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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 21, 22, 24-29, 35 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamashita (U.S. Patent 6387564).
Regarding claim 21, Yamashita discloses a battery comprising: a porous separator 3C, a positive electrode active material layer 1b formed on one side of the separator, a positive electrode current collector 1a formed on the opposite side of the layer 1b, a negative electrode active material layer 2b formed on the opposite side of the separator, a negative electrode current collector 2a on the opposite side of the layer 2b, and a coating 3F comprising an aggregation of insulating material particles formed on the lateral ends of the positive electrode active material layer, wherein the separator is wider than the active material layers, and wherein the insulating material particles can comprise a polymer (Fig. 18, Col. 3, Lines 4-20, Col. 4, Lines 1-11, Col. 20, Lines 7-26). Yamashita also discloses that the current collector can be shortened so that the coating 3F extends to the side of the current collector (Col. 4, Lines 50-58 and Fig. 20), which shows that neither the current collector nor active material layer overlap the area of the separator coated with the coating 3F.
As to claims 22 and 36, Yamashita teaches that the positive electrode active material can be a lithium composite oxide containing nickel, manganese and cobalt (Col. 8, Lines 18-25).
Regarding claims 24 and 36, Yamashita states that the coating 3F can be formed on the ends of either the positive or negative electrode, and that the negative electrode can comprise graphite (Col. 3, Lines 15-20, Col. 8, Lines 26-32).
As to claims 25, 26 and 36, Yamashita discloses that the positive electrode current collector can be made of aluminum and that the negative electrode current collector can be made of copper (Col. 16, Lines 10-11, 23-24).
Regarding claims 27-29 and 36, Yamashita teaches that an electrolyte in the battery can comprise a LiPF6 salt, and a solvent that can comprise a mixture of ethylene carbonate and ethyl methyl carbonate (Col. 8, Lines 49-60).
As to claim 35, Yamashita states that the battery is a wound type battery (Col. 9, Lines 31-38).
Regarding claim 36, Yamashita discloses that the separator is made of an aggregation of insulating material particles, such as an inorganic oxide or an organic polymer, and a binder that is an organic polymer (Col. 3, Line 56-Col. 4, Line 30).
Yamashita teaches every limitation of claims 21, 22, 24-29, 35 and 36 of the present invention and thus anticipates the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
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.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita (U.S. Patent 6387564) in view of Erickson (WO Publication 2015-134783).
The teachings of Yamashita have been discussed in paragraph 3 above.
Yamashita fails to disclose that the electrode comprises carboxylate.
Regarding claim 23, Erickson discloses an electrode active material for use in a lithium ion battery, wherein the active material is mixed with a binder and conductive additives to form an electrode layer, and wherein the binder can comprise fluorinated carboxylate (Paragraphs 0054, 0106).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention that one of the electrodes of Yamashita could comprise a carboxylate because Erickson teaches that active materials are commonly mixed with a binder to form the electrode and that fluorinated carboxylate is a binder that can be used in the formation of an electrode for a lithium ion battery.
Claim(s) 30-34 and 37-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita (U.S. Patent 6387564) in view of Xu (U.S. Patent Publication 2013/0171500).
The teachings of Yamashita have been discussed in paragraph 3 above.
Yamashita fails to disclose that the separator comprises at least 50 wt% aluminum boehmite, and an organic polymer, that the boehmite particles can be surface modified by an organic acid, such as sulfonic acid, toluenesulfonic acid, and carboxylic acid, and that the porosity of the separator is 35-50%.
Regarding claims 30, 31 and 37, Xu discloses a separator for an electrochemical cell comprising: a microporous layer comprising at least 50% by weight of an aluminum oxide; and an organic polymer, wherein the aluminum oxide can be aluminum boehmite (Paragraphs 0025, 0026). As to claims 32, 33, 39 and 40, Xu teaches that the aluminum oxide can be surface modified by treatment with an organic acid, such as sulfonic acid, toluenesulfonic acid, and carboxylic acid (Paragraphs 0026-0027). Regarding claims 34 and 38, Xu states that the porosity of the separator can be around 43% (Paragraph 0035).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention that the separator of Yamashita could comprise aluminum boehmite as the inorganic oxide in the amounts taught in Xu because Xu teaches that this creates a non-flammable separator that provides safety against internal short shorts and thermal runaway. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the boehmite could surface treated with an organic acid because Xu teaches that this provides dispersibility in aprotic organic solvents. Finally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the separator of Yamashita could have a porosity of 35-50% because Xu teaches that this is a common porosity for separators so that they function properly.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed on 8/18/2026, have overcome the objections made to the claims that were presented in the last Office Action. Therefore, the objections have been withdrawn.
8. The terminal disclaimers, filed on 8/18/2026, have overcome the obviousness double patenting rejections that were presented in the last Office Action. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
9. Applicant's arguments filed 8/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that it is not permissible to reject a claim as anticipated by combining teachings from multiple distinct embodiments disclosed in a single reference. Applicants continue to argue that the teachings of Figs. 18 and 20 are distinct embodiments that the Examiner is combining to teach the limitations of the claim. Fig. 20 of Yamashita shows an alternative embodiment of the electrode plate laminate of Fig. 18, but only focuses on the one electrode because this is where the change occurs with the width of the aggregation layer 3F. Yamashita states this in Col. 3, Lines 53-55 when describing the aggregation layer that is formed on the side of at least one active material layer of the electrode, by teaching that the aggregation layer may be applied as far as the end face of the current collector. Thus, Yamashita is pointing out that the same stack of layers as in Fig. 18 is used, but the width of the aggregation layer can be made bigger so that it also covers the side of the current collector, as shown in Fig. 20. Fig. 18 is only being referred to in order to teach what is also included with the electrode of Fig. 20, but is not being focused on.
Applicants also argue that neither Fig. 18 nor Fig. 20 teaches the claimed arrangement of the layers. As discussed above, Fig. 20 is only focusing on the one electrode of the stack of Fig. 18 to show the difference in the width of the aggregation layer for the alternative arrangement shown in Fig. 20. The other layers of Fig. 18 would still be present in the entire arrangement of the electrode plate laminate, but are not shown because the focus is only on the difference in the aggregation layer width. Additionally, Col. 4, Lines 50-58 describe that the extended aggregation layer is formed on the side of the electrode that is part of the electrode plate laminate, which is described in Col. 3 to contain the negative and positive electrodes with a separator in between.
Conclusion
10. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY L RAYMOND whose telephone number is (571)272-6545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 am-6 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
BRITTANY L. RAYMOND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1722
/BRITTANY L RAYMOND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
