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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received July 1, 2026:
Claims 1-14 are pending.
The previous prior art rejection is withdrawn in light of the amendment. However, a new prior art rejection has been made below. All changes to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment.
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, 3-5, 11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (JP 2005149980A) in view of Kawabe et al. (WO2020054662A) and Kato et al. (JP2012248280A). The English machine translations of Sato et al., Kawabe et al., and Kato et al. were attached in a prior Office action and are referenced below.
Regarding Claim 1, Sato et al. teaches a battery having a non-aqueous electrolyte in which an electrode group having a separator interposed between a positive electrode and negative electrode (Para. [0040]) (i.e. a non-aqueous electrolyte battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, a separator interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, and a non-aqueous electrolyte in a stacking direction), wherein a cylindrical shape battery that is wound (Para. [0028]) (i.e. the positive electrode, the separator and the negative electrode spirally wound about a winding axis), wherein a positive electrode is formed by supporting a paste of lithium-containing metal compound on the terminal-attached current collector of the present invention as a positive electrode active material (Para. [0040]) (i.e. a positive electrode mixture layer including a positive electrode active material) wherein the terminal-attached current collector includes an expanded metal as the uneven metal body of the terminal-attached current collector (Para. [0022]) (i.e. a positive electrode current collector formed of an expanded metal holding the positive electrode mixture layer therein) wherein the expanded metal comprises meshes (Para. [0027], [0029] and Fig. 1) having recesses (Para. [0029]) (i.e. the expanded metal includes a network of through-holes arrayed to provide a mesh having an exterior surface outside of the through-holes and an interior surface inside of the through-holes) wherein nickel hydroxide (i.e. active material) is filled into the terminal-attached current collector (Para. [0053]) (i.e. such that the positive electrode mixture layer contacts the mesh at the openings) wherein the thickness of the expanded metal is preferably 0.05 to 0.2 mm (Para. [0028]) (overlapping with the claimed range of 0.15 mm ≤ T ≤ 0.3 mm) wherein the short-side center-to-center distance is 3 mm or less (i.e. SW is 3 mm or less) and the center-to-center distance in the long direction is 5 mm or less (i.e. LW is 5 mm or less) (Para. [0027]) (i.e. LW*SW is 15 mm2 or less overlapping with the claimed range of 6 mm2 ≤ LW*SW ≤ 20 mm2. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Sato et al. does not teach a thickness of the positive electrode nor a feed width of the expanded metal nor does Sato et al. explicitly teach the positive electrode mixture layer contacts both the exterior surface and the interior surface.
However, Kawabe et al. teaches a cylindrical non-aqueous electrolyte battery (Para. [0001]) wherein the positive electrode has a thickness of 1.5 mm or more and 1.8 mm or less (Para. [0039]) (i.e. a positive electrode has a thickness within the claimed range of larger than or equal to 0.8 mm and smaller than or equal to 3 mm).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the thickness of the positive electrode of Sato et al. to incorporate the teaching of a thickness of 1.5 mm or more and 1.8 mm or less, as such a thickness can increase the capacity of the battery and suppress internal short circuits (Para. [0039]).
Sato et al. as modified by Kawabe et al. does teach not a feed width of the expanded metal nor the positive electrode mixture layer contacts both the exterior surface and the interior surface.
However, Kato et al. teaches a nonaqueous electrolyte cylindrical battery (Para. [0001], [0076]) wherein a positive electrode includes an expanded metal (Para. [0010]) having an interval width (i.e. feed width W) of 0.2 mm or more and 0.3 mm or less (i.e. within the claimed range of 0.15 mm ≤ W ≤ 0.3 mm) wherein the positive electrode mixture is placed on an expanded metal and is filled into openings of the expanded metal mesh and the positive electrode mixture is held by expanded metal (Para. [0007], [0029] and see Fig. 2, positive electrode plate #1) (i.e. an expanded metal including a network of through-holes arrayed to provide a mesh, having an exterior surface of the through-holes and interior surface inside the through-holes such that the positive electrode mixture layer contacts both the exterior surface and the interior surface.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the interval width (i.e. feed width) of Sato et al. to incorporate the teaching of an interval width (i.e. feed width W) of 0.2 mm or more and 0.3 mm or less, as such an interval width suppresses the breakage of the positive electrode breakage plate (Para. [0026]), providing increase reliability and mechanical stability. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode of Sato et al. incorporate the teaching of the filling of an expanded metal as taught by Sato et al., as it would increase the filling rate of active material in the battery and increase capacity (Para. [0010]).
Regarding Claim 3, Sato et al. as modified by Kawabe et al. and Kato et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Sato et al. teaches the thickness of the expanded metal is preferably 0.05 to 0.2 mm (Para. [0028]) (overlapping with the claimed range of 0.15 mm ≤ T ≤ 0.3 mm).
Sato et al. as modified by Kawabe et al. does not teach a feed width of the expanded metal.
However, Kato et al. teaches a nonaqueous electrolyte cylindrical battery (Para. [0001], [0076]) wherein a positive electrode includes an expanded metal (Para. [0010]) having an interval width (i.e. feed width W) of 0.2 mm or more and 0.3 mm or less (i.e. within the claimed range of 0.15 mm ≤ W ≤ 0.3 mm).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the interval width (i.e. feed width) of Sato et al. to incorporate the teaching of an interval width (i.e. feed width W) of 0.2 mm or more and 0.3 mm or less, as such an interval width suppresses the breakage of the positive electrode breakage plate (Para. [0026]), providing increase reliability and mechanical stability. Thus, the ratio T/W of Sato et al. as modified by Kato et al. would result in a ratio of 0.167 to 1, overlapping with the claimed T/W of the thickness T to the feed width W is larger than or equal to 0.5 and smaller than or equal to 2. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 4, Sato et al. as modified by Kawabe et al. and Kato et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Sato et al. does not explicitly teach the positive electrode active material average particle size.
However, Kawabe et al. teaches a cylindrical non-aqueous electrolyte battery (Para. [0001]) wherein a positive electrode active material may include manganese dioxide (Para. [0033]) with an average particle size of 35 µm (Para. [0071]) (i.e. wherein the positive electrode active material has an average particle size larger than or equal to 30 µm and smaller than or equal to 60 µm).
The substitution of manganese oxide positive active material with an average particle size of 35 µm as taught by Kawabe et al., for the positive electrode active material of Sato et al. would achieve the predictable result of providing a positive electrode active material capable of functioning in cylindrical non-aqueous electrolyte battery wherein the electrolyte may be LiPF6 (see Kawabe et al. – Para. [0024] and Sato et al. (Para. [0040]) . Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to substitute manganese oxide positive active material with an average particle size of 35 µm as taught by Kawabe et al., for the positive electrode active material of Sato et al. would, as the substitution would achieve the predictable result of providing a positive electrode active material capable of functioning in cylindrical non-aqueous electrolyte battery wherein the electrolyte may be LiPF6 (see Kawabe et al. – Para. [0024] and Sato et al. (Para. [0040]). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding Claim 5, Sato et al. as modified by Kawabe et al. and Kato et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above
Sato et al. further teaches a negative electrode comprises a lithium alloy (Para. [0040]) (i.e. the negative elected contains at least one of metal lithium and lithium alloy).
Sato et al. does not explicitly teach the positive electrode active material contains LixMnO2 (0 ≤ x ≤ 0.05).
However, Kawabe et al. teaches a cylindrical non-aqueous electrolyte battery (Para. [0001]) wherein a positive electrode active material may include manganese dioxide (Para. [0033]) (i.e. wherein the positive electrode active material is MnO2, reading on the claimed formula LixMnO2 when x = 0).
The substitution of manganese oxide positive active material as taught by Kawabe et al., for the positive electrode active material of Sato et al. would achieve the predictable result of providing a positive electrode active material capable of functioning in cylindrical non-aqueous electrolyte battery wherein the electrolyte may be LiPF6 (see Kawabe et al. – Para. [0024] and Sato et al. (Para. [0040]) . Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to substitute manganese oxide positive active material as taught by Kawabe et al., for the positive electrode active material of Sato et al. would, as the substitution would achieve the predictable result of providing a positive electrode active material capable of functioning in cylindrical non-aqueous electrolyte battery wherein the electrolyte may be LiPF6 (see Kawabe et al. – Para. [0024] and Sato et al. (Para. [0040]). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding Claim 11, Sato et al. as modified by Kawabe et al. and Kato et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Sato et al. further teaches the expanded metal comprises meshes (Para. [0027], [0029] and Fig. 1) having recesses (Para. [0029]) wherein nickel hydroxide (i.e. active material) is filled into the terminal-attached current collector (Para. [0053]) (i.e. wherein the positive electrode mixture layer fills the network of through holes).
Regarding Claim 13, Sato et al. as modified by Kawabe et al. and Kato et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above
Sato et al. further teaches an expanded metal holding the positive electrode mixture layer therein) wherein the expanded metal comprises meshes (Para. [0027], [0029] and Fig. 1) wherein the expanded metal mesh inherently comprises an exterior surface having a first side and a second side (i.e. a top side and a bottom side) wherein a through hole of the network has a first opening on the top side and a second opening on the bottom side, the expanded metal inherently has a heigh H corresponding to a maximum value of the distance of the top and bottom side when the expanded metal is placed on a flat surface in an unwound state. An inherent feature does not need to be recognized by the art at the time of the invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. See MPEP §2112(II).
Regarding Claim 14, Sato et al. as modified by Kawabe et al. and Kato et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 13 as explained above.
Sato et al. does not explicitly teach the height H is perpendicular to the separator in the stacking direction and radial to the winding axis.
However, Kato et al. teaches wherein the positive electrode mixture is placed on an expanded metal and is filled into openings of the expanded metal mesh and the positive electrode mixture is held by expanded metal (Para. [0007], [0029] and see Fig. 2, positive electrode plate #1 wherein the heigh H corresponding to a maximum value of the distance between the first and second sides when the expanded metal is placed on a flat surface is perpendicular to the stacking direction). See the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake; this reasoning is applicable to the specific example of Kato et al. cited herein.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (JP 2005149980A) in view of Kawabe et al. (WO2020054662A) and Kato et al. (JP2012248280A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suzuki et al. (JP2006164668A). The English machine translations of Sato et al. and Suzuki et al. were attached in a prior Office action and are referenced below.
Regarding Claim 2, Sato et al. as modified by Kawabe et al. and Kato et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Sato et al. teaches the short-side center-to-center distance is 3 mm or less (i.e. overlapping with SW is 1.5 mm or more) (Para. [0027]).
Sato et al. does not explicitly teach a LW/SW ratio.
However, Suzuki et al. teaches an organic electrolyte battery (Para. [0002]) (i.e. a non-aqueous electrolyte battery) comprising a positive electrode comprising an expanded metal (Para. [0003]) wherein the ratio LW/SW of the center-to-center distance in the long direction to the center-to-center distance in the short direction is 1.2 to 2.5 (i.e. overlapping with the claimed range of 1.5 ≤ LW/SW ≤ 2.5) (Para. [0010]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the LW/SW ratio in Sato et al. to incorporate the teaching of the ratio LW/SW as taught by Suzuki et al., as such a ratio can obtain a high current collection efficiency and can increase voltage during discharge (Para. [0015]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (JP 2005149980A) in view of Kawabe et al. (WO2020054662A) and Kato et al. (JP2012248280A) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Bernard et al. (US 2010/0297498).
Regarding Claim 6, Sato et al. as modified by Kawabe et al. and Kato et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 13 as explained above.
Sato et al. does not explicitly teach the expanded metal has a height less than or equal to 0.5 mm.
However, Bernard et al. teaches a current conductive support formed of an expanded metal (Para. [0043]) wherein the expanded metal has a peak-to-peak thickness of the support (i.e. height) of less than 100 micrometers (i.e. less than 0.1 mm) (Para. [0089]) in which #Ep2 in Figure 1 represents a peak-to-peak thickness of the support in the perforated region (i.e. a height H corresponding to the maximum value of the distance between a first and second side when the expanded metal is placed on a flat surface in an unwound state).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the height of the expanded metal of Sato et al. to incorporate the teaching of a peak-to-peak thickness of the support (i.e. height) of less than 100 micrometers (i.e. less than 0.1 mm) as taught by Bernard et al., as it would provide an electrode with mechanical stability (Para [0050]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (JP 2005149980A) in view of Kawabe et al. (WO2020054662A) and Kato et al. (JP2012248280A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Akizuki et al. (US 2022/0045407).
Regarding Claim 7, Sato et al. as modified by Kawabe et al. and Kato et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Sato et al. does not teach the expanded metal has a tensile strength ranging from 400 N/mm2 to 550 N/mm2.
However, Akizuki et al. teaches a positive electrode current collector which may be an expanded metal (Para. [0041]) (i.e. expanded metal) having a current collecting tab of 100 N/mm2 or more and 600 N/mm2 or less (Para. [0094]) (i.e. overlapping with the claimed range of from 400 N/mm2 to 500 N/mm2.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the expanded metal of Sato et al. to incorporate the teaching of the tensile strength as taught by Akizuki et al., as such a tensile strength obtains a current collector which is more hardly broken while maintaining good handling property (Para. [0094]).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (JP 2005149980A) in view of Kawabe et al. (WO2020054662A) and Kato et al. (JP2012248280A) as evidenced by Spies et al. (“Nitriding of Aluminum and Its Alloys”, 2016). The English machine translation of Kato et al. was attached in a prior Office action and is referenced below.
Regarding Claim 8, Sato et al. as modified by Kawabe et al. and Kato et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Sato et al. does not explicitly teach the expanded metal has a Vickers hardness less than or equal to 230 HV.
However, Kato et al. teaches the expanded metal of the positive electrode may be aluminum (Para. [0025]) (i.e. an expanded metal having a Vickers hardness of 20-30 HV, see Table 5 of Spies et al., within the claimed range of less than or equal to 230 HV).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the expanded metal as taught by Sato et al. to incorporate the teaching of an expanded metal of aluminum (i.e. having a Vickers hardness less than or equal to 230 HV) as taught by Kato et al., as aluminum is low cost and provides chemical stability (Para. [0025]).
Regarding Claim 9, Sato et al. as modified by Kawabe et al. and Kato et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 8 as explained above.
Sato et al. does not explicitly teach the expanded metal has a Vickers hardness less than or equal to 160 HV.
However, Kato et al. teaches the expanded metal of the positive electrode may be aluminum (Para. [0025]) (i.e. an expanded metal having a Vickers hardness of 20-30 HV, see Table 5 of Spies et al., within the claimed range of less than or equal to 160 HV).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the expanded metal as taught by Sato et al. to incorporate the teaching of an expanded metal of aluminum (i.e. having a Vickers hardness less than or equal to 160 HV) as taught by Kato et al., as aluminum is low cost and provides chemical stability (Para. [0025]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (JP 2005149980A) in view of Kawabe et al. (WO2020054662A) and Kato et al. (JP2012248280A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Masukichi et al. (JP 2004/335381A). The English machine translation of Masukichi et al. is attached and is referenced below.
Regarding Claim 10, Sato et al. as modified by Kawabe et al. and Kato et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Sato et al. does not teach the positive electrode mixture layer has a density larger than or equal to 2.4 g/cm3 and smaller than or equal to 3.2 g/cm3.
However, Masukichi et al. teaches a positive electrode sheet with a density of 2.5 g/cm3 (Para. [0029]) for a nonaqueous electrolyte battery (Para. [0036]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified positive electrode mixture layer density of Sato et al. to incorporate the teaching of a density of 2.5 g/cm3 as taught by Masukichi et al., as it would provide positive electrode sheet (i.e. mixture layer) with excellent safety and reliability (Para. [0012]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (JP 2005149980A) in view of Kawabe et al. (WO2020054662A) and Kato et al. (JP2012248280A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sakai et al. (US 2012/0040246).
Regarding Claim 12, Sato et al. as modified by Kawabe et al. and Kato et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 11 as explained above.
Sato et al. does not explicitly teach the positive electrode layer uniformly fills the network of through holes.
However, Sakai et al. teaches electroplating and electrodeposition allow for uniform lamination of a metal porous body such as an expanded metal to be coated with transition metal oxide (i.e. positive electrode mixture layer uniformly fills the network of through holes).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sato et al. to incorporate the teaching of uniform lamination as taught by Sakai et al. (i.e. uniformly filling the network of the through holes), as it would realize favorable adhesion, smoothness, and uniform lamination on a large area at low cost (Para. [0336]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 1, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Sato teaching the newly amended limitation are moot as Sato is not relied upon for the newly amended limitation in the new prior art rejection above as necessitated by the amendment.
Furthermore, regarding page 8, the rejection of record does not propose modifying Sato’s terminal to serve as the current collector. Rather, the expanded metal of Sato is part of the current collector of Sato and functions as a current collector without modification.
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 ARMINDO CARVALHO JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-5292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a.m.-5p.m..
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571 272-1481. 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.
/ARMINDO CARVALHO JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights