DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Comments
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Regarding the limitation(s) “the organic compound” in claim 1, line 8 (and in some of the dependent claims), the Examiner has given the term(s) the broadest reasonable interpretation(s) consistent with the written description in Applicant’s specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Donaldson Co., Inc., 16 F.3d 1190, 1192-95, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848-50 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See MPEP 2111. Specifically, the Examiner has interpreted this as referencing the organic compound containing bromine.
Regarding the limitations of claim 2, just to clarify the Examiner has interpreted this as, essentially, reciting that A1 ≥ 2x A2.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element 1” should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
Specification
Amendments to the specification first paragraph, filed March 28, 2024, have been entered into the file record.
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 of this title, 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Regarding numbers (1), (2) and (4), see the rejection(s) provided below. Regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, the general level of skill is taken as a highly skilled technician having at least a BS, MS, or PhD in the relevant field and 3-5 years experience.
Claims 1 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Xiao et al. (U.S. Patent App. No. 2022/0200039 A1) in view of Jang (U.S. Patent App. No. 2022/0190346 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Xiao et al. disclose an electrode for a secondary battery (Title; Abstract; Figures 1 and 6; and at least Paragraph 0047), comprising: a current collector (ibid: element 22); and an active material layer (element 26) disposed on a surface of the current collector, wherein the active material layer includes at least an active material (Paragraphs 0050 – 0052) and an organic compound containing bromine (e.g. see Paragraphs 0033, 0036, and 0047), and when the active material layer is divided into a first region and a second region, and the first region is closer to the current collector than the second region, a content A1 by mass of the organic compound relative to the active material in the first region is larger than a content A2 by mass of the organic compound relative to the active material in the second region (as clearly shown in Figure 6 and relevant disclosure thereto).
Xiao et al. fails to disclose a gradient concentration in the organic compound containing bromine such that the limitations in A1 and A2 are met when the first and second regions have the same thickness values. The Examiner notes that Xiao et al. does teach providing the compound containing bromine as the part of the active material layer closest to the current collector as a ‘distinct layer’, per se (see Figure 6 and at least Paragraph 0047).
However, Jang teaches a similar electrode structure with a current collector and an active material layer, wherein a similar organic compound containing bromine as a similar flame retardant can be added such that there is a gradient in the compound, with the higher content being closer to the current collector and the upper region having a lower content or even no organic compound flame retardant (Figure 3 and at least Paragraphs 0059 – 0062 and 0070 – 0077). Jang teaches that this allows for both improved flame retardancy and dendrite formation suppression (ibid). While neither of these disclosures require the ‘first region and a second region having the same thickness’, the Examiner deems that this is simply a routine optimization of how the gradient progresses and an arbitrary line drawn at the half-way point of the layer would necessarily possess the claimed A2 and A1 ratio when taken in view of the Jang teachings.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicants’ invention to modify the device of Xiao et al. to form an active layer meeting the claimed first and second region and A1 and A2 limitations as taught by Jang, as forming gradients of the organic flame retardant compounds including bromine provides both improved flame retardancy and improved suppression of dendrite formation.
Regarding claim 2, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the relative amounts A1 and A2 through routine experimentation, especially given the teaching in both Xiao et al. and Jang regarding the desire to use the organic compound with the higher concentration closer to the current collector. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 3, as noted by Jang above (citations above), a region having no organic compound containing bromine is readily envisioned by the combined teachings. Regarding the exact depth, there does not appear to be any criticality to the ‘1/4’ value and a skilled artisan would have possessed the knowledge to optimize the gradient taught by Jang to achieve this value absent any showing of unexpected results or non-obvious behavior.
Regarding claim 4, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the relative amount of the flame retardant organic compound containing bromine through routine experimentation, especially given the teaching in Xiao et al. regarding the desire to add an effective amount, but without any explicitly disclosure of what such an amount would constitute (i.e. an implicit teaching that a skilled artisan would readily be able to ascertain this). In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, both Xiao et al. and Jang disclose the claimed organic compounds containing bromine as known flame retardant additives (see relative citations above).
Regarding claim 7, Xiao et al. disclose the nominal battery limitations (Figure 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN M BERNATZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1505. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (variable: ~0600 - 1500 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, 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.
/KEVIN M BERNATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
September 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights