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
The Request for Continued Examination and amendments filed on March 5, 2026 in response to the Final Office Action mailed on December 8, 2025 have been received and entered. Claims 1 and 2 were amended. Claims 1-6 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Claim 1 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuriki et al. (JP 2017010933 A, see machine translation for citation) in view of Neudecker, B.J. et al. (Journal of The Electrochemical Society, see NPL document for citation).
Applicant arguments (see page 4-6) are summarized below:
First, independent claim 1, as amended, requires a pair of elastic members disposed to interpose the battery element on both sides of the entire surface of a first side and a second side of the battery element. However, Kuriki specifically discloses that to prevent gas from accumulating within the exterior body 26, the structure is designed such that one of the cushioning members 12 or 13 does not cover a portion of the exterior body 26. Because the exterior body 26 is explicitly defined as part of the power storage device 20 (the battery element), Kuriki fails to disclose interposing the entire surface of the battery element. Furthermore, Kuriki provides no motivation to arrive at the claimed configuration. In fact, Kuriki teaches away from interposing the entire surface of the battery element because doing so would impede the goal of preventing gas accumulation within the exterior body.
Second, as amended, independent claim 1 explicitly requires that the specified pressure be applied during charging and discharging cycles. In contrast, Kuriki discloses applying pressure during a "sealing" step of the manufacturing process to ensure proper closure of the battery. Kuriki lacks any teaching or suggestion that such pressure should be maintained, or is even present, throughout the active charging and discharging cycles of the battery element. Because the 1.0 to 3.0 MPa range in the present application is a functional parameter critical to suppressing dendrite formation during use, not a temporary manufacturing condition, Kuriki's disclosure of sealing pressure does not meet the limitations of the claimed invention.
Third, independent claim 1, as amended, further requires a pair of supports where each support has a flat plate shape while the entire surface of a first side and a second side of the battery element is disposed between elastic members. However, Kuriki fails to teach or suggest that these supports must maintain a flat plate shape during operation; in fact, Kuriki specifically discloses and illustrates embodiments where the supports or pressure tools are intentionally curved. Kuriki, Figure 4 for example, Kuriki depicts a configuration where the pressure tool 14 and the support 11 possess a distinct curvature to apply specific pressure profiles to the storage device. Id. In contrast, the Applicant's invention utilizes supports with a "flat plate shape" in conjunction with specific elastic members to ensure that the pressure transmitted to the battery element is made uniform in the in-plane direction and to suppress the influence of deformation during charging and discharging.
Based on the above arguments, the applicant argues that regardless of how Kuriki is combined with Neudecker, these three recitations remain nonobvious.
In response to the above presented arguments, Kuriki teaches that according to one aspect of the present invention, charging or discharging of the power storage device can be performed while uniformly applying pressure to the power storage device [0018, 0022 and 0046]. It is taught that the steps of aging and re-sealing may be repeated as appropriate to complete the power storage device [0097]. Since the sealing step comprises an applied pressure between 0.5-1.5 MPa [0089] and combining the teachings above, a charging/discharging process under the above pressure range can be performed, contrary to the argued second point above.
Regarding the third argued point, Kuriki teaches the limitation where ‘the pair of supports has a flat plate shape” because the pressure apparatus on Fig. 4 is presented as an alternative to the apparatus presented on Fig. 1-3. From this teaching, Kuriki does not fail to teach or suggest that these supports must maintain a flat plate shape during operation, instead that the taught support material and the buffer material shape on the current invention is not limited to a plane shape but it may have a convex curved surface, a concave curved surface, or the like [0042].
Despite the second and third argued points are not persuasive in view of the above discussed Kuriki teachings, the first argued point is and Kuriki fails to teach this amended feature. Because Neudecker was employed to teach the “negative electrode that is free of a negative electrode active material” limitation, it fails to cure the teaching deficiencies of Kuriki regarding the “pair of elastic members disposed so as to interpose the battery element on both sides of the entire surface of a first side and a second side of the battery element” limitation.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 4-6, filed on March 5, 2026, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of 1 has been withdrawn.
Because of the direct dependency of claims 2-6 on claim 1, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections applied to these claims have been withdrawn.
Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yagata et al. (JP 2001297798 A, see machine translation for citation) in view of Park et al. (WO 2018236168 A1, see machine translation for citation) and Louli et al. (Exploring the Impact of Mechanical Pressure on the Performance of Anode-Free Lithium Metal Cells, see NPL documents for citation).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yagata et al. (JP 2001297798 A, see machine translation for citation) in view of Park et al. (WO 2018236168 A1, see machine translation for citation) and Louli et al. (Exploring the Impact of Mechanical Pressure on the Performance of Anode-Free Lithium Metal Cells, see NPL documents for citation).
Regarding claim 1, Yagata teaches a method for manufacturing a flat battery, characterized in that one or more flat batteries are sandwiched between a pair of press plates having a buffer layer on at least one side, the distance between the press plates is fixed at a constant distance that can pressurize the flat batteries and the battery is charged while pressure is applied [0008]. According to Fig. 1, is disclosed an apparatus for carrying out the above method which comprises an upper and a lower plate (1 and 2) (support plates) having a flat shape, between which the film-cased batteries (7) are pressed, and a buffer layer (56) consisting of a high-hardness layer (6) and a low-hardness layer (5) attached to it [0017]. The power generation element used in the flat battery of the present invention includes known materials such as a positive electrode, a negative electrode, an electrolyte, and optionally a separator [0029]. From the above teachings the feature “a secondary battery comprising a battery element that performs charging and discharging between a positive electrode and a negative electrode” are met.
Regarding the buffer layer (56) it is taught that it may be placed between the upper press plate (1) (support plate) and the planned battery placement area, or between the lower press plate (2) (support plate) and the planned battery placement area, or both [0025]. Also it is taught that the buffer layer (56) may consist of only one layer, and in that case, a rubbery elastic material as the low-hardness layer (5) is preferred as the material constituting the layer (elastic members) [0026]. From these teachings, the feature where “a pair of elastic members disposed so as to interpose the battery element on both sides of the entire surface of a first side and a second side of the battery element; a pair of supports that are disposed so as to interpose the pair of elastic members on both sides, wherein each support of the pair of supports has a flat plate shape” is met.
The apparatus of Fig. 1 further comprises screws (3) (pressure applying members) which are employed together with a spacer (4) to fix the upper and a lower plate (1 and 2) (support plates) at a constant distance [0017 and 0048]. From this description, the feature where the “pressure-applying members that apply pressure from both sides of the pair of supports” is met.
From the scale shown on Fig. 1 and the above teachings regarding the buffer layer (56), the feature “the surface area of the surface of the elastic members facing the battery element is 1.2 to 2.0 times that of the surface area of the surface of the positive electrode that faces an elastic member” can be reasonably considered met since the upper and lower plates (1 and 2) (support plates) and its respective buffer layers (56/5) (elastic members) has a higher area compared with the battery enclosure.
Yagata does not teach the feature where the battery element comprise a “a negative electrode that is free of a negative electrode active material” and where “the average pressure applied during charging and discharging to this surface of the positive electrode is 1.0 to 3.0 MPa”
Park teaches a lithium secondary battery prepared as an anode free battery, comprising a positive current collector (11) and a positive composite (13), a negative electrode including a negative current collector (21) (free of a negative electrode active material), a separator (30) and an electrolyte (not shown) interposed between them [Abstract, 0024 and Fig. 1]. Park teaches that its battery structure is capable of form a negative electrode current collector/negative electrode composite configuration as lithium ions released from the positive electrode composite (13) by charging moves to the negative current collector [0025]. It is taught that by forming a negative electrode-free battery structure, lithium metal is not exposed to the atmosphere at all during the battery assembly process, thereby fundamentally preventing problems such as the formation of an oxide film on the surface due to the high reactivity of lithium itself and the resulting degradation of the lifespan of the lithium secondary battery [0032].
Louli’s work studied the performance of anode-free Li-metal pouch cells with two different electrolytes [Abstract]. The cells performance was evaluated while they were physically constrained to pressures between 75–2200 kPa (0.075-2.2 MPa) [p. A1292; par. 2]. The taught pressure range was found to generally improve cycle life, with the most significant benefits achieved up to 1200 kPa (1.2 MPa) [Abstract].
Yagata is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely a secondary battery comprising: a battery element that performs charging and discharging between a positive electrode and a negative electrode, comprising a pair of elastic members disposed so as to interpose the battery element on both sides of the entire surface of a first side and a second side of the battery element; a pair of supports that are disposed so as to interpose the pair of elastic members on both sides, wherein each support of the pair of supports has a flat plate shape; and pressure-applying members that apply pressure from both sides of the pair of supports, wherein: the surface area of the surface of the elastic members facing the battery element is 1.2 to 2.0 times that of the surface area of the surface of the positive electrode that faces an elastic member and the average pressure applied during charging and discharging.
Park is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely a secondary battery comprising: a battery element that performs charging and discharging between a positive electrode and a negative electrode that is free of a negative electrode active material.
Louli is analogous art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely a secondary battery comprising: a battery element that performs charging and discharging between a positive electrode and a negative electrode that is free of a negative electrode active material, which is evaluated while they were physically constrained to pressures between 75–2200 kPa (0.075-2.2 MPa).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the negative electrode of Yagata to include the feature where it is “free of a negative electrode active material”, because Park teaches that that by forming a negative electrode-free battery structure, lithium metal is not exposed to the atmosphere at all during the battery assembly process, thereby fundamentally preventing problems such as the formation of an oxide film on the surface due to the high reactivity of lithium itself and the resulting degradation of the lifespan of the lithium secondary battery.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the anode-free Li-metal pouch cells pressurization range disclosed by Louli because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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. In addition, it was found to generally improve cycle life, with the most significant benefits achieved up to 1200 kPa (1.2 MPa).
Regarding claim 2, Yagata, Park and Louli teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. From Yagata Fig. 1 can be seen that the upper and a lower plate (1 and 2) (support plates) have screws (3) (pressure applying members) which are disposed at each corner of the upper and a lower plate (1 and 2) (support plates).
Regarding claim 3, Yagata, Park and Louli teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. From Louli taught pressure range 75–2200 kPa (0.075-2.2 MPa) the “difference between the maximum pressure and the minimum pressure” will be 2.123 MPa or less, which overlaps the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the “difference between the maximum pressure and the minimum pressure” ranges calculated from Louli teachings because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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.
Regarding claim 4, Yagata, Park and Louli teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Yagata further teaches that flat battery has a power generation element in which a positive electrode and a negative electrode are wound in a flat shape with a separator in between [claim 8]. In addition, the taught flat-type battery contains a non-aqueous electrolyte [claim 6]. The film used for the casing is preferably one that can be sealed around the power generation element after it has been placed inside (electrolyte placed inside could be reasonably inferred) [0039]. From the previous descriptions the claimed features are met.
Regarding claim 5, Yagata, Park and Louli teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Yagata further teaches that the electrolyte in its invention can be a material conventionally known as an electrolyte for secondary batteries, such as an electrolyte solution, a polymer solid electrolyte or a polymer gel electrolyte [0034]. From the previous description, if a polymer solid electrolyte is selected to be employed on the modified battery of Yagata, it would be reasonable to place it “between the positive electrode and the negative electrode” due to general knowledge and practice in the field, from which the claimed limitations would be met.
Regarding claim 6, Yagata, Park and Louli teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Yagata, Park and Louli do not explicitly teaches the feature “wherein the battery element performs charging and discharging by depositing lithium metal on the surface of the negative electrode and dissolving the deposited lithium”.
The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by Yagata, Park and Louli. However, Yagata, Park and Louli teaches all of the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process of making. According to the original specification, a battery element (10) comprising a negative electrode (12) that is free of a negative electrode active material, has a high energy density because charging and discharging are performed by depositing metal on the surface of the negative electrode (12) and dissolving the deposited metal [0049]. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the claimed charging and discharging limitation would expectedly be achieved by the modified battery of Yagata, Park and Louli, which has a negative electrode that is free of a negative electrode active material. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant' s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant' s position; and (2) it would be the Office' s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process of making.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GILBERTO RAMOS RIVERA whose telephone number is (571)272-2740. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-4:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/G.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 05/11/2026
Prosecution Insights