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 .
The Applicant has amended independent claim 33; and added new claim 50. The pending claims are claims 3, 5, 6, 8, 11-13, 15, 16, 19, 22-25, 28, 33-35, 37, 50.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 33, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11,13, 15, 19, 23-25, 28, 34, 35, 37, 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshimura et al., US 2013/0330617.
Regarding claim 33, Yoshimura et al., teaches device comprising: an aluminum alloy layer (0038; 0053; 0055), wherein the aluminum alloy layer (0038; 0053; 0055) corresponds to a current collector (0029; 0056) for an anode (0040; 0043); a conductive protection layer in contact with the aluminum alloy layer (0038; 0053; 0055); and an electrode active material (0029; 0134) in contact with the conductive protection layer (0029).
Yoshimura does not teach wherein the conductive protection layer does not comprise materials that alloy or react with lithium, and wherein lithium atoms cannot diffuse into the conductive protective layer.
However, Yoshimura teaches conductive protection layer (0029; 0034-0038) and lithium atoms (lithium ion secondary battery; 0020; 0042; 0058; 0134). Therefore, A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979).
Regarding claim 3, Yoshimura et al., teaches device of claim 33, wherein the conductive protection layer is free or substantially free of imperfections allowing transmission of lithium atoms or lithium ions to the aluminum alloy layer (0038), or wherein the conductive protection layer is free or substantially free of imperfections (“the electrode material of the present disclosure is extremely excellent in heat resistance, so that it is almost free of quality deterioration even after used under high temperature for a long period of time” (0062) extending between a surface of the conductive protection layer facing the aluminum alloy layer and an opposite surface of the conductive protection layer (0062-0063).
Regarding claim 5, Yoshimura et al., teaches device of claim 33, wherein the conductive protection layer comprises a coating on the aluminum alloy layer (0021).
Regarding claim 6, Yoshimura et al., teaches device of claim 33, wherein the conductive protection layer coats all or a portion of the aluminum alloy layer or wherein the aluminum alloy layer comprises a coating on the conductive protection layer (0021).
Regarding claim 8, Yoshimura et al., teaches device of claim 5, wherein the conductive protection layer comprises a complete encapsulation layer over all or a portion of the aluminum alloy layer (0038).
Regarding claim 9, Yoshimura et al., teaches device of claim 33, wherein the conductive protection layer comprises a material that does not alloy with lithium or wherein the conductive protection layer does not include materials that alloy with lithium (0038; 0053; 0055).
Regarding claim 11, Yoshimura et al., teaches device of claim 33, wherein the conductive protection layer does not include aluminum, zinc, magnesium, silicon, germanium, tin, indium, antimony, or carbon or wherein the conductive protection layer comprises one or more of titanium (0058; 0107), or titanium nitride (0107).
Regarding claim 12, Yoshimura et al., does not teach device of claim 33, wherein the conductive protection layer has a purity of 70 wt.% or more, wherein the conductive protection layer comprises a metal layer having an impurity content of 1 wt.% or less, or wherein the conductive protection layer has an oxygen content of 30 wt.% or less.
However, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
In addition, Yoshimura comprises the same materials as in the Application, such as aluminum alloy layer (0038; 0055) and conductive protection layer, such as titanium (0038; 0047), or chromium (Cr) (0047).
Thus, A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) (discussed in more detail below) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 13, Yoshimura et al., teaches device of claim 33, wherein the conductive protection layer comprises a material that does not react with lithium at a potential of from 0 V to 5 V (4 V; 0109) (4.2 V; 0136) vs. Li/Li+.
Regarding claim 15, Yoshimura et al., teaches device of claim 33, wherein the conductive protection layer comprises a composite structure (0036-0037; 0049).
Regarding claim 16, Yoshimura et al., teaches device of claim 15, wherein the composite structure comprises at least a first sub-layer (metal layer) (abstract) and a second sub-layer (mixed layer) (abstract; 0063-0075), and wherein the first sub-layer and the second sub-layer comprise the same material or different materials (abstract; 0063-0075).
Yoshimura does not teach each sublayer independently have a purity of 70 wt.% or more.
However, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
In addition, Yoshimura comprises the same materials as in the Application, such as aluminum alloy layer (0038; 0055) and conductive protection layer, such as titanium (0038; 0047), or chromium (Cr) (0047).
Thus, A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) (discussed in more detail below) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 19, Yoshimura et al., teaches device of claim 33, wherein the conductive protection layer comprises a crystalline structure (0054) or a polycrystalline structure (0054).
Regarding claim 22, Yoshimura et al., does not teach device of claim 33, wherein the conductive protection layer has an electrical conductivity of from 105 S/m to 108 S/m or an electrical resistivity of from 10-8Q-m to 10-6Qm.
However, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
In addition, Yoshimura comprises the same materials as in the Application, such as aluminum alloy layer (0038; 0055) and conductive protection layer, such as titanium (0038; 0047), or chromium (Cr) (0047).
Thus, A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) (discussed in more detail below) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 23, Yoshimura et al., teaches device of claim 33, wherein the conductive protection layer has a thickness of from 10 nm to 100 um (45 nm or less; 0057) or from 1 um to 500 um (1 um or more; 0057) or wherein the aluminum alloy layer has a thickness of from 10 nm to 100 um (0.02 um or less; 0062) or from 1 um to 500 um (20 to 50 um; 0066).
Regarding claim 24, Yoshimura et al., teaches device of claim 33, wherein the conductive protection layer is a metal or metal alloy sheet or metal or metal alloy foil or wherein the aluminum alloy layer comprises an aluminum alloy sheet (0038) or an aluminum alloy foil (0055).
Regarding claim 25, Yoshimura et al., teaches device of claim 33, wherein the conductive protection layer comprises a first foil (abstract; 0021-0025), wherein the aluminum alloy layer (0038; 0055) comprises a second foil (0034), and wherein the first foil and the second foil are bonded to one another (0054).
Regarding claim 28, Yoshimura et al., teaches device of claim 33, comprising or corresponding to an electronic substrate (0026; 0034; 0038-0039) or a current collector (0029-0031).
Regarding claim 34, Yoshimura et al., teaches comprising or corresponding to an electrochemical cell electrode (0029; 0033), an electrochemical cell, or a battery (abstract; 0041).
Regarding claim 35, Yoshimura et al., teaches wherein the electrode active material comprises a lithium ion cathode active material or a lithium ion anode active material (0043; 0055-0056).
Regarding claim 37, Yoshimura et al., teaches wherein the aluminum alloy layer (0021), the conductive protection layer (0038), and the electrode active material (0029) comprise or correspond to a first electrochemical cell electrode (0029), and wherein the device further comprises: a second electrochemical cell electrode (0029); and an electrolyte (0023; 0044) positioned between the first electrochemical cell electrode and the second electrochemical cell electrode (0023; 0029).
Regarding claim 50, the conductive protection layer comprises one or more of Cr (0038; 0047; 0053).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Yoshimura does not disclose "wherein the conductive protection layer does not comprise materials that alloy or react with lithium, and wherein lithium atoms cannot diffuse into the protective layer," as recited by claim 33.“
However, Yoshimura teaches a conductive layer in contact with the aluminum alloy layer (0038; 0053; 0055): “the electrode material of the present disclosure may be modified by additionally forming a layer consisting of a Li-containing active substance, on the second electrically conductive layer (0042).
Additionally, the Applicant argues that “Yoshimura recites "a carbon material capable of occluding and releasing an alkali metal ion" followed by a list of materials that are known to form alloys with lithium. The Office Action appears to have interpreted "capable of occluding and releasing" as a synonymous with "blocking lithium ions". However, it essentially means the opposite: the carbon material described by Yoshimura captures (or occludes) the ions and then releases them.”
However, Yoshimura teaches “a secondary battery where an active substance repeats volume expansion and contraction caused by occlusion (intercalation) and release (deintercalation) of ions,” (0056). Additionally, Yoshimura teaches “carbon itself composing the second electrically conductive layer can serve as an active substance capable of occluding and releasing alkali metal ions or alkaline-earth metal ions.
The Applicant argues that “Yoshimura is directed to cathodes.”
Hpwever. Yoshimura teaches “the electrode material of the present disclosure may be used as an electrode as it is, or may be used as an anode or cathode (positive or negative electrode) of any storage device in an additionally-modified state, if necessary,” (0043).
The Applicant argues that the “Applicant is unable to locate any language related to imperfections or purity in Yoshimura.”
However, Yoshimura teaches “impaired”, which is synonymous to “imperfection.” Yoshimura teaches “the substrate or electrical conductivity in the first electrically conductive layer is impaired, a plurality of elements such as an alloy may be contained.” (0053).
Additionally, the Applicant argues that “the conductive protection layer comprises a coating on the aluminum alloy layer.”
However, Yoshimura teaches a conductive layer (0029; 0034-0038) which comprises a coating on the aluminum alloy layer (0038; 0053-0055).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA J MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1288. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-4pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
ANGELA J. MARTIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/ANGELA J MARTIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights