DETAILED ACTION
Application 17/988772, “LITHIUM-ION SECONDARY BATTERY”, was filed with the USPTO on 11/17/22 and claims priority from a foreign application filed on 2/2/22.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action on the merits is in response to communication filed on 12/19/25.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Murase (US 2015/0311490).
Regarding claim 1, Murase teaches lithium-ion secondary battery (paragraphs [0001, 0015]) comprising: an electrode body provided with: a positive electrode sheet including a positive current collecting foil and a positive electrode mixture layer provided on a surface of the positive current collecting foil (paragraph [0065]); a negative electrode sheet including a negative current collecting foil and a negative electrode mixture layer provided in direct contact on a surface of the negative current collecting foil (paragraph [0065]); and a separator interposed between the positive electrode sheet and the negative electrode sheet (paragraph [0104; 0133]); and an electrolytic solution contained in the electrode body (paragraph [0104), wherein the electrode body includes an overlapping part in which the negative electrode sheet and the separator overlap each other in their thickness direction (the stacking of the negative electrode and separator described, e.g. at paragraph [0104, 0133], implies the claimed overlap).
Murase further teaches wherein the overlapping part includes an inside part that is located on an inner side of a peripheral part of the overlapping part when the overlapping part is seen in plan view in the thickness direction (these parts are only arbitrarily claimed, meaning that the beginning and ending of the “inner part”, “inner side”, etc. are not limited by specific claim language, thus the structure is implicit due to the stacking of the negative electrode and separator). It is noted that claim 1 will later require that the inside part satisfies a relationship, A>C and B>C, but does not require that another part, such as the recited “peripheral part”, fails to satisfy this relationship so as to compositionally distinguish the inner part from the peripheral part. Since the parameters of the inside part are not compositionally distinguished from those of an other part [such as a peripheral part, for example], the selection of the inner part appears to be arbitrary.
Murase is silent as to an express teaching that the inside part satisfies a relationship, A>C and B>C, wherein A is interlayer separation strength between the separator and the negative electrode mixture layer, B is interlayer separation strength between the negative electrode mixture layer and the negative current collecting foil, and C is intralayer separation strength of the negative electrode mixture layer.
However, this feature appears to be implicitly present or at least obvious over Murase. More specifically, Murase does teach the battery configured such that:
The interlayer separation strength between the separator and the negative electrode mixture layer, corresponding to “A”, is configured to be high (abstract, paragraphs [0016] teach that the separator may may be provided with an adhesive layer for the benefit of increasing adhesion between the separator and the electrode mixture layer; paragraphs [0024-0028; 0043-0048] describe the acrylic resin type separator surface coatings formed from a mixture which may include an acrylic resin-based adhesive, for example polyacrylonitriles, acrylic acids, and acrylates, which are believed to be adhesion promoting binders);*
* As supporting evidence only, it is noted that applicant’s specification at published paragraph [0051] teaches that “acrylic resin-based adhesive” may provide an adhesive layer on a separator, thus, the “surface treatment layer(s)” of Murase is presumed to be a layer which increases adhesive strength between the separator and the adjacent electrode mixture layer 3 at least because of the Murase suggested acrylic based binders.
The interlayer separation strength between the negative electrode mixture layer and the negative current collecting foil, corresponding to “B”, is configured to be high (paragraphs [0095] and [0100] describes including additives in the electrode slurry to provide “excellent adhesiveness with the current collector”, while paragraph [0100] further describes roughening the surface of the current collector, in order to “increase the adhesive strength”);
The intralayer separation strength of the negative electrode mixture layer, corresponding to “C”, is a result-effective variable as the binder content of the electrode layer can be increased in order to provide sufficient hold between active material particles, but can be decreased so that the battery reaction is not inhibited (paragraph [0089] teaches the binder content of the electrode active material layer to be a result-effective variable with the binder content high enough to prevent the electrode active material from falling off, but low enough such that the binder content does not interrupt battery reaction [to clarify, non-reactive binder may physically block transport of electrolyte and/or ions if content is too high]);
Since the parameters A and C are suggested to have increased magnitude, i.e. adhesive strength values, and the parameter B is a result-effective parameter tied to binder content of the electrode, the claimed requirement that A>C and B>C is found to be obvious over Murase because a skilled artisan would expect Murase to satisfy the claimed condition for embodiments where the binder content of the electrode is optimized toward the lower end of the suggested range (paragraph [0089]), which results in a decreased C value resultant from decreased binder content in the electrode.
Moreover, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the range suggested by the prior art does not overlap the claimed range, but is merely close, such that a similar or same function is achieved (MPEP 2144.05 I). Here, even if it were demonstrated that Murase does not satisfy the A>C and B>C requirements, presumably because the C parameter is too high, Murase does teach that the quantity of binder selected at a low value as long as at least a minimal adhesion in the electrode layer is not achieved (paragraph [0089]). In this case, the same function as achieved by applicant (caused by high A and B values, and a low C value due to small binder content [see applicant’s published paragraph [0051]) is expected to be provided by the Murase battery which also exhibits high A and B values, and a C value determined also by a low binder content as described above. Thus, even if a difference exists, the difference does not appear to be of functional significance and the claimed invention is found to be obvious for merely differing in magnitude of binder/magnitude of adhesion in the electrode layer.
Regarding claim 11, Murase remains as applied to claim 1. Murase does not expressly teach wherein the electrolytic solution has a viscosity of 7.0 mPa•s or less.
However, Murase does teach that the electrolyte solution may utilize dimethoxyethane as the solvent (paragraph [0106]).
Dimethoxyethane is known to have a viscosity of less than 7.0 mPa•s.** Therefore, Murase implicitly teaches the electrolyte solution having a viscosity of 7.0 mPa•s or less.
** As supporting evidence only, see Yang (US 2018/0016144) at Table 1 which shows that the viscosity of dimethoxyethane is 1.10 mPa•s.
Claims 2-4 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Murase (US 2015/0311490) and Kimura (US 2016/0072125).
Regarding claim 2-4, Murase remains as applied to claim 1. Murase does not illustrate the lithium-ion secondary battery; therefore, Murase is silent as to the electrode body having the claimed structure.
In the battery art, Kimura teaches an electrode body (Figs. 1-4), wherein the overlapping part includes an opposed part that faces the positive electrode mixture layer in the thickness direction when the overlapping part is seen in the plan view in the thickness direction, and the inside part is configured to have a concentric similar shape to the opposed part and have an area equivalent to 50% of an area of the opposed part (see Figs. 1-4, where each electrode is formed from a current collector coated on both side with active material layers, and the positive electrode, negative electrode, and separator overlap one another with the separator between the electrodes. The selection of “overlapping part”, “inside part” and “opposed part” within the overlapping structure is arbitrary).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to configure the electrode body of Murase to have the claimed structure including the specified “overlapping part”, “inside part” and “opposed part”, arranged and sized as described, since this is a conventional structure for a battery.
Such a modification merely requires the combination of known elements to yield predictable results therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists accordance with MPEP 2141.
Moreover, as described in the rejection of claim 1, Murase teaches providing adhesion-enhancing layers at both the electrode-current collector interface, and the surfaces of the separator. Therefore, in the Murase-Kimura combined embodiment the adhesive layers are present and possess the structure required by claims 2-4, particularly noting that the Murase structure is disclosed to provide increased adhesion at the current collect-electrode and the electrode-separator interfaces.
Regarding claim 12, Murase remains as applied to claim2. Murase does not expressly teach wherein the electrolytic solution has a viscosity of 7.0 mPa•s or less.
However, Murase does teach that the electrolyte solution may utilize dimethoxyethane as the solvent (paragraph [0106]).
Dimethoxyethane is known to have a viscosity of less than 7.0 mPa•s.** Therefore, Murase implicitly teaches the electrolyte solution having a viscosity of 7.0 mPa•s or less.
** As supporting evidence only, see Yang (US 2018/0016144) at Table 1 which shows that the viscosity of dimethoxyethane is 1.10 mPa•s.
Claims 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Murase (US 2015/0311490), Kimura (US 2016/0072125), Kusada (US 2020/0058914) and He (US 2023/0042859).
Regarding claim 5-8, Murase remains as applied to claim 1. Murase is silent regarding the intralayer separation strength being equal to or more than 1.0 N/m.
In the battery art, Kasuda teaches that it is desirable for an adhesion force between various components of a battery assembly to be at least 3 N/m since adhesion force less than 3 N/m is insufficient and may allow position displacement to occur during manufacture of the electrode assembly (paragraph [0052]).
In the battery art, He teaches an adhesion force of not less than 3 N/m or higher is considered “highly adhesive” (paragraph [0057]), with an adhesion value of 1 N/m being considered low adhesion (Fig. 15).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to configure the electrode such that the intralayer separation strength is equal to or more than 1.0 N/m, since adhesion forces below 1 N/m or 3 N/m are considered to be insufficient, and may provide problems such as unwanted movement of an element of a battery as taught by Kusada and/or He.
Claims 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Murase (US 2015/0311490), Kimura (US 2016/0072125) and Mizawa (US 2014/0178732).
Regarding claim 9-10, Murase remains as applied to claim 1. Murase further teaches that his batteries possess increased energy density (abstract), but does not expressly teach that the volumetric energy density of 500 Wh/L or higher.
In the battery art, Mizawa teaches that it is known desirable in the art to increase the energy density of a battery for better performance of a device utilizing the battery (paragraph [0002]). Nizawa further teaches that a lithium battery may be configured to have energy density of 650 Wh/L or more by optimization (abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to configure the battery of Murase to exhibit an energy density of 500 Wh/L or higher for the benefit of improving the performance of a device which utilizes the battery as taught by Mizawa.
It is noted that these claims express a known desirable property for a battery without setting forth any additional structure beyond that of the base claim which facilitates the property, thus the claim is found to be obvious for embodying a known goal without coupling the goal to any inventive structure.
Regarding claim 11-12, Murase remains as applied to claim 1. Murase does not expressly teach wherein the electrolytic solution has a viscosity of 7.0 mPa•s or less.
In the battery art, Mizawa teaches that it is desirable for a non-aqueous electrolyte to have a viscosity of 5 mPAs or less for the benefit of facilitating permeation of the electrolyte into the positive and negative electrode layers (paragraph [0095]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to configure the electrolyte solution to have a viscosity of 7.0 mPa•s or less for the benefit of ensuring desirable permeation of the electrolyte into the positive and negative electrode layers as taught by Mizawa.
Claims 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Murase (US 2015/0311490), Kimura (US 2016/0072125), Kusada (US 2020/0058914), He (US 2023/0042859) and Mizawa (US 2014/0178732).
Regarding independent claim 13, the limitations repeat those previously addressed by the cited art in the rejection of claims 1-12. Each of the references remain applied as previously described.
Regarding claims 14-17, the cited art remains as applied to the appropriate base claim among claims 1, 5 and 13. These claims separately require that the interlayer separation strength A, the interlayer separation strength B, and the intralayer separation strength C are each more than 1.0 N/m, the range difference between A and C is 1.0 N/m or more, and the range difference between Band C is 1.0 N/m or more.
In the battery art, Kasuda teaches that it is desirable for an adhesion force between various components of a battery assembly to be at least 3 N/m since adhesion force less than 3 N/m is insufficient and may allow position displacement to occur during manufacture of the electrode assembly (paragraph [0052]). Kasuda further teaches that the desirable range of adhesive force extends at least from 3 to 10 N/m (paragraph [0052]).
In the battery art, He teaches an adhesion force of not less than 3 N/m or higher is considered “highly adhesive” (paragraph [0057]), with an adhesion value of 1 N/m being considered low adhesion (Fig. 15). He further teaches that highly adhesive layers may have an adhesion value which is higher than less adhesive layers by magnitudes such as 5 N/m or 11 N/m (paragraph [0128]).
As to the magnitude of A-C, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to configure each of the adhesion strengths A-C to be equal to or more than 1.0 N/m, since adhesion forces below 1 N/m or 3 N/m are considered to be insufficient, and may provide problems such as unwanted movement of an element of a battery as taught by Kusada and/or He.
As to the requirement that the difference between A and C is 5.0 N/m or more, and the difference between B and C is 1.0 N/m or more, it has been held that “[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.” (MPEP 2144.05 IIA)”. In this case, although the cited are does not teach the disclosed relative difference ranges, Murase does teach that the battery is configured such that adhesive strengths associated with both parameters A and parameter B are made high, and the adhesive strength associated with parameter C may be lower as the amount of binder may be reduced in order to reduce impact on the electrochemical reactions (see rejection of claim 1). Moreover, Kasuda teaches that a desirably high adhesive force may have magnitudes of up to 10 N/m, while He teaches that a difference in magnitude between a high adhesive force and a low adhesive force may be a value such as 5 or 11 N/m. Therefore, the requirement that the range difference between A and C is 1.0 N/m or more, and the range difference between Band C is 1.0 N/m or more is found to be obvious over the cited art as merely suggesting ranges which overlap the suggestion of the prior art in terms of difference in adhesiveness, with the layers themselves being obvious to optimize in terms of their individual adhesiveness.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 12/19/25 have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendment.
Relevant or Related Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, though not necessarily pertinent to applicant’s invention as claimed.
Eguchi (US 2013/0280571) battery comprising stacked electrodes;
Bae (US 2019/0067699) polyimide type binders may provide instable bonds inside an active material layer (paragraph [0056]);
Cao (US 2022/0384817) battery comprising different types of binders.
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 JEREMIAH R SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9 AM-5 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, Tiffany Legette-Thompson can be reached on (571)270-7078. 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.
/JEREMIAH R SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723