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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/06/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed 05/30/2026 have been fully considered. Claim(s) 1 is/are amended; claim(s) 3 remain withdrawn. 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arguments, the previous rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth in the Office action mailed 04/09/2026 has/have been withdrawn.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 and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohkubo et al. (US-20070111101-A1; cited in 12/10/2025 Office action) in view of Minami et al. (WO-2013047016-A1; machine translation with 12/10/2025 Office action) and Yamamoto et al. (US-20190157664-A1):
Regarding claims 1 and 9-14, Ohkubo discloses a secondary battery ([0002]), comprising a positive electrode plate ([0069]) with a positive electrode active material which broadly encompasses the claimed formula LiaNixCoyMzO2 wherein 0.2≤a≤1.2, 0.85≤x≤1, 0≤y<0.15, z>0 and x+y+z=1 where M comprises Al in claim 1; specifically, nickel oxide-based active materials ([0034]) such as LixNiO2 and LixCoaNi1-aO2 wherein x is 0.02 to 1.2, and a is 0.1 to 0.9 ([0074]), substituted with up to 0.3 parts (“30 mol%”) of the transition metal with Al, Ga, In, Ge, Sn, Pb, Sb, Bi, Si, P, and/or B (i.e., M in the claimed formula) ([0072]). However, Ohkubo’s disclosure taken alone lacks the specificity to suggest Al as Mz in LixNiO2 or LixCoaNi1-aO2 to as claimed.
Yamamoto (US-20190157664-A1), related as a secondary battery (Yamamoto [0001]) including a nickel-based composite oxide positive electrode active material ([0045]), teaches substituting transition metals in comparable nickel-based materials to improve the cycle characteristics, particularly with Ti, Zr, Al, Mg, and Cr ([0046]) as of up to 0.3 parts of the transition metal ([0047]).
Thus, in seeking to improve the cycle characteristics of Ohkubo’s secondary battery, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art
to arrive at the claimed composition LiaNixCoyMzO2 wherein 0.2≤a≤1.2, z>0, and x+y+z=1 where M is Al through substituting Ni and/or Co in Ohkubo’s LixNiO2 or LixCoaNi1-aO2 material with Al, Ti, Zr, Mg, or Cr as M, these being a finite set of elements identified by Yamamoto to be effective for this purpose (see MPEP 2143 I).
It would further be obvious for a skilled artisan to select values of 0.85≤x≤1 and 0≤y<0.15 in claim 1’s composition through substituting 0<z<0.3 parts Mz with the x parts Ni and/or y parts Co in Ohkubo’s LixNiO2 (x=1, y=0) or LixCoaNi1-aO2 (0.1≤x≤0.9, 0.1≤y≤0.9) material, overlapping with or encompassing the claimed ranges of x and y. Such modification entails a reasonable expectation of success from being performed within the ranges of substitution amount and elements envisioned by Ohkubo (see Ohkubo [0072]) (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Ohkubo increases the compacted density of the positive electrode plate through use of a carbon fiber additive, allowing lithium nickel oxide-type materials (e.g., modified Ohkubo’s material) to have a density increased to at least 3.5 g/cm3 without losing electrolytic solution permeability ([0070]); this density falls within the compacted density range of 3.2 g/cm3 to 3.8 g/cm3 in claim 1 and falls on an endpoint of the range of 3.5 g/cm3 to 3.7 g/cm3 in claim 10.
Additionally, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to select a coating weight of about 26.3 mg/cm2 in modified Ohkubo’s positive electrode plate, which falls within the positive electrode coating weight ranges of 19mg/cm2 to 45mg/cm2 in claim 1 and 25mg/cm2 to 35mg/cm2 in claim 9 since Ohkubo provides an experimental example of, and thus discloses or specifically suggests, a positive electrode plate having a 75 µm thickness ([0120]) corresponding to a 26.3 mg/cm2 coating weight with a 3.5 g/cm3 positive electrode active material:
Positive electrode plate thickness ([0120]): 100µm(electrode)-25µm(foil) = 75 µm(plate)
Positive electrode coating weight ([0070], [0120]): 3500 mg/cm3 *0.0075cm = 26.3 mg/cm2
Ohkubo discloses a negative electrode plate including a negative electrode material, such as a carbon material with Si incorporated inside to improve the electric capacity ([0053, 0055]). Under the instant specification’s definition of a “silicon-based material” as encompassing “silicon-carbon composites” (Instant specification, [0091]), modified Ohkubo’s Si-incorporated carbon material is broadly and reasonably interpreted the claimed silicon-based material.
The silicon-based material further accounts for at least 50 mass% of the negative electrode active material as a primary component ([0054, 0055]), which falls within claim 1’s mass percentage range of 20% to 100% and claim 14’s mass percentage of 40-100%.
Ohkubo discloses a compacted bulk density of the negative electrode plate is at least 1.5 g/cm3 to improve the energy density (Ohkubo [0059], [0004]), but does not expressly specify an upper limit. Yamamoto indicates that a negative electrode active material density suitably ranges from 1.5-1.8 g/cm3 from the viewpoint of increasing the density (Yamamoto [0168]), such that it would be obvious for a skilled artisan to select Yamamoto’s 1.5-1.8 g/cm3 density range for producing modified Ohkubo’s negative electrode plate with a density of at least 1.5 g/cm3 (MPEP 2144.07).
This range falls within claim 1’s range of 1.1-1.9 g/cm3 and closely encompasses claim 12’s range of 1.6 g/cm3 to 1.8 g/cm3 such that one having ordinary skill in the art seeking to improve the compaction density and energy density of modified Ohkubo’s negative electrode would have routinely selected within the encompassed or included portions of the claimed ranges with the reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Additionally, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to select a coating weight of about 12.3-14.8 mg/cm2 or higher in modified Ohkubo’s negative electrode plate, which overlaps with claim 1’s range of 5-13 mg/cm2 between 12.3-13 mg/cm2 such that one having ordinary skill in the art would have routinely selected within the overlap with the reasonable expectation of successfully improving the volumetric density of the secondary battery (MPEP 2144.05 I), since Ohkubo provides an experimental example of a negative electrode plate having an 82 µm thickness ([0120]), corresponding to a 12.3-14.8 mg/cm2 coating weight when using modified Ohkubo’s 1.5-1.8 g/cm3 negative electrode active material:
Negative electrode plate thickness ([0120]): 100µm(electrode)-18µm(foil) = 82 µm(plate)
Negative electrode coating weight ([0059], [0120]): (1500 to 1800) mg/cm3 *0.0082cm = 12.3 to 14.76 mg/cm2
The secondary battery further comprises an electrolyte comprising an electrolytic solution ([0096]), Ohkubo requires sufficient (i.e., at least some minimum) electrolytic solution in the electrodes having an increased electrode density ([0005-0008]) but does not specify this amount of electrolyte where claim 1 recites a range of 0.8 g/Ah to 1.5 g/Ah.
Minami (WO2013047016A1), a secondary battery using a hollow particle additive to improve electrolyte retention (Minami [0007-0008], [0035]) functionally similar to Ohkubo’s carbon fiber additive (Ohkubo [0008]), teaches providing at least 1.0 g/Ah electrolyte solution to sufficiently supply the electrodes, and less than 3.0 g/Ah to prevent gas generation from electrolyte decomposition (Minami [0022]).
It would therefore be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize modified Ohkubo’s electrolyte amount between 1.0 to 3.0 g/Ah and utilize a portion overlapping with claim 1’s range of 0.8 g/Ah to 1.5 g/Ah between 1.0-1.5 g/Ah and overlapping with claim 13’s range of 0.9 g/Ah to 1.4 g/Ah between 1.0-1.4 g/Ah in order to balance supplying sufficient electrolyte solution without causing excessive electrolyte decomposition as taught by Minami, with a reasonable expectation of success given the similar use of electrode additives for electrolyte retention between modified Ohkubo and Minami, and because Ohkubo’s disclosure necessarily requires a skilled artisan to select some amount of electrolyte to ensure sufficient electrode wetting (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Ohkubo does not discuss the presence of electrolytic solution outside a bare cell in the secondary battery, but specifically utilizes carbon fiber in the electrodes (a constituent of the bare cell) to improve electrolytic solution retention (Ohkubo [0008]). Since improving the electrolyte retention prevents the extrusion of electrolytic solution outside the bare cell in Applicant’s disclosure (instant specification, [0063]), one having ordinary skill in the art would expect Ohkubo’s secondary battery to possess little, if any electrolytic solution (i.e., <0.1 g/Ah) outside the bare cell in light of Ohkubo’s electrolyte retention features.
Assuming arguendo that Applicant provides evidence that Ohkubo as modified above does not necessarily or inherently have <0.1 g/Ah electrolytic solution outside the bare cell, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize at least the upper portion of the <0.1 g/Ah claimed range through seeking to further improve modified Ohkubo’s electrolyte solution retention by increasing the length or branching of the carbon fiber additive (Ohkubo [0043-0044]) or increasing the active material surface area ([0063]) with a reasonable expectation of success, since increasing the electrolytic solution retention reduces the electrolytic solution outside the bare cell to inherently approach 0 g/Ah (instant specification, [0063]) (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 6, modified Ohkubo discloses that the secondary battery wherein the electrolyte further comprises a solid polymer electrolyte formed of an organic electrolyte solution and a polymer, i.e., a gel polymer electrolyte in addition to the electrolytic solution, or alternatively, only the electrolytic solution or the gel polymer electrolyte (Ohkubo [0096-0099], [0105-0108]). The gel polymer electrolyte also has improved strength and adhesion polymer crosslinking ([0104]), but has reduced ability to permeate the electrode compared to an electrolytic solution ((pp. 15 Table 2), [0209]). Moreover, the claimed electrolyte comprising a gel electrolyte and electrolytic solution in a mass ratio of 1:(0.05 to 0.4) necessarily falls within the compositional range of electrolyte being entirely an electrolytic solution or entirely a gel polymer electrolyte (i.e., the range of Ohkubo’s electrolyte in [0096-0099], [0105-0108]).
Thus, in seeking to balance improving the strength and electrode adhesion provided by the gel polymer electrolyte with the improved electrode permeability of the electrolytic solution in modified Ohkubo’s electrolyte, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to arrive at claim 6’s mass ratio of the gel electrolyte to the electrolytic solution between 1:(0.05 to 0.4) through optimizing the proportions of gel polymer electrolyte and electrolytic solution in modified Ohkubo’s electrolyte within the endpoints of the electrolyte being entirely gel polymer electrolyte or entirely electrolytic solution according to Ohkubo’s disclosure with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Regarding claim 8, modified Ohkubo discloses the secondary battery according to claim 6, disclosing through experimental example the use of an organic peroxide initiator (“bis(4-t-butylcyclohexyl)peroxydicarbonate”) to form the gel electrolyte (Ohkubo [0130]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Ohkubo discloses the secondary battery of claim 1, the disclosure suggesting a negative electrode coating weight of 12.3-14.8 mg/cm2 (Ohkubo [0059], [0120]; see discussion of claim 1), which approaches but does not intersect claim 7’s range of 7 mg/cm2 to 10.5 mg/cm2. Ohkubo’s secondary battery must also have suitable capacity density as well as characteristics under load, i.e. rate characteristics ([0002]), but Ohkubo fails to expressly correlate these characteristics with the coating weight.
Yamamoto, analogous as having a negative electrode plate containing silicon (Yamamoto, abstract), teaches that a coating weight of the negative electrode plate is preferably at least 8 mg/cm2 to provide sufficient capacity, and less than 15 mg/cm2 to improve the rate characteristics of the battery ([0169]).
Thus, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize at least a portion overlapping with claim 11’s range of 7 mg/cm2 to 10.5 mg/cm2 between 8 mg/cm2 to 10.5 mg/cm2 through seeking to balance the capacity and rate characteristics of modified Ohkubo’s battery by adjusting the negative electrode plate coating weight between 8 mg/cm2 to 15 mg/cm2 according to Yamamoto’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success from the similar silicon-containing negative electrode active materials utilized between modified Ohkubo and Yamamoto, and because modified Ohkubo’s suggested negative electrode coating weight of 12.3-14.8 mg/cm2 is appreciably similar to the overlapping of the modification (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Regarding claim 15, modified Ohkubo discloses use of the secondary battery of claim 1 in an electric apparatus (“small-sized portable apparatuses…employing a lithium ion battery”) (Ohkubo [0002-0006]).
Claims 2, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohkubo (US-20070111101-A1) in view of Minami (WO-2013047016-A1) and Yamamoto (US-20190157664-A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Hayakawa et al. (US-20130224557-A1; cited in 12/10/2025 Office action):
Regarding claim 2, modified Ohkubo discloses the secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein a separator is disposed between the positive electrode plate and negative electrode plate (Ohkubo [0098]), which may be suitably combined with additional species or with another type of separator ([0098]), but does not further describe providing a surface of the separator with a first high liquid-absorbent polymer layer having an equilibrium swelling ratio of a high liquid-absorbent polymer of 150% to 300%.
Hayakawa, directed to a separator for a non-aqueous battery (Hayakawa [0014]), teaches
a first high liquid-absorbent polymer layer (“liquid-electrolyte-swellable resin layer”) provided on a surface of a separator materially analogous to Ohkubo’s (Hayakawa [0021, 0086-0088], Ohkubo [0098]), with the advantage of reducing resistance by swelling the separator with a liquid electrolyte without reducing strength (Hayakawa [0021]).
Thus, in seeking to sufficiently provide or improve the resistance and strength of modified Ohkubo’s separator, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to provide a surface of the separator with a first high liquid-absorbent polymer layer as taught by Hayakawa, with a reasonable expectation of success because of the materially similar base separators used between Hayakawa and modified Ohkubo, and because Ohkubo envisions the suitability of additional species or separators with the base separator layer.
Hayakawa further teaches that an equilibrium swelling ratio of the separator as a whole (“liquid absorption capacity”) is at least 1.5 g/g to decrease internal resistance (Hayakawa [0011], [0139]) and less than 8 g/g to maintain strength and workability of the separator ([0139], [0205], pp. 12 Table 2). While not identical to Applicant’s claimed equilibrium swelling ratio measuring only the first high-liquid absorbent polymer layer (Instant specification [0057]), both measurements analogously depend on and quantify the ability of the liquid-absorbent polymer to swell and absorb an electrolyte solution (Hayakawa [0162], inst. spec. [0057]).
Thus, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize claim 2’s equilibrium swelling ratio of 150-300% encompassed within Ohkubo’s range of equilibrium swelling ratio between 150% (1.5 g/g) to 800% (8 g/g) through seeking to balance the resistance and workability of the separator modified with Hayakawa to provide the first high liquid-absorbent polymer layer (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Regarding claim 4, modified Ohkubo discloses the secondary battery according to claim 2. While a skilled artisan necessarily selects a measure of coating weight of the high liquid-absorbent polymer in order in providing Hayakawa’s high liquid-absorbent polymer coating, modified Ohkubo alone does not specify a range of coating weight of the high liquid-absorbent polymer, being 0.1-1.4 mg/cm2 as claimed in claim 4.
Hayakawa, teaching the high liquid-absorbent polymer provided on the separator base layer (Hayakawa [0021]), further provides experimental examples where a coating weight (“basis weight”) is 14 g/m2 (i.e., 1.4 mg/cm2) (Hayakawa pp. 11-12, Tables 1-2), therefore teaching or specifically suggesting this coating weight in order to suitably and successfully form the first high liquid-absorbent polymer layer. It would thus be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to select a coating weight of 1.4 mg/cm2 on an endpoint of claim 4’s range of 0.1-1.4 mg/cm2 in order to suitably form Hayakawa’s first high liquid-absorbent polymer layer on modified Ohkubo’s separator with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 5, modified Ohkubo discloses the secondary battery according to claim 2; while considerations of the separator’s ionic conductivity are relevant to Ohkubo (Ohkubo [0098]), modified Ohkubo taken alone does not further disclose the selection of one of the electrolytes recited in claim 5 for this effect.
Hayakawa, teaching the high liquid-absorbent polymer (Hayakawa [0021]), further teaches the polymer includes a vinyl polymer component ([0024]) where a species of polyacrylate (“polyoxyethylene monomethyl ether (meth)acrylate”) may be selected as the component to effectively improve the ion conductivity (the polyacrylate species thus recognized as a polyacrylate electrolyte from its effect of contributing to the ion conductivity) ([0065]).
Thus, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to select the polyacrylate electrolyte species taught by Hayakawa as a component of modified Ohkubo’s high liquid-absorbent polymer in order to improve the ionic conductivity as taught by Hayakawa, with a reasonable expectation of success as Hayakawa recognizes the improved ionic conductivity as desirable, and envisions a suitability of employing additional species (i.e., the polyacrylate electrolyte) in combination with the base layer of the separator (MPEP 2144.07).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohkubo (US-20070111101-A1) in view of Minami (WO-2013047016-A1) and Yamamoto (US-20190157664-A1) as applied to claim 6, further in view of Ajekwene et al. (Properties and Applications of Acrylates pp. 35-43; copy with 12/10/2025 Office action):
Regarding claim 7, modified Ohkubo discloses the secondary battery according to claim 6. A finite list of suitable polymers for the gel electrolyte includes poly(meth)acrylic acid ester, i.e., poly(meth)acrylate inter alia (Ohkubo [0102]), and a suggested example polymer includes a constituent unit recognizable as an acrylate functional group or a related derivative ([0105-0106], see formula (1)). Based on this disclosure, it would thus be obvious to explore selection of a poly(meth)acrylate electrolyte as claimed in claim 7 since some identity of polymer must be selected as the composition of modified Ohkubo’s gel polymer electrolyte, with poly(meth)acrylate being an identified, predictably successful solution in Ohkubo’s disclosure available to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 I. E).
It is further known in the art as taught by Ajekwene that suitable monomers for producing the (meth)acrylate polymer include ethylene acrylate, ethylene methylacrylate, methyl acrylate, methyl methacrylate, n-butyl methacrylate, butyl acrylate (Ajekwane pp.3 5-38) as species recited in claim 7, such that it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to select one of these monomers based on its suitability for an intended purpose of forming modified Ohkubo’s (meth)acrylate polymer in the gel polymer electrolyte (MPEP 2144.07).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of amended claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over the previous combination of Ohkubo et al. (US-20070111101-A1) in view of Minami et al. (WO-2013047016-A1) (remarks p. 4-5) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specifically, Applicant’s assertion that Ohkubo does not teach or disclose the requirement of Li, Ni, and the newly required constituent M (Mn or Al) is discussed with respect to the newly cited prior art; see p. 2-3 of this Office action.
Applicant’s remarks which generally state that “Ohkubo does not teach or suggest […] mass percentage of a silicon-based material in the negative electrode active material is 20% to 100%” (remarks p. 5) and “the combination of Ohkubo and Minami do not teach […] density of the negative electrode plate is 1.1 g/cm3 to 1.9 g/cm3” (remarks p. 5-6), i.e., the various limitations recited in claim 1 have been considered, but do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which Applicant thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited, or show how the amendments avoid such references, and are thus respectfully not found persuasive.
Applicant’s additional statements the rejections of the remaining claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 over the previously cited prior art (remarks p. 6-7) have similarly been considered but do not clearly point out the patentable novelty of these claims or are otherwise moot over the newly cited prior art or different interpretations of previously cited art necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wei et al. (CN114497723A, see attached machine translation) is a secondary battery where the electrolyte comprises both an electrolytic solution and an in-situ formed gel polymer electrolyte ([n0006]) in a mass ratio of (5-50):(50-95) ([n0014]), being pertinent to claim 6, but fails to further discuss a coating weight or compacted density of the electrodes as recited in claim 1.
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
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights