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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/09/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed 03/09/2026 have been fully considered. Claim(s) 1 and 15 is/are amended; claim(s) 9-11 remain withdrawn; and claim(s) 14 has/have been canceled. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth in the Office action mailed 12/11/2025 has/have been withdrawn.
New grounds of rejection are presented hereinbelow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6,15-16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son et al. (US20240322127A1) in view of Miyahisa et al. (US20110039140A1) and Xu et al. (US20200220140A1).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 15 and 21, Son discloses a lithium-ion secondary battery, comprising a jelly roll obtained by winding a positive electrode plate, a separator and a negative electrode plate ([0012], [0211], FIG. 6); wherein the negative electrode plate comprises a negative electrode current collector ([0010]) and a negative electrode active coating layer (“dry anode film”) located on at least one surface of the negative electrode current collector ([0010]); an example embodiment of the negative electrode active coating layer comprising silicon-carbon material (“silicon-carbon composite”, see Example 2, [0307], [0317-0318]).
Son discloses that the mass content of silicon-carbon material in the negative electrode coating layer (“silicon-carbon composite”) ranges from 5 to 20% ([0081], [0089]), an experimental embodiment of the silicon-carbon material (Preparation Example 4, [0307]) comprising 73% silicon by weight. Consequently, by varying a mass content of Son’s silicon-carbon material of Preparation Example 4 within the range of 5 to 20%, one having ordinary skill in the art would utilize a mass content of element Si in the negative electrode active coating layer ranging from 3.65-14.6%. Furthermore, Son teaches the negative electrode active coating layer comprises first, second, and third carbon-based materials ([0307], [0317-0318]) wherein the relative contents of silicon and the various carbon-based materials are adjusted relative to each other to balance considerations of improving the discharge capacity ([0091]) and of improving the internal resistance and the capacity retention of the battery ([0091], [0129]), and Son attributes the silicon-carbon material to a high capacity of the secondary battery ([0089]) such that a skilled artisan would consider increasing the proportion of the silicon-carbon material to increase the capacity.
As such, in seeking to balance considerations of discharge capacity, capacity retention ratio, and internal resistance through optimizing contents of Si relative to other carbon materials in the negative electrode active coating layer, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a mass content of element Si in the negative electrode active coating layer ranging from 3.65-14.6% such that one skilled in the art could have routinely selected within the portion overlapping with claim 1’s range of c1=1.5-8.5% between 3.65-8.5% and the portion overlapping with claim 2’s range of c1=3.5-6.5% between 3.65-6.5% through routine optimization under Son’s disclosure with a reasonable expectation of successfully producing the negative electrode active coating layer (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Modified Son further discloses the positive electrode plate comprises a positive electrode active material, wherein a finite list of suitable positive electrode active materials includes lithium cobaltate (“lithium cobalt oxide”) inter alia (Son [0185]).
The skilled artisan would recognize the selection of a positive electrode active material as necessary for the secondary battery to function, Son’s finite set of lithium-containing metal oxides recognized as predictable solutions within the technical grasp of a skilled artisan such that it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to routinely explore selecting lithium cobaltate as the positive electrode active material with a reasonable expectation of successfully producing the lithium-ion secondary battery (MPEP 2143 I. E).
Son does not explicitly disclose a value Z corresponding to an inflection point of a Zero Current Voltage curve of the lithium-ion secondary battery. However, applicant-provided experimental data indicates Z is closely correlated with the value of Si mass content c1 (Applicant Examples 1, 4a-d, Comparative Examples 1, 2, instant specification [0144-0260], pp. 40-41 Table 1, see FIG. 1 c1 and Z Comparison below).
PNG
media_image1.png
413
792
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As such, one having ordinary skill in the art would expect a lithium-ion secondary battery having a mass content c1 of 3.65-8.5% to inherently display a Z value of approximately 50%-75% (MPEP 2112.01), overlapping with the range of 55-90% claimed in claim 1 between 55%-75% such that one having ordinary skill in the art seeking to balance considerations of discharge capacity, capacity retention ratio, and internal resistance through optimizing contents of Si relative to other carbon materials in the negative electrode active coating layer would have routinely adjusted the inherent Z-value of the secondary battery into the overlapping portion of the claimed range with a reasonable expectation of successfully producing the negative electrode active coating layer (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Similarly, one having ordinary skill in the art would expect a c1 of 3.65-6.5% to correspond to a Z of 60-75% (MPEP 2112.01), which approximately matches the claimed range of claim 2 such that one performing the above optimization of c1 between 3.65-6.5% would utilize the claimed range through routine optimization under Son’s disclosure with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Modified Son further discloses that the jelly roll comprises an arcuate region and a flat straight region connected to the arcuate region (Son FIG. 6) as claimed in claim 1. While considerations of providing sufficient electrolyte solution wetting ([0196]) and mitigating negative electrode active material expansion effects ([0100]) are pertinent to Son's disclosure, and a skilled artisan would recognize the selection of some value radius R of the arcuate region and a thickness T/2 of the jelly roll for the battery to function, Son fails to numerically specify that "a ratio of a radius R of the arcuate region to half a thickness T/2 of the jelly roll is r, and r and Z satisfy: 0.54 < rxZ < 0.825" as claimed in claim 1.
Xu (US20200220140A1), directed to an analogous Li-ion secondary battery comprising a jelly roll (1, “electrode assembly”) with an arcuate region (15, "corner regions") and a connected flat straight region (14, "main region") (Xu Abstract, [0049-0051], FIG. 2) and also using graphite or silicon as a negative electrode active material ([0075]), addresses similar problems of stress from expansion of the electrodes causing extrusion of the electrolyte ([0052]). Xu teaches forming first (G1) and second (G2) gaps in the respective arcuate (15) and flat straight (14) regions by forming second protrusions (P1, P2, "first protrusion", "second protrusion") in the positive electrode plate (12) ([0065-0067], FIG. 2), which improves electrolyte infiltration and mitigates expansion stress in the jelly roll (1) ([0053-0054]). After cycling, Xu teaches the dimensions of the first (G1) and second (G2) gaps should become substantially equal to ensure consistent performance ([0060]).
Thus, in seeking to mitigate stress from expansion and improve electrolyte infiltration and retention in modified Son's secondary battery, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to provide gaps in Son's arcuate region and flat straight region and to ensure the dimensions of the gaps in both regions become equal after cycling to ensure consistent performance as taught by Xu. Providing the gaps may be done by forming protrusions in the positive electrode plate as taught by Xu (Xu [0065-0067], FIG. 2), and would be done with a reasonable expectation of success because Son suggests that rough or non-linear features (e.g., protrusions) may be suitably provided in regions of the battery during manufacturing (Son [0033]).
Xu's first (G1) and second (G2) gaps correlate with distances (d1), (d2) between electrodes along the radius R of the arcuate region (15) and thickness T of the flat straight region (14) respectively ([0055, 0056], FIG. 2). In other words, when G1 and G2 become equal after cycling ([0060]), the spacing between electrodes in the flat straight region and in the arcuate regions also becomes approximately equal, and as radius R and half thickness T/2 simply measure a distance across all the electrodes in the arcuate region and flat straight region respectively, R and T/2 would similarly approach equal values as G1 and G2 become equal during cycling. Consequently, a ratio r of R and T/2 as claimed in claim 1 would also approach 1, this falling within and rendering obvious a portion of claim 15 reciting “r ranges from 0.9 to 1.1”
Thereby, a skilled artisan optimizing modified Son’s mass content Si (c1) to balance discharge capacity, capacity retention, and resistance and consequently adjusting the inherent Z-value between 55%-75% as discussed previously would also adjust an inherent value of r*Z between approximately 0.55-0.75, which falls within and renders obvious a corresponding portion of claim 1's range of 0.54<r*Z<0.825 and closely encompasses claim 15’s range of 0.59≤r*Z≤0.73 such that a skilled artisan would routinely utilize selected within the claimed encompassed range with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2144.05 I)
Son further discloses the positive electrode plate comprises a positive electrode current collector and a positive electrode active coating layer located on at least one surface of the positive electrode current collector (Son [0272], [0276]).
Son does not explicitly disclose that “a length of the positive electrode active coating layer located on a first surface of the positive electrode current collector is greater than a length of the positive electrode active coating layer located on a second surface of the positive electrode current collector” as claimed in claim 1. Nonetheless, Son discloses a suitability of providing the positive electrode active coating layer on one side or both sides of the current collector ([0272], [0276]), which is necessary to form the claimed structure when one positive electrode active coating layer is longer than the other and extends from a double-coated region to a single-coated region,
Miyahisa (US20110039140A1), directed to an analogous jelly roll-structure lithium-ion secondary battery (Miyahisa [0022], [0048], FIG. 3), teaches a longer positive electrode coating layer located on a first surface of a current collector facing a winding center of the jelly roll which extends throughout both a double-side coating region 14 and a single-sided coating region 17, and a shorter positive electrode active coating layer located on a second surface of the positive electrode current collector facing away from the winding center of the jelly roll extends only along the double-sided coating region 14 ([0056], see Annotated Miyahisa FIG. 3 below). By not providing the positive electrode active coating layer on the outermost face of the jelly roll and thus forming a shorter positive electrode active coating layer on the second (outer) surface, unnecessary positive electrode active material which cannot contribute to battery function is not applied to the outside of the battery and the capacity increases ([0031, 0036]).
PNG
media_image2.png
2603
4180
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Miyahisa FIG. 3
As such, in seeking to improve the capacity of modified Son’s battery, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art not to provide the positive electrode active coating layer on the outermost face of the jelly roll as taught by Miyahisa, thus reducing a length of the positive electrode coating layer on the second (i.e., outer) surface and producing a battery where “a length of the positive electrode active coating layer located on a first surface of the positive electrode current collector is greater than a length of the positive electrode active coating layer located on a second surface of the positive electrode current collector” as claimed in claim 1.
Furthermore, providing this positive electrode structure forms a double-sided coating region (14) where positive electrode active coating layers are formed on the first and second surfaces and a single-sided coating region (17) where only the positive electrode active coating layer on the first surface is formed (Miyahisa [0056] Annotated Miyahisa FIG. 3); in other words, the battery includes “a region where a projection of the positive electrode active coating layer located on the first surface overlaps with a projection of the positive electrode active coating layer located on the second surface in a thickness direction of the positive electrode plate is a double-sided coating region” as claimed in claim 1.
Son modified in view of Xu comprises second protrusions (P1, P2, "first protrusion", "second protrusion") in the positive electrode plate (12) (Xu [0065-0067], FIG. 2) in order to mitigate stress from expansion of the electrodes and prevent extrusion of the electrolyte ([0052]). Although Son suggests that rough or non-linear features (e.g., protrusions) may be suitably provided in regions of the battery during manufacturing (Son [0033]), Son fails to further specify details of the second protrusions wherein “a surface of the positive electrode active coating layer located on the first surface comprises second recesses, and a surface of the positive electrode active coating layer located on the second surface comprises protrusions” and where “the protruding direction of the protrusions is away from the center of the jelly roll" as claimed in claim 1.
Xu, relied upon teach first (G1) and second (G2) gaps in the respective arcuate (15) and flat straight (14) regions using second protrusions (P1, P2, "first protrusion", "second protrusion") to improve electrolyte infiltration and release stress (Xu [0053-0054, 0075], FIG. 2), further teaches forming this structure by stamping the positive electrode plate (12, "second electrode plate", [0075]) to form second protrusions (P1, P2, "first protrusion", "second protrusion") on a second side of the positive electrode plate (12) and second recesses on a first side ("inner side") of the positive electrode plate (12) ([0065-0067], FIG. 2).
Thus, in seeking to provide Xu’s first (G1) and second (G2) gaps in the respective arcuate (15) and flat straight (14) regions using second protrusions (P1, P2, "first protrusion", "second protrusion") in modified Son’s positive electrode plate to improve electrolyte infiltration and reduce stress, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to select a method of forming second recesses on a first side (i.e., an inner side) and forming second protrusions on the second side (i.e., an outer side) of the positive electrode plate as taught by Xu (MPEP 2144.07). In doing so, one would provide a battery where "a surface of the positive electrode active coating layer located on the first surface comprises second recesses, and a surface of the positive electrode active coating layer located on the second surface comprises protrusions", where the "protruding direction of the protrusions is away from the center of the jelly roll" as claimed in claim 1. Such a selection would be made with a reasonable expectation of success, as Son envisions that rough or non-linear features may be suitably provided in the battery (Son [0033]).
Son modified in view of Miyahisa discloses a battery wherein “the positive electrode plate comprises the double-sided coating region and the single-sided coating region” as claimed in claim 1 (Miyahisa [0056] Annotated Miyahisa FIG. 3, but fails to expressly discuss a relation of the second protrusions and recesses to the double-sided coating region and single-sided coating region wherein “the second recesses and the protrusions are located in the double-sided coating region and not in the single-sided coating region” as claimed in claim 1.
Miyahisa, relied upon to teach the double (14) and single-sided (17) coating regions (Miyahisa FIG. 3), teaches the use of grooves (10) in the positive electrode active material layer (13) in order to improve electrolyte penetration ([0094], FIG. 2), these grooves being analogous in structure and function to Xu's second protrusions/recesses. Miyahisa teaches that grooves (10) should only be formed in the double-sided coating region (14) and not in the single-sided coating region (17) (FIG. 2) to prevent deformation and misalignment of the positive electrode (Miyahisa [0066], FIGs. 7, 8).
It would therefore be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to only form Xu's second protrusions and recesses in the double-sided coating region and not in the single-sided coating region in order to prevent deformation and misalignment of the positive electrode as taught by Miyahisa, thus providing a battery where “the second recesses and the protrusions are located in the double-sided coating region and not in the single-sided coating region” as claimed in claim 1. Such a modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success, as Miyahisa's grooves and Xu's second protrusions/recesses are similarly formed by modifying the shape of the positive electrode plate and provide analogous functions of improving the electrolyte impregnation.
Regarding claims 3-5, modified Son discloses the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 1 wherein the positive electrode active coating layer comprises the positive electrode active material.
Son further discloses the lithium cobaltate as having a formula LiaCoGbO2 wherein 0.001≤b≤0.1 ([0186]), and G is selected from a finite list of suitable elements including Al ([0187]). As Son requires inclusion of a nonzero amount of element G (0.001≤b), the skilled artisan would recognize the selection of some element G as necessary for function of the secondary battery. Son’s finite set of elements including Al are recognized as predictable solutions within the technical grasp of a skilled artisan such that it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to routinely explore selecting Al as element G in modified Son’s lithium cobaltate as claimed in claim 3, with a reasonable expectation of successfully producing the lithium-ion secondary battery (MPEP 2143 I. E).
Son further discloses charging experimental embodiments of the battery with a cut-off voltage of 4.5V ([0359]) as claimed in claim 3.
Son does not explicitly specify a mass content of element Al in the positive electrode active coating layer as ranging from 6800 ppm to 15000 ppm or 7000 ppm to 10000 ppm as claimed in claims 4-5, but indicates that a coefficient b in the lithium cobaltate structural formula LiaCoAlbO2 ranges from 0.001≤b≤0.1 (Son [0186]).
For the purposes of estimating a mass content of element Al, it is assumed the positive electrode active coating layer comprises 96% of the active material by mass and a coefficient of lithium content a is 1; these values are exemplified in a working embodiment of the positive electrode active coating layer comprising 96 wt% LiNi0.91Co0.05Al0.04O2 active material recognized by Son as an equivalent to lithium cobaltate ([0185-0186]).
Given a range of possible lithium cobaltate formulations from LiCoAl0.001O2 to LiCoAl0.1O2 wherein 0.001≤b≤0.1 in a positive electrode active coating layer comprising 96wt% lithium cobaltate active material, a corresponding mass content of element Al ranges from approximately 260 ppm for LiCoAl0.001O2 to 25600 ppm for LiCoAl0.1O2, which encompasses claim 4’s range of 6800 ppm to 15000 ppm and claim 5’s range of 7000 ppm to 10000 ppm such that one skilled in the art could have routinely selected within the overlap with the reasonable expectation of successfully producing the lithium cobaltate of modified Son’s positive electrode active coating layer (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 6, modified Son discloses the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the silicon-carbon material comprises a primary spherical particle (“composite anode active material”, Son [0130], [0295]), and an average particle size of the primary spherical particle suitably ranges from 1 to 30 µm to improve the cycle characteristics of the battery ([0130]), which encompasses the claimed range of 1 µm to 6 µm such that one skilled in the art could have routinely selected within the overlap with the reasonable expectation of successfully producing modified Son’s silicon-carbon material and sufficiently providing or improving cycle characteristics of the secondary battery (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 16, modified Son discloses the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the jelly roll comprises an arcuate region and a flat straight region connected to the arcuate region (Son [0211]; see Annotated Son FIG. 6 Showing Arc Regions below); the arcuate region comprises a plurality of layers of arcs, an arc near a winding center is an inner arc, and an arc away from the winding center is an outer arc ([0211, FIG. 6); the jelly roll comprises the positive electrode plate ([0211]), the positive electrode plate comprising the double-sided coating region and the single-sided coating region (Miyahisa [0056], FIG. 3)
PNG
media_image3.png
952
2056
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Son FIG. 6 Showing Arc Regions
While modified Son envisions closely related considerations of improving a tensile strength of the negative electrode active material layer ([0066]) alongside improving the mechanical strength and internal resistance of the battery ([0005]), Son does not explicitly specify a tensile strength of the positive electrode plate in a width direction S1, a tensile strength at the outermost arc in the double-sided coating region along a length direction S2, or a compressive strength of the positive electrode plate S2/S1 being S where and S and Z satisfy: 0.6 ≤ Z/S ≤ 2.
However, Xu notes that stress in conventional jelly rolls tends to concentrate in the arcuate regions (15, “corner region”) ([0059]), thus making the electrode plates vulnerable to fracturing ([0058-0059]). This would be understood to reduce the tensile strength of the positive electrode plate at the outermost arc and in the double-sided coating region along a length direction, i.e., S2, relative to a tensile strength of the positive electrode plate in a width direction S1 where no concentrated stress is typically applied during battery expansion. By providing Xu’s first (G1) and second (G2) gaps, stress in the arcuate portions (15) is relieved and the positive electrode plate (12) is less likely to fracture ([0060]); this reduction in concentrated stress would inherently increase S2 to approach a value of S1, being a strength of the positive electrode plate without exposure to expansion stress, and S=S2/S1 would similarly approach 1.
As such, by providing Xu’s first (G1) and second (G2) gaps to relieving the stress which causes arcuate portions to fracture, thus preventing a decrease of S2 relative to S1, a value of S=S2/S1 would inherently approach 1; in modified Son’s battery having a Z-value optimized between 55%-75% (see discussion of claim 1), S and Z would approximately satisfy 0.55≤Z/S≤0.75, which overlaps with portions of the range of 0.6 ≤ Z/S ≤ 2 claimed in claim 16 between 0.6≤Z/S≤0.75 such that one skilled in the art would have routinely selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of successfully improving electrolyte infiltration and mitigates expansion stress in modified Son’s jelly through use of Xu’s first and second gaps ([0053-0054])
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son (US20240322127A1) in view of Miyahisa (US20110039140A1) and Xu (US20200220140A1) as applied to claim 6, further in view of Lee et al. (US20240279070A1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Son discloses the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 6, wherein an average particle size of the primary spherical particle suitably ranges from 1 to 30 µm to improve the cycle characteristics of the battery (Son [0130]), which encompasses the claimed range of 3 µm to 5 µm such that one skilled in the art could have routinely selected within the overlap with the reasonable expectation of successfully producing modified Son’s silicon-carbon material and sufficiently providing or improving cycle characteristics of the secondary battery (MPEP 2144.05 I).
While Son discloses a similar embodiment comprising secondary spherical particles formed from a plurality of silicon primary particles and carbon flakes ([0097]), and discloses a desirability to accommodate volume changes of negative electrode active material during charge/discharge ([0068]), Son does not explicitly disclose an embodiment comprising a silicon-carbon material comprising a secondary spherical particle formed from a plurality of silicon-carbon material primary spherical particles.
Lee, directed to silicon-carbon anode materials for a lithium-ion secondary battery (Lee [0002]), teaches analogous silicon-carbon primary particles 10 comprising a composite of silicon 12 (“nano-silicon particles”) ([0051], FIG. 1) and hollow core 14 which comprises a coating around the silicon-carbon primary particle 10 ([0058], [0149], [0186]). Lee further teaches secondary spherical particles 20 (“secondary particle”) formed from a plurality of the primary spherical particles 10 ([0051], FIG. 1). Advantageously, Lee’s configuration of primary and secondary spherical particles prevents fracture of the negative electrode material due to silicon expansion ([0018]).
As such, in seeking to improve the ability of modified Son’s lithium-ion secondary battery to accommodate volume changes during charge/discharge and inhibit negative electrode active material fracture, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to form secondary particles of the silicon-carbon primary spherical particles as taught by Lee. Such a modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as Son discloses similar considerations of other forms of secondary and primary particles, and discloses a desirability to improve the ability of the negative electrode active material to resist volume changes.
Modified Son further discloses an experimental example of the silicon-carbon material comprising a mass content of element Si of 73% (Preparation Example 4, [0307]), which falls within the claimed range of 30-80%.
Modified Son discloses that the negative electrode active coating layer (“dry anode active material”) further comprises a graphite material ([0228-0229]), and produces an example embodiment comprising a graphite material in addition to a silicon-carbon material (“silicon composite structure”) (Example 2, [0317-0318]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son (US20240322127A1) in view of Miyahisa (US20110039140A1), Xu (US20200220140A1), and Lee (US20240279070A1) as applied to claim 7, further in view of Guo et al. (CN112614976A; machine translation with 08/14/2025 Office action).
Regarding claim 8, modified Son discloses the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 7 comprising a graphite material (Son [0228-0229]), and desires to improve the energy density and suppress internal resistance of the battery ([0003], [0363]), but not explicitly disclose that the graphite material comprises a secondary particle having an average particle size of 6 µm to 20 µm.
Guo, directed to a similar lithium-ion secondary battery having a negative electrode active coating layer comprising silicon and graphite (Guo [n0007], [n0019]), teaches the inclusion of secondary particles in the graphite having a size of 8 µm to 20 µm ([n0009]) to improve the electrode compaction density in combination with graphite primary particles ([n0002], [n0012]) and improve electron transmission through the battery ([n0106]).
As such, in seeking to improve the energy density and electrical resistance of modified Son’s battery, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Guo’s graphite material to comprise a secondary particle having a size ranging from 8 µm to 20 µm as taught by Guo. Such a modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as the modification would not inherently change the composition of modified Son’s negative electrode coating layer away from graphite (MPEP 2143 I. C)
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son (US20240322127A1) in view of Miyahisa (US20110039140A1) and Xu (US20200220140A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Zhang et al. (CN118899392A; machine translation with 08/14/2025 Office action):
Regarding claims 12-13, modified Son discloses the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 1. While Son discloses a suitability including a solid electrolyte in the battery through methods including, as a non-limiting example, sputtering solid electrolyte onto a surface of the negative electrode (Son [0235], [0341]), and envisions considerations of improving high-temperature characteristics of the battery ([0090]), Son does not explicitly indicate that the positive electrode active coating layer specifically comprises a second solid electrolyte.
Zhang, directed to a semi solid-state battery comprising a positive electrode active coating layer with a solid electrolyte (Zhang [n0002]), teaches minimizing risks of thermal runaway through reducing an amount of liquid electrolyte in the battery and providing an oxide solid electrolyte coated on a surface of the positive electrode active material ([n0002], [n0008]).
As such, in seeking to improve the resistance of modified Son’s battery to high temperatures e.g., minimizing risks of thermal runaway, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to reduce an amount of liquid electrolyte in Son’s battery and provide an oxide solid electrolyte coated on a surface of the positive electrode active material as taught by Zhang. Such a modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as Son discloses a suitability of using a solid electrolyte in the secondary battery, and envisions similar methods of coating a surface of the negative electrode with a solid electrolyte through sputtering (MPEP 2143 I. C).
Son further discloses a suitability of using an oxide-based solid electrolyte selected from a finite list including lithium aluminum titanium phosphorus oxide (“Li1.07Al0.69Ti1.46(PO4)3”), lithium lanthanum zirconium tantalum oxide (“Li6.5La3Zr1.5Ta0.5O12”), lithium lanthanum titanium oxide (“Li0.34La0.51TiO2.94”), or a combination thereof, inter alia (Son [0243]).
The skilled artisan would recognize the selection of an oxide solid electrolyte as necessary to provide lithium-ion conductivity in the battery of modified Son in view of Zhang, with the finite set of oxide solid electrolytes recognized as predictable solutions within the technical grasp of a skilled artisan such that it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to routinely explore selecting at least one of lithium aluminum titanium phosphorus oxide, lithium lanthanum zirconium tantalum oxide, or lithium lanthanum titanium oxide as the oxide solid electrolyte with a reasonable expectation of successfully providing lithium-ion conductivity in modified Son’s secondary battery (MPEP 2143 I. E).
Furthermore, while Son’s second solid electrolyte comprises element M2 which is at least one of Ti, Zr, La, or Ta (“Li1.07Al0.69Ti1.46(PO4)3”, “Li6.5La3Zr1.5Ta0.5O12”, “Li0.34La0.51TiO2.94”, Son [0243]), and Son desires to optimize battery energy density ([0003]), Son does not explicitly indicate a mass content of element M2 in the positive electrode active coating layer c3.
Zhang teaches that a mass content of oxide solid electrolyte in the positive electrode active coating layer is at least 0.5% to allow sufficient reduction and replacement of the liquid electrolyte for improving high-temperature resistance (Zhang [n0002-n0003], [n0013]), while less than 3% to avoid decreasing the energy density ([n0003], [n0013]).
As such, in seeking to balance these considerations taught by Zhang, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize a mass content of the solid electrolyte within a range of 0.5% to 3% as taught by Zhang; see MPEP 2144.05 II. Such an optimization would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as Son discloses considerations of improving both the high-temperature functionality and energy of the battery.
Through optimizing a solid electrolyte mass content in the range of 0.5% to 3% and a value of Z between 55%-75% (see rejection of claim 1), and through selection of the lithium aluminum titanium phosphorus oxide species (“Li1.07Al0.69Ti1.46(PO4)3”) comprising 23% Ti as M2 disclosed by Son from the finite list of suitable oxide solid electrolytes as necessary to provide lithium-ion conductivity (MPEP 2143 I E), one having ordinary skill in the art would utilize a mass c3 and value Z satisfying a range of 6.3*10-4 ≤ c3*Z ≤ 5.2*10-3 overlapping with a portion of the claimed range between 6.3*10-4 ≤ c3*Z ≤ 1.4*10-3 such that it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have routinely selected within the overlapping portion of the claimed range through the process of routine optimization with respect to the considerations discussed by Son and Zhang (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Molar percentage of Ti as M2: (
1.46
T
i
*
47.9
g
m
o
l
T
i
380.8
g
m
o
l
L
i
1.07
A
l
0.69
T
i
1.46
P
O
4
3
=
23
%
)
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son (US20240322127A1) in view of Miyahisa (US20110039140A1) and Xu (US20200220140A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Chen et al. (US20240250268A1)
Regarding claim 17, modified Son discloses the lithium-ion battery according to claim 1. While Son discloses that rough or non-linear features may be suitably provided in regions of the battery depicted as being flat (Son [0033]) and discloses a desirability to inhibit the formation of dendrites during charging ([0151]), Son does not explicitly disclose that an outer surface of the negative electrode active coating layer comprises first recesses; a depth of the first recesses ranges from 5µm to 40µm; and/or a width of the first recesses ranges from 40 µm to 200 µm; and/or a spacing between the first recesses ranges from 0.8 mm to 1.5 mm.
Chen, directed to an analogous lithium-ion secondary battery comprising carbon and silicon as an active material (Chen, abstract, [0054]) in a negative electrode active coating layer 2212 (“negative active material layer”, FIG. 4, 8, [0069]), further teaches the inclusion of first recesses 2213 (“holes”) on the outer surface of the negative electrode (FIG. 8, [0084]) to inhibit the accumulation of lithium ions leading to lithium dendrites ([0007]). A minimum width of the recesses is at least 40 µm in order to sufficiently allow lithium ions to deposit into the recesses as a mechanism of dendrite prevention ([0007], [0077]), while a maximum width is less than 1000 µm to prevent uneven forces on the separator damaging the battery ([0077]).
As such, in seeking to optimize lithium dendrite formation in modified Son’s lithium-ion secondary battery, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to provide an outer surface of the negative electrode active coating layer with first recesses as taught by Chen; such a modification would be done with a reasonable expectation of success as Son discloses a suitability of including rough or non-linear features in the battery and discloses a desirability to inhibit dendrite formation and because of the analogous negative electrode active materials present between Chen and modified Son’s secondary batteries.
Furthermore, in seeking to sufficiently allow lithium ions to deposit in the depressions without causing damage to the separator, it would likewise be obvious to optimize the width of the first recesses from a range of 40 to 1000 µm as taught by Chen such that one having ordinary skill in the art could have routinely selected within the encompassed claimed range of 40 to 200 µm (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son (US20240322127A1) in view of Miyahisa (US20110039140A1) and Xu (US20200220140A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Li et al. (CN117637989A; machine translation with 08/14/2025 Office action).
Regarding claims 19-20, modified Son discloses the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 1. Son discloses the electrodes 2, 3 include electrode tabs 8 attached through welding (Son [0176], [0209]), thus necessitating a welding region as claimed in claims 19 and 20 where a positive electrode tab 8 is welded to the positive electrode plate 3 (see Annotated Son FIG. 6 below). Miyahisa is relied upon to teach the double-sided coating region 14 and single-sided coating region 17 (Annotated Miyahisa FIG. 3) which form the "pasting region" described in ¶[0119] of the instant specification and claimed in claim 19, and in claim 20 reciting "the pasting region comprises the double-sided coating region and the single-sided coating region".
PNG
media_image4.png
1795
2056
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Son FIG. 6
Although Son desires to improve the battery stability and inhibit the plating and deposition of unwanted forms of lithium, i.e., lithium dendrites ([0151]), Son does not explicitly specify the inclusion of an empty foil region as claimed in claim 19 and claim 20 for this purpose.
Li (CN117637989A) is directed to an analogous secondary battery (Li [n0001-n0002]) comprising a jelly roll (20, "electrode body") including an arcuate region (22, "corner parts") and a connected flat straight region (21, "straight sections") ([n0039], FIG. 1). Li further teaches forming a hollow foil portion on the outside of an electrode (300) (e.g., positive electrode plate (301); [n0038]), the hollow foil portion being a region of the positive electrode current collector without the active coating layer and separate from the positive electrode tab welding region (320) (Li [n0050]) which is thus broadly and reasonably interpreted as the "empty foil region" described in ¶[0119] of the instant specification. Advantageously, providing the empty foil region helps reduce lithium plating and prevent deformation of the battery cell (Li [n0050]).
As such, in seeking to the above advantages in modified Son's battery, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to provide modified Son's positive electrode plate with Li's empty foil region as claimed in claims 19 and 20. Such a modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as Son desires to inhibit the deposition of unwanted forms of lithium, and utilizes the same jellyroll structure lithium-ion secondary battery as Li.
Son modified in view of Xu and Miyahisa discloses second recesses and protrusions on the double-sided coating region (Xu [0065-0067], FIG. 2; Miyahisa [0066], FIG. 2). As the pasting region is located in the double-sided coating region (inst. spec. [0119]), the second recesses and second protrusions are recognized as being located in the pasting region as claimed in claim 19.
Furthermore, while modified Son discloses the use of electrode tabs 8 (Son FIG. 6), one of which is welded to the positive electrode in the positive electrode tab welding region (Son [0176], [0209]), and addresses related considerations of preventing damage to electrode sheet components during manufacturing processes such as pressing ([0274]), Son does not explicitly disclose a distance from the second recesses to an edge of the positive electrode tab welding region is w1, with 0 mm < w1 ≤ 10 mm as claimed in claim 20.
Li teaches a distance w1 (“T2”) from the protrusions 311 and second recesses (“bump area”) to an edge of the positive electrode tab welding region (“tab assembly”) (see Annotated Li FIG. 4 below, Li [n0053]) is desirably at least 0.5mm to protect structural stability and ease of manufacturing, and less than 30 mm to provide sufficient supporting force from the protrusions having the second recesses to mitigate electrode expansion effects ([n0040], [n0053])
PNG
media_image5.png
733
1435
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Li FIG. 4
As such, in seeking to provide sufficient supporting force from the protrusions having the second recessions without impacting the structural stability of modified Son’s battery, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize a distance w1 within a range of 0.5 ≤ w1 ≤ 30 mm as taught by Li, such that one skilled in the art could have routinely selected within the overlapped portion of the claimed range between 0.5 to 10mm through the process of routine optimization with respect to Li’s teachings. Such an optimization would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as Li and modified Son address similar considerations of inhibiting detrimental effects on the battery caused by expansion of the active materials (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Similarly, while Son depicts an edge of a first side of the pasting region where the positive electrode tab welding region is arranged (Annotated Son FIG. 6), and an edge of a second side of the pasting region opposite to the side where the positive electrode tab welding region is arranged (Annotated Son FIG. 6), Son does not explicitly disclose that a distance from the second recesses to an edge of a first side of the pasting region is w2, with 2 mm ≤ w2 ≤ 40 mm, and a distance from the second recesses to an edge of a second side of the pasting region is w3, with 2mm ≤ w3 ≤ 25mm.
Li discloses a distance w2 (“T12”) from the protrusions 311/second recesses to an edge of the pasting region, and a distance w3 (“T11”) from the protrusions 311/second recesses to an edge of a second side of the pasting region (Annotated Li FIG. 4) are both in a range of 0.5 ≤ w2 ≤ 30mm and 0.5 mm ≤ w3 ≤ 30mm ([n0051], Annotated Li FIG. 4) in order to prevent damage to the electrode when forming the protrusions and recesses while providing sufficient support from the protrusions ([n0050-n0051]).
As such, in seeking to avoid damaging modified Son’s positive electrode plate while forming the protrusions and recesses while providing sufficient support from the protrusions according to considerations taught by Li, it would likewise be obvious to optimize a value of w2 within a range of 0.5mm ≤ w2 ≤ 30mm wherein a first side is a side where the positive electrode tab welding region is arranged, such that one skilled in the art could have routinely selected within the overlapped portion of the claimed range between 2mm ≤ w2 ≤ 30mm through the process of routine optimization with respect to Li’s teachings (MPEP 2144.05 II), and to optimize a value of w3 within a range of 0.5 mm ≤ w3 ≤ 30mm wherein the second side is a side opposite to the side where the positive electrode tab welding region is arranged such that one skilled in the art could have routinely selected within the overlapped portion of the claimed range between 2mm ≤ w3 ≤ 25mm through the process of routine optimization (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons presented below:
Applicant argues against the usage of Onoda et al. (US20180062147A1, “D6”) as applied to the limitations of cancelled claim 14 which are newly amended into claim 1; while Onoda is no longer relied upon in the rejection of record, Applicant’s arguments pertinent to the current rejection are discussed hereinbelow.
Applicant highlights a different definition of ratio “r” in the present application (i.e., a ratio of a radius R of the arcuate region to half a thickness T/2 of the jelly roll), where prior art measures ratio r (referred to in Onoda as “D/B”) under a constraint pressure, which is different from measurement of ratio r in the natural unconstrained state (Remarks pp. 7).
While this argument has been considered, it has not been found persuasive, as the instant application does not appear to specifically define a measurement process of ratio r which is limited to measurement in the natural unconstrained state.
For instance, ¶[0155] of the instant specification recites inter alia:
[0155] “The positive electrode plate prepared in step (1), a separator… and the negative electrode plate prepared in step (2) were wound to obtain a jelly roll; and after encapsulation, baking, injection, formation, secondary encapsulation, sorting, and OCV, the battery was obtained, wherein r was 0.98.” (emphasis by Examiner)
In particular, the emphasized portions appear to indicate that r is a characteristic of the finished, assembled battery, and not necessarily the unconstrained jelly roll.
Applicant emphasizes that the ratio r parameter is used to address a specific technical problem of stress concentration in the arcuate regions of the jelly roll, causing plate breakage. Furthermore, Applicant emphasizes the necessity to limit the relationship between r and Z in the parameter r*Z, where Z reflects a structural abrupt change of the negative electrode resulting from expansion of silicon in the negative electrode active material. Applicant asserts that the preferred range has not been taught or implied by the prior art (Remarks p. 8-9)
While this argument has been considered, it has not been found persuasive; Xu (US20200220140A1) cited to teach adjusting the spacing between electrode plates in the arcuate regions and flat straight regions recognizes the relation between these gaps and stress concentration in the arcuate regions (Xu [0052-0054], see rejection of claim 1). Xu also recognizes applicability of these teachings in a battery using graphite or silicon as the negative electrode active material specifically (Xu [0075]).
Moreover, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985); see also MPEP 2144 IV.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to embossing in the double-coated region in claim 1 (remarks pp. 10-11) have been considered but are moot since Applicant's amendment necessitated a different interpretation of Miyahisa et al. (US20110039140A1, “D7”) and Li et al. (CN117637989A, “D9”) as laid out in the rejections of record, or are moot as the claim amendment has necessitated new grounds of rejection under new prior art discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVERETT T CHOI whose telephone number is (703)756-1331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:00-8:00.
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, Jonathan G Leong can be reached on (571) 270 1292. 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.
/E.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 7/15/2026
Prosecution Insights