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 .
Status of Claims
This is a final office action for application 17/784,803 in response to the amendment(s) filed on 01/08/2026. Claims 1-4, 6-9 and 11-16 are under examination. Claims 6-7 are still withdrawn from consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/08/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 01/08/2026 have been fully considered and were not found persuasive over the previous prior art rejection of record for the reasons set forth below. See claims 1-4, 8-9 and 11-16 rejections below.
Applicant argues “Kamauchi fails to teach or suggest such claim features. Rather, Kamauchi requires that the negative electrode material must be an Li–Ag–Te alloy… That is, Kamauchi teaches that Te must be contained in the lithium alloy as the essential element, in addition to lithium and silver.” (see e.g. page 5 of applicant’s arguments):
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kamauchi discloses a lithium alloy negative electrode comprising Li, Ag, and Te, wherein the atomic ratio of Li:Ag:Te is disclosed as 10–120:1–20:0.001–2 (see e.g. claim 3 of Kamauchi). This disclosure demonstrates that Te is present in a relatively small quantity compared to Li and Ag. Kamauchi does not disclose that Te is required in a critical amount for the operability of the alloy, nor does Kamauchi teach that the alloy would be inoperable in the absence of Te. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood that the Li–Ag alloy constitutes the base alloy system and that the minor amount of Te functions merely as an additional component that may be included. Modifying the alloy composition of Kamauchi by omitting the minor Te component would have been an obvious variation resulting in a lithium alloy consisting essentially of Li and Ag with only unavoidable impurities remaining. For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Te is not ‘unavoidable impurities’ in a lithium alloy… Therefore, materials containing Te are unsuitable as crucibles for creating lithium alloys and should not be present as impurities… Consequently, it is highly unlikely that tellurium would be present as an impurity in a manufacturing environment where lithium alloys are made solely from Ag and Li.” (see e.g. pages 5-6 of applicant’s arguments):
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection does not rely on Te being present as an impurity in the claimed lithium alloy. Rather, the rejection relies on the teaching of Kamauchi of a Li–Ag–Te alloy system and the obvious modification thereof. As discussed above, Kamauchi discloses Te in minor amounts relative to Li and Ag, and does not teach that Te is critical to the operation of the alloy. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to omit the minor Te component from the alloy composition of Kamauchi, thereby resulting in a lithium alloy consisting of lithium and silver with only unavoidable impurities present. Applicant’s arguments directed to whether Te could exist as an impurity do not address the obviousness of modifying the prior art alloy by removing the minor Te component. For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In conclusion, the arguments and amendments do not overcome the previous prior art rejection of record. Furthermore, the newly added claims have also been rejected. See claims 1-4, 8-9 and 11-16 rejections below.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 2, 8-10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamauchi et al. (US-5804335-A).
Regarding Claim 2, Kamauchi discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device (see e.g. "lithium secondary battery" in Abstract and FIG. 1) comprising:
a negative electrode comprising a lithium alloy (see e.g. "a negative electrode comprising an Li--Ag--Te alloy" in Abstract and "As the Li-Ag-Te alloy, used was a mixture of the respective components mixed at an atomic ratio of Li:Ag:Te = 90:10:0.1" in Preparation of Negative Electrode section Column 9 lines 21-23); and
a nonaqueous electrolyte (see e.g. "and a nonaqueous electrolyte" in Column 2 line 9) comprising a lithium salt containing fluorine (see e.g. "Examples of the above-mentioned salt include... LiBF4, LiPF4, LiPF6, LiAsF3, LiAsF6, Li(CFSO) and Li(CFSO)N" in Column 7 lines 19-22), wherein
the lithium alloy consists of lithium, silver and unavoidable impurities (see e.g., "As the Li-Ag-Te alloy, used was a mixture of the respective components mixed at an atomic ratio of Li:Ag:Te = 90:10:0.1" in Preparation of Negative Electrode section Column 9 lines 21-23; Ag is the elemental symbol for silver), and a content of silver with respect to a total content of lithium and silver in the lithium alloy is 11.47% by mass. This can be calculated as follows:
Kamauchi discloses that the atomic ratio of Li--Ag--Te alloy is Li:Ag:Te=10-120:1-20:0.001-2 (see e.g. claim 3). Therefore, the atomic ratio of Li:Ag is 10-120:1-30; this atomic ratio can be converted to weight percent using the atomic weight of each species (Li = 6.941 g/mol and Ag = 107.868 g/mol). When the Li:Ag atomic ratio is 120:1 the weight percent of Ag is as follow:
• The mass of Li = 120 mol x 6.941 g/mol = 832.920 g
• The mass of Ag = 1 mol x 107.868 g/mol = 107.868 g
The weight percent of Ag can then be calculated as follows:
• Weight % Ag = (107.868 g) / (107.868 g + 832.920 g) x 100 = 11.47%
Kamauchi discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
With regards to the claim limitation “the lithium alloy consists of lithium, contains silver and unavoidable impurities.” Kamauchi discloses a lithium alloy comprising Li, Ag, and Te (see e.g. Abstract and Preparation of Negative Electrode section, Column 9 lines 21–23). Kamauchi further discloses that the atomic ratio of Li:Ag:Te may be 10–120:1–20:0.001–2 (see e.g. claim 3). This disclosure demonstrates that Te may be present in a relatively small quantity compared to Li and Ag. Kamauchi does not disclose that Te is required in a critical amount for operability of the alloy nor does Kamauchi teach that the alloy would be inoperable in the absence of Te. Furthermore, the instant specification itself defines a lithium alloy “composed substantially of lithium and silver” as a lithium-silver alloy containing less than 1% by mass other components (see e.g. paragraph [0064] of the instant specification). Therefore, Kamauchi’s disclosure of a Li–Ag alloy containing a minor additional component would have reasonably suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the lithium alloy could be composed primarily of Li and Ag with only minor additional components present.
Regarding Claim 8, Kamauchi discloses the nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device of claim 2 (see e.g. claim 2 rejection above).
Kamauchi is silent to the nonaqueous electrolyte storage device having a positive electrode potential at an end-of-charge voltage under normal usage of 4.30 V vs. Li/Li+ or more. However, Kamauchi does discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device that has no structural or compositional distinction to the nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device claimed in the instant application. Because of this the positive electrode potential at an end-of-charge voltage under normal usage would be an inherent property and thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2112 (III) and MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding Claim 9, Kamauchi discloses the nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device of claim 2 (see claim 2 rejection above).
Kamauchi further discloses a positive electrode (see e.g. "positive electrode" in Abstract and part number 2 in FIG. 1) comprising a lithium transition metal composite oxide (see e.g. "The positive electrode active material in the present invention is exemplified by those composed of an oxide compound containing at least Li and Ni." in Column 3 lines 10-15 and "Specific examples of the oxide compound include… LiNi0.5Co0.5O2" in Column 3 lines 26-27), wherein the lithium transition metal composite oxide has an α-NaFeO2-type crystal structure (see e.g. "Specific examples of the oxide compound include… LiNi0.5Co0.5O2" in Column 3 lines 26-27; According to the instant specification paragraph [0040] LiNi0.5Co0.5O2 has a α-NaFeO2-type crystal structure see e.g. “Li[LixNiyCo1-x-y]O2 (0 ≤ X < 0.5, 0 < y < 1)” in paragraph [0040] of the instant specification in this case x = 0 and y = 0.5), and comprises nickel as a transition metal (see e.g., "Specific examples of the oxide compound include… LiNi0.5Co0.5O2" in Column 3 lines 26-27), and a molar ratio of lithium to the transition metal is more than 1 (see e.g., "Specific examples of the oxide compound include... LiNi0.5Co0.5O2" in Column 3 lines 26-27; in LiNi0.5Co0.5O2 the molar ratio of lithium to nickel is 2).
Kamauchi discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 10, Kamauchi discloses the nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device of claim 2 (see claim 2 rejection above).
Kamauchi further discloses that the lithium alloy is composed substantially of lithium and silver (see e.g. "As the Li-Ag-Te alloy, used was a mixture of the respective components mixed at an atomic ratio of Li:Ag:Te = 90:10:0.1" in Preparation of Negative Electrode section Column 9 lines 21-23; in this alloy elemental Te is 0.1% by mass, with Li and Ag making up the rest; this is consistent with the definition of “the lithium alloy is composed substantially of lithium and silver” defined by the instant specification in paragraph [0064]).
Regarding Claim 15, Kamauchi discloses the nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device of claim 2 (see e.g. claim 2 rejection above).
Kamauchi further discloses a lithium alloy comprising lithium, silver, and tellurium (see e.g. Abstract and Preparation of Negative Electrode section, Column 9 lines 21–23). Kamauchi also discloses a specific alloy composition having an atomic ratio of Li:Ag:Te = 90:10:0.1 (see e.g. Preparation of Negative Electrode section, Column 9 lines 21–23). Converting this atomic ratio to weight percent using the atomic weights of Li (6.941 g/mol), Ag (107.868 g/mol), and Te (127.60 g/mol) results in approximately 624.69 g Li, 1078.68 g Ag, and 12.76 g Te, for a total mass of approximately 1716.13 g. Accordingly, the weight percent of Te in the alloy is approximately 0.74 wt%.
The instant specification describes lithium-silver alloys as preferably being composed substantially of lithium and silver and further explains that components other than lithium and silver are preferably present in very small amounts, such as less than 1% by mass (see e.g. paragraph [0064] of the instant specification). Kamauchi’s example alloy contains approximately 0.74 wt% Te, which is consistent with an alloy system in which lithium and silver constitute substantially the entire alloy composition and any additional component is present only in a minor amount.
Kamauchi does not explicitly disclose a lithium alloy consisting only of lithium and silver. However, Kamauchi does not disclose that tellurium is required in a critical amount for operability of the alloy nor does Kamauchi teach that the alloy would be inoperable in the absence of tellurium. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to omit the minor tellurium component disclosed by Kamauchi, thereby arriving at a lithium alloy consisting of lithium and silver as recited in the claim.
Claims 1, 3-5, 13-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamauchi et al. (US-5804335-A) and further in view of Lamanna et al. (US-20100104950-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kamauchi discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device (see e.g. "lithium secondary battery" in Abstract and FIG. 1) comprising:
a negative electrode comprising a lithium alloy (see e.g. "a negative electrode comprising an Li--Ag--Te alloy" in Abstract and "As the Li-Ag-Te alloy, used was a mixture of the respective components mixed at an atomic ratio of Li:Ag:Te = 90:10:0.1" in Preparation of Negative Electrode section Column 9 lines 21-23); and
a nonaqueous electrolyte (see e.g. "and a nonaqueous electrolyte" in Column 2 line 9), wherein
the lithium alloy consists of lithium, silver and unavoidable impurities (see e.g. "As the Li-Ag-Te alloy, used was a mixture of the respective components mixed at an atomic ratio of Li:Ag:Te = 90:10:0.1" in Preparation of Negative Electrode section Column 9 lines 21-23; Ag is the elemental symbol for silver), and a content of silver with respect to a total content of lithium and silver in the lithium alloy is 11.47% by mass. This can be calculated as follows:
Kamauchi discloses that the atomic ratio of Li--Ag--Te alloy is Li:Ag:Te=10-120:1-20:0.001-2 (see e.g. claim 3). Therefore the atomic ratio of Li:Ag is 10-120:1-30; this atomic ratio can be converted to weight percent using the atomic weight of each species (Li = 6.941 g/mol and Ag = 107.868 g/mol). When the Li:Ag atomic ratio is 120:1 the weight percent of Ag is as follow:
• The mass of Li = 120 mol x 6.941 g/mol = 832.920 g
• The mass of Ag = 1 mol x 107.868 g/mol = 107.868 g
The weight percent of Ag can then be calculated as follows:
• Weight % Ag = (107.868 g) / (107.868 g + 832.920 g) x 100 = 11.47%
Kamauchi discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
With regards to the claim limitation “the lithium alloy consists of lithium, contains silver and unavoidable impurities.” Kamauchi discloses a lithium alloy comprising Li, Ag, and Te (see e.g. Abstract and Preparation of Negative Electrode section, Column 9 lines 21–23). Kamauchi further discloses that the atomic ratio of Li:Ag:Te may be 10–120:1–20:0.001–2 (see e.g. claim 3). This disclosure demonstrates that Te may be present in a relatively small quantity compared to Li and Ag. Kamauchi does not disclose that Te is required in a critical amount for operability of the alloy nor does Kamauchi teach that the alloy would be inoperable in the absence of Te. Furthermore, the instant specification itself defines a lithium alloy “composed substantially of lithium and silver” as a lithium-silver alloy containing less than 1% by mass other components (see e.g. paragraph [0064] of the instant specification). Therefore, Kamauchi’s disclosure of a Li–Ag alloy containing a minor additional component would have reasonably suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the lithium alloy could be composed primarily of Li and Ag with only minor additional components present.
Kamauchi does not disclose that the nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device comprises a nonaqueous electrolyte comprising a fluorinated solvent.
Lamanna, however, in the same field of endeavor, nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage devices, discloses an electrolyte comprising a fluorinated solvent (see e.g. "In one embodiment, fluorine substituted 1,3-dioxolane-2-one compounds are provided as electrolyte solvents for lithium-ion batteries." in paragraph [0018] of Lamanna).
Lamanna teaches that utilizing fluorinated solvents in electrolyte compositions provides low reactivity towards charged positive electrodes and charged negative electrodes, as well as decreasing the electrolyte flammability. Lamanna also teaches that the high boiling points of the electrolyte compositions of the present invention result in less pressure buildup in the cells at operating temperatures (see e.g. paragraph [0020] of Lamanna). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the nonaqueous electrolyte of Kamauchi et al. such that it comprises a fluorinated solvent as taught by Lamanna et al. in order to provide an electrolyte with lower flammability and less pressure buildup in the cells at operating temperatures as suggest by Lamanna.
Regarding Claim 3, Kamauchi in view of Lamanna discloses the nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Kamauchi in view of Lamanna is silent to the nonaqueous electrolyte storage device having a positive electrode potential at an end-of-charge voltage under normal usage of 4.30 V vs. Li/Li+ or more. However, Kamauchi in view of Lamanna combined disclose a nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device that has no compositional or structural distinction to the nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device claimed by the instant application. Thus, it would be expected that the combined teachings of Kamauchi in view of Lamanna would produce a positive electrode having a potential at an end-of-charge voltage under normal usage of 4.30 V vs. Li/Li+ or more and a prima facie case of obviousness exist. See MPEP 2112 (III) and MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding Claim 4, Kamauchi in view of Lamanna discloses the nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above).
Kamauchi further discloses a positive electrode (see e.g. "positive electrode" in Abstract and part number 2 in FIG. 1) comprising a lithium transition metal composite oxide (see e.g. "The positive electrode active material in the present invention is exemplified by those composed of an oxide compound containing at least Li and Ni." in Column 3 lines 10-15 and "Specific examples of the oxide compound include… LiNi0.5Co0.5O2" in Column 3 lines 26-27), wherein the lithium transition metal composite oxide has an α-NaFeO2-type crystal structure (see e.g. "Specific examples of the oxide compound include… LiNi0.5Co0.5O2" in Column 3 lines 26-27; According to the instant specification paragraph [0040] LiNi0.5Co0.5O2 has a α-NaFeO2-type crystal structure see e.g. “Li[LixNiyCo1-x-y]O2 (0 ≤ X < 0.5, 0 < y < 1)” in paragraph [0040] of the instant specification in this case x = 0 and y = 0.5), and comprises nickel as a transition metal (see e.g., "Specific examples of the oxide compound include… LiNi0.5Co0.5O2" in Column 3 lines 26-27), and a molar ratio of lithium to the transition metal is more than 1 (see e.g., "Specific examples of the oxide compound include... LiNi0.5Co0
Kamauchi discloses a specific point within the range claimed by the instant application, thereby anticipating the claimed ranges. In the case where the prior art teaches a point within the claimed range, the claim is anticipated. See MPEP 2131.03 (I).
Regarding Claim 5, Kamauchi in view of Lamanna discloses the nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above).
Kamauchi further discloses that the lithium alloy is composed substantially of lithium and silver (see e.g. "As the Li-Ag-Te alloy, used was a mixture of the respective components mixed at an atomic ratio of Li:Ag:Te = 90:10:0.1" in Preparation of Negative Electrode section Column 9 lines 21-23; in this alloy elemental Te is 0.1% by mass, with Li and Ag making up the rest; this is consistent with the definition of “the lithium alloy is composed substantially of lithium and silver” defined by the instant specification in paragraph [0064]).
Regarding Claim 13, Kamauchi in view of Lamanna discloses the nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Kamauchi further discloses a lithium alloy comprising lithium, silver, and tellurium (see e.g. Abstract and Preparation of Negative Electrode section, Column 9 lines 21–23). Kamauchi also discloses a specific alloy composition having an atomic ratio of Li:Ag:Te = 90:10:0.1 (see e.g. Preparation of Negative Electrode section, Column 9 lines 21–23). Converting this atomic ratio to weight percent using the atomic weights of Li (6.941 g/mol), Ag (107.868 g/mol), and Te (127.60 g/mol) results in approximately 624.69 g Li, 1078.68 g Ag, and 12.76 g Te, for a total mass of approximately 1716.13 g. Accordingly, the weight percent of Te in the alloy is approximately 0.74 wt%.
The instant specification describes lithium-silver alloys as preferably being composed substantially of lithium and silver and further explains that components other than lithium and silver are preferably present in very small amounts, such as less than 1% by mass (see e.g. paragraph [0064] of the instant specification). Kamauchi’s example alloy contains approximately 0.74 wt% Te, which is consistent with an alloy system in which lithium and silver constitute substantially the entire alloy composition and any additional component is present only in a minor amount.
Kamauchi does not explicitly disclose a lithium alloy consisting only of lithium and silver. However, Kamauchi does not disclose that tellurium is required in a critical amount for operability of the alloy nor does Kamauchi teach that the alloy would be inoperable in the absence of tellurium. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to omit the minor tellurium component disclosed by Kamauchi, thereby arriving at a lithium alloy consisting of lithium and silver as recited in the claim.
Regarding Claim 14, Kamauchi in view of Lamanna discloses the nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Kamauchi does not disclose that the fluorinated solvent includes both of a fluorinated cyclic carbonate and a fluorinated chain carbonate.
Lamanna, however, discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte comprising fluorinated cyclic carbonates and fluorinated acyclic carbonates (see e.g. Abstract and paragraphs [0018]–[0019]). In Lamanna, fluorinated cyclic carbonates such as fluorinated 1,3-dioxolane-2-one compounds and fluorinated acyclic carbonates (open-chain carbonates) are taught as useful electrolyte solvents for lithium-ion batteries. Lamanna further discloses that these fluorinated carbonate solvents may be combined together in a single electrolyte (see e.g. "mixtures of one or more fluorinated compounds" in paragraph [0019]; describing mixtures of one or more fluorinated compounds including cyclic and acyclic carbonates). As used in the art, “acyclic carbonate” is equivalent to the claimed “chain carbonate,” such that Lamanna’s teaching of fluorinated acyclic carbonates renders obvious the claimed combination of a fluorinated cyclic carbonate and a fluorinated chain carbonate.
Lamanna further teaches that utilizing fluorinated solvents in electrolyte compositions provides low reactivity towards charged positive electrodes and charged negative electrodes, as well as decreasing the electrolyte flammability. Lamanna also teaches that the high boiling points of the electrolyte compositions of the present invention result in less pressure buildup in the cells at operating temperatures (see e.g. paragraph [0020] of Lamanna). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the nonaqueous electrolyte of Kamauchi et al. such that it comprises a fluorinated solvent that includes both a fluorinated cyclic carbonate and a fluorinated chain carbonate as taught by Lamanna et al. in order to provide an electrolyte with lower flammability and less pressure buildup in the cells at operating temperatures as suggest by Lamanna.
Regarding Claim 16, Kamauchi discloses the nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device of claim 2 (see e.g. claim 2 rejection above).
Kamauchi does not disclose that the fluorinated solvent includes both of a fluorinated cyclic carbonate and a fluorinated chain carbonate.
Lamanna, however, discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte comprising fluorinated cyclic carbonates and fluorinated acyclic carbonates (see e.g. Abstract and paragraphs [0018]–[0019]). In Lamanna, fluorinated cyclic carbonates such as fluorinated 1,3-dioxolane-2-one compounds and fluorinated acyclic carbonates (open-chain carbonates) are taught as useful electrolyte solvents for lithium-ion batteries. Lamanna further discloses that these fluorinated carbonate solvents may be combined together in a single electrolyte (see e.g. "mixtures of one or more fluorinated compounds" in paragraph [0019]; describing mixtures of one or more fluorinated compounds including cyclic and acyclic carbonates). As used in the art, “acyclic carbonate” is equivalent to the claimed “chain carbonate,” such that Lamanna’s teaching of fluorinated acyclic carbonates renders obvious the claimed combination of a fluorinated cyclic carbonate and a fluorinated chain carbonate.
Lamanna further teaches that utilizing fluorinated solvents in electrolyte compositions provides low reactivity towards charged positive electrodes and charged negative electrodes, as well as decreasing the electrolyte flammability. Lamanna also teaches that the high boiling points of the electrolyte compositions of the present invention result in less pressure buildup in the cells at operating temperatures (see e.g. paragraph [0020] of Lamanna). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the nonaqueous electrolyte of Kamauchi et al. such that it comprises a fluorinated solvent that includes both a fluorinated cyclic carbonate and a fluorinated chain carbonate as taught by Lamanna et al. in order to provide an electrolyte with lower flammability and less pressure buildup in the cells at operating temperatures as suggest by Lamanna.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamauchi et al. (US5804335A) in view Lamanna et al. (US-20100104950-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takada et al. (JP H01-288130-A).
Regarding Claim 11, Kamauchi in view of Lamanna discloses the nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Kamauchi in view of Lamanna does not disclose that the content of silver with respect to the total content of lithium and silver in the lithium alloy is 3% by mass or more and 10% by mass or less. Takada, however, in the same field of endeavor, negative electrodes for lithium secondary batteries discloses a content of silver with respect to the total content of lithium and silver in the lithium alloy is 9.38% by mass. This can be calculated as follows:
Takada discloses that the atomic ratio of Li--Ag--Te alloy is Li:Ag:Te = 15 to 150:1 to 20:0.001(see e.g. "Li: Ag: Te = 15 to 150: 1 to 20: 0.001" in paragraph [2] on page 3 of Takada). Therefore, the atomic ratio of Li:Ag is 15 to 150:1 to 20; this atomic ratio can be converted to weight percent using the atomic weight of each species (Li = 6.941 g/mol and Ag = 107.868 g/mol). When the Li:Ag atomic ratio is 150:1 the weight percent of Ag is as follow:
• The mass of Li = 150 mol x 6.941 g/mol = 1041.15 g
• The mass of Ag = 1 mol x 107.868 g/mol = 107.868 g
The weight percent of Ag can then be calculated as follows:
• Weight % Ag = (107.868 g) / (107.868 g + 1041.15 g) x 100 = 9.38%
Kamauchi discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Takada further teaches that utilizing these alloys can provide a lithium secondary battery with a high energy density, high electromotive force and high charge and discharge capacity that can be used for a long period of time (see e.g. Abstract of Takada). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the total content of silver with respect to the total content of lithium and silver in the lithium alloy of Kamauchi et al. in view of Lamanna et al. such that the content of silver with respect to the total content of lithium and silver is 9.38% as taught by Takada et al. in order to provide an allow with a high energy density, high electromotive force and high charge and discharge capacity as suggested by Takada.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamauchi et al. (US5804335A) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Takada et al. (JP H01-288130-A).
Regarding Claim 12, Kamauchi discloses the nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device of claim 2 (see e.g. claim 2 rejection above). Kamauchi does not disclose that the content of silver with respect to the total content of lithium and silver in the lithium alloy is 3% by mass or more and 10% by mass or less. Takada, however, in the same field of endeavor, negative electrodes for lithium secondary batteries discloses a content of silver with respect to the total content of lithium and silver in the lithium alloy is 9.38% by mass. This can be calculated as follows
Takada discloses that the atomic ratio of Li--Ag--Te alloy is Li:Ag:Te=15 to 150:1 to 20:0.001(see e.g. "Li: Ag: Te = 15 to 150: 1 to 20: 0.001" in paragraph [2] on page 3 of Takada). Therefore the atomic ratio of Li:Ag is 15 to 150:1 to 20; this atomic ratio can be converted to weight percent using the atomic weight of each species (Li = 6.941 g/mol and Ag = 107.868 g/mol). When the Li:Ag atomic ratio is 150:1 the weight percent of Ag is as follow:
• The mass of Li = 150 mol x 6.941 g/mol = 1041.15 g
• The mass of Ag = 1 mol x 107.868 g/mol = 107.868 g
The weight percent of Ag can then be calculated as follows:
• Weight % Ag = (107.868 g) / (107.868 g + 1041.15 g) x 100 = 9.38%
Kamauchi discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Takada further teaches that utilizing these alloys can provide a lithium secondary battery with a high energy density, high electromotive force and high charge and discharge capacity that can be used for a long period of time (see e.g. Abstract of Takada). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the total content of silver with respect to the total content of lithium and silver in the lithium alloy of Kamauchi et al. such that the content of silver with respect to the total content of lithium and silver is 9.38% as taught by Takada et al. in order to provide an allow with a high energy density, high electromotive force and high charge and discharge capacity as suggested by Takada.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSE EFYMOW whose telephone number is (571)270-0795. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 10:30 am - 8:30 pm EST.
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, TONG GUO can be reached at (571) 272-3066. 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.
/J.J.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/TONG GUO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723