode materials are layered structured materials according to the R-3m space group (layered rock-salt structure) [0061]. Zheng et al. further teaches that the NMC cathode materials are infused with lithium phosphate, wherein the secondary particles include a coating of lithium phosphate on an outer surface, and the lithium phosphate is diffused into inner cores of the secondary particles [0006]. In particular, Zheng et al. teaches that the lithium phosphate is substantially uniformly distributed along grain boundaries of the primary particles within the secondary particles, thus forming an integrated surface layer that prevents electrolyte diffusion into the inside of secondary particles of the NMC ([0007], [0032], [0054]). Zheng et al. teaches that the internal strain and subsequent electrolyte penetration into secondary particles is a key facilitator of crack formation in cathode materials during electrochemical cycling ([0005], [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lithium secondary battery of Yokoshima et al. by using the positive electrode active material including a lithium-containing composite oxide having a layered rock-salt structure and having a phosphate compound adhered to both an outer surface of the of the positive electrode active material secondary particles and to a surface of the primary particles located in an interior of the secondary particles, as taught by Zheng et al., given that such lithium-containing composite oxides having a layered rock-salt structure are known to have improved discharge capacity and enhanced cycle life, and given that the application of a phosphorous compound such as lithium phosphate to surfaces of primary and secondary particles as claimed is known to suppress crack formation in cathode materials caused by electrolyte penetration into secondary particles during electrochemical cycling.
Yokoshima et al. and Zheng et al. differ from the claimed invention in that the combination of references does not expressly teach a basis weight of the positive electrode mixture layer. However, Fukumoto et al. teaches a positive electrode for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising a positive electrode mixture layer including a positive electrode active material made of a lithium composite oxide ([0001], [0019]-[0021]). Fukumoto et al. teaches that the basis weight of the positive electrode mixture layer is preferably 30 mg/cm2 or more and 80 mg/cm2 or less ([0032]), equivalent to 300 g/m2 to 800 g/m2, which overlaps the claimed range. Fukumoto et al. teaches that the basis weight is set within this range in order to suppress heat generation in the battery during an internal short circuit, while increasing the capacity and output of the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery [0032].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the secondary battery of Yokoshima et al. in view of Zheng et al. by setting a basis weight of the positive electrode mixture layer within the claimed range, as taught by Fukumoto et al., in order to suppress heat generation during an internal short circuit, while increasing the capacity and output of the battery.
Although Yokoshima et al. teaches that the electrochemical device may, for example, have a diameter of 18 mm and a length of 65 mm ([0057]), the combination of references does not teach an outer diameter of the cylindrical exterior within the range of greater than or equal to 30 mm and less than or equal to 60 mm.
Pytlik et al. teaches an energy storage cell (100) in the form of a cylindrical round cell having an outside diameter of at least 30 mm, comprising an electrode-separator composite (104; electrode assembly) including an anode, a separator, and a cathode (Abstract, Figs. 1-3). Pytlik et al. teaches that cylindrical round cells are particularly suitable for applications with high energy requirements, such as in the automotive sector or for e-bikes or power tools [0189]. The diameter of cylindrical round cells is preferably in the range from 10 mm to 60 mm, where form factors (diameter x height, in mm) of 18x65, 21x70, 32x75, or 32x91 are preferred for applications in supplying power to electric drives in motor vehicles [0190]. Pytlik et al. teaches that larger size cylindrical cells, such as 32x75, 32x91, or 67x172, are particularly effective in applications where temperature management and temperature control capabilities are particularly critical [0193].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the secondary battery of Yokoshima et al. in view of Zheng et al. and Fukumoto et al. by increasing the size of the electrode assembly and the exterior casing such that the outer diameter of the exterior casing is within the claimed range, as taught by Pytlik et al., in order to achieve a larger battery with greater energy storage capacity, as desired for particular applications such as supplying power to electric vehicles.
Regarding claim 4, Yokoshima et al. in view of Zheng et al., Fukumoto et al., and Pytlik et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, and Yokoshima et al. further teaches that the positive electrode lead plates (143; positive electrode leads) are connected to the positive electrode current collector (141) at areas (positive electrode current collector exposed portions) along an upper end of the current collector where the positive electrode active material layer (142; positive electrode mixture layer) is not applied ([0075], Fig. 6). As shown in Fig. 6, the positive electrode active material layer (142) is present between the exposed portions.
Regarding claim 7, Yokoshima et al. in view of Zheng et al., Fukumoto et al., and Pytlik et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As noted above, Yokoshima et al. does not teach the limitations directed to the phosphorous compound, and Zheng et al. is relied upon to address these features.
As noted above, Zheng et al. teaches lithium phosphate infused into open spaces within the secondary particles of the cathode material, wherein a significant portion (e.g. at least 90%) of grain boundaries between primary particles inside of an infused secondary particle are diffused or filled with lithium phosphate, thus blocking electrolyte diffusion paths, strengthening grain connection, and mitigating cathode degradation ([0052], [0078]). Zheng et al. further teaches that the total weight percentage of the lithium phosphate infused in the secondary particles may be from 0.01 to 5%, or from 0.1 to 0.5% [0052].
Zheng et al. therefore teaches a content of lithium phosphate in the positive electrode mixture layer which overlaps the claimed range of 0.05 to 1 parts by mass relative to 100 parts by mass of an amount of the positive electrode active material. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Yokoshima et al. in view of Zheng et al., Fukumoto et al., and Pytlik et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As noted above, Yokoshima et al. does not teach the limitations directed to the phosphorous compound, and Zheng et al. is relied upon to address these features. In particular, as noted above, Zheng et al. teaches that the phosphate compound may be lithium phosphate (Li3PO4), wherein the lithium ion conductive coating can comprise materials that are capable of diffusing into the secondary particles at a temperature below the sintering temperature of the cathode material, such as Li3PO4, Li2HPO4, LiH2PO4, Na3PO4, K3PO4, or the like ([0032], [0058], [0065]).
Regarding claim 16, Yokoshima et al. in view of Zheng et al., Fukumoto et al., and Pytlik et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As noted above, Zheng et al. teaches that the cathode material includes primary and secondary particles, and further teaches that the secondary particles generally have an average diameter of from 2 to 15 microns ([0057]), which falls squarely within the claimed range of 1 to 30 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoshima et al. (US 2020/0106126, previously cited) in view of Zheng et al. (US 2017/0338471, previously cited), Fukumoto et al. (JP 2019-029205, machine translation previously provided), and Pytlik et al. (US 2023/0352765, previously cited) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Watanabe et al. (US 2002/0068217, previously cited).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Yokoshima et al. in view of Zheng et al., Fukumoto et al., and Pytlik et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Although Yokoshima et al. illustrates an embodiment in which the positive electrode lead plates (143) are equally spaced along the positive electrode current collector (141) (Fig. 6), the combination of references does not expressly teach a specific configuration of the positive electrode leads on an upper surface of the electrode assembly.
Watanabe et al. teaches an electrode-rolled battery comprising a rolled body (40; electrode assembly) and a plurality of tabs (50-53; electrode leads), where the rolled body is formed by rolling a band-shaped anode (41) and a band-shaped cathode (42) with a separator between them (43) and is stored in a cylindrical case with a collecting header (54; sealing assembly) connected to the tabs ([0138], [0165], Figs. 1-11). Watanabe et al. teaches that the tabs are arranged either in a line in a diameter direction (arranged in substantially one line in the radial direction) of the rolled body or are equally dispersed around the circumference (arranged at substantially equal intervals around the circumferential direction) of the rolled body, such that the process of gathering the tabs and connecting the tabs to the header is relatively simple compared to the conventional process in which the tabs are arranged irregularly ([0047], [0107], [0171]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the secondary battery of Yokoshima et al. in view of Zheng et al., Fukumoto et al., and Pytlik et al. by positioning the positive electrode leads at specific positions along the current collector such that the leads are arranged on the upper surface of the electrode assembly in substantially one line in the radial direction or at substantially equal intervals around the circumferential direction, as taught by Watanabe et al., in order to simplify the process of gathering the electrode leads and connecting the leads to the sealing assembly.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoshima et al. (US 2020/0106126, previously cited) in view of Zheng et al. (US 2017/0338471, previously cited), Fukumoto et al. (JP 2019-029205, machine translation previously provided), and Pytlik et al. (US 2023/0352765, previously cited) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (US 2021/0399297, previously cited).
Regarding claim 10, Yokoshima et al. in view of Zheng et al., Fukumoto et al., and Pytlik et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Although Zheng et al. teaches that the cathode material includes primary particles and secondary particles ([0054]), the combination of references does not expressly teach that the positive electrode active material includes a mixture of particles having different median diameters as claimed.
Choi et al. teaches a positive electrode active material and lithium secondary battery, wherein the positive electrode active material is bimodal-type and includes a first lithium composite oxide which is a small particle and a second lithium composite oxide which is a large particle (Abstract). Choi et al. teaches that when small particles and large particles are mixed, voids between the large particles can be filled with small particles to increase the energy density per unit volume ([0009], [0013]). In particular, Choi et al. teaches that the small particle has an average particle diameter (D50) of 8 µm or less, while the large particle has an average particle diameter (D50) of 8 µm or more, preferably 8.5 to 23.0 µm [0036]. Choi et al. therefore teaches ranges for the particle diameters of the large and small particles which overlap the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the secondary battery of Yokoshima et al. in view of Zheng et al., Fukumoto et al., and Pytlik et al. by utilizing a bimodal-type positive electrode active material that includes large and small particles having average particle diameters within the claimed ranges, as taught by Choi et al., in order to optimize the energy density per unit volume of the positive electrode active material.
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments, see pages 7-9 of the remarks filed July 24, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant first argues on page 8 of the remarks that the Office has not accounted and can not account for all elements as the claims as amended, further stating that the Office improperly limits the examination of each claim instead of considering each claim as a whole.
This argument is not persuasive. The previous rejections based on Yokoshima et al. in view of Sugiura, Fukumoto et al., and Pytlik et al. have been modified in the office action above to address the new combination of limitations presented in amended claim 1. The Applicant’s remarks do not specifically indicate which features are allegedly not accounted for or explain why the claimed invention would not have been obvious in view of the prior art. As explained in the prior art rejections above, the combination of references renders obvious the claimed invention when considered as a whole, and all of the features of amended claim 1 are accounted for in the rejection.
The Applicant further argues on page 8 of the remarks that the advantageous effects of the claimed subject matter are demonstrated by the Examples, citing paragraphs [0119]-[0120] of the specification, with such nexus to the claims and unexpectedness sufficient to overcome even a hypothetical prima facie case of obviousness.
This argument is not persuasive, as it is not clear exactly what features are being alleged as unexpected, what data is being relied upon, or how the claimed subject matter compares to the prior art. In the event that the Applicant intends to present a showing of unexpected results, a detailed description of the reasons and evidence supporting Applicant’s position is necessary, See MPEP 716.02(b).
The Applicant further argues on page 8 of the remarks that the Office has to rely on impermissible hindsight reconstruction using Applicant’s own disclosure as a roadmap, and that hindsight reconstruction becomes impermissible when the Office does not limit the necessary knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application.
This argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In the instant case, the modification of the secondary battery of Yokoshima et al. with the teachings of Zheng et al., Fukumoto et al., and Pytlik et al. in the manner proposed in the rejection takes into account only knowledge from the cited prior art references and does not rely on the Applicant’s own disclosure to arrive at the conclusion of obviousness. The Applicant’s remarks do not identify any specific aspects of the rejection which allegedly are based on hindsight reconstruction. The arguments are therefore not persuasive for the above reasons.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA L GRUSBY whose telephone number is (571) 272-1564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM-5:30 PM.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/REBECCA L GRUSBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights