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 .
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2020/0185775) in view of Abe et al. (US 2017/0229693).
Regarding Claim 1, Park et al. teaches a lithium secondary battery (Para. [0006]) (i.e. a rechargeable lithium battery) comprising a cathode comprising cathode active material (Para. [0080]) (i.e. a positive electrode including a positive active material) and an anode including anode active material (Para. [0097]) (i.e. a negative electrode including a negative active material) and a separator positioned between the cathode and the anode (Para. [0114]) (i.e. between the positive electrode and the negative electrode) and a non-aqueous electrolyte (Para. [0008]) wherein the negative electrode has a density of 1.65 g/cc (Para. [0134]) (i.e. the negative electrode has an active mass density of about 1.6 g/cc or more).
Park et al. does not teach the rechargeable battery has an inner pressure of about 0.95 kgf/cm2 to about 1.65 kgf/cm2.
However, Abe et al. teaches a lithium ion secondary battery (Para. [0036]) (i.e. a rechargeable lithium battery) wherein the internal pressure of a battery of the battery is kept from 1.0 atm to 2.1 atm (Para. [0082]) (i.e. the rechargeable lithium battery has an inner pressure of about 1.03 kgf/cm2 to about 2.17 kgf/cm2, overlapping with the claimed range of about 0.95 kgf/cm2 to about 1.65 kgf/cm2) via a membrane provided on a battery case (Para. [0009]).
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 battery of Park et al. to incorporate the teaching of the membrane keeping to the pressure range of Abe et al., as such a pressure range as it would keep an increase of internal pressure low ensuring sealing performance of the battery (Para. [0082]). 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 2, Park et al. as modified by Abe et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1.
Park et al. does not teach the rechargeable battery has an inner pressure which is a value obtained after formation charging and discharging the rechargeable lithium battery.
However, Abe et al. teaches a lithium ion secondary battery (Para. [0036]) (i.e. a rechargeable lithium battery) wherein the internal pressure of a battery of the battery is kept from 1.0 atm to 2.1 atm (Para. [0082]) (i.e. the rechargeable lithium battery has an inner pressure of about 1.03 kgf/cm2 to about 2.17 kgf/cm2, overlapping with the claimed range of about 0.95 kgf/cm2 to about 1.65 kgf/cm2) via a membrane provided on a battery case (Para. [0009]) wherein the pressure is measured after an initial capacity measurement which is measured after the obtained battery being charged and discharged (Para. [0079], [0080]) (i.e. wherein the inner pressure of the battery is a value obtained after formation charging and discharging the rechargeable lithium battery).
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 battery of Park et al. to incorporate the teaching of the membrane keeping to the pressure range of Abe et al., as such a pressure range as it would keep an increase of internal pressure low ensuring sealing performance of the battery (Para. [0082]). 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 3, Park et al. as modified by Abe et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1.
Park et al. further teaches wherein the negative electrode has a density of 1.65 g/cc (Para. [0134]) (i.e. the negative electrode has an active mass density of about 1.6 g/cc to about 1.75 g/cc).
Regarding Claim 4, Park et al. as modified by Abe et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1.
Park et al. further teaches wherein the positive electrode has a density of 3.6 g/cc (Para. [0132]) (i.e. wherein the positive electrode has an active mass density of about 3.4 g/cc to about 3.9 g/cc).
Regarding Claim 5, Park et al. as modified by Abe et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1.
Park et al. does not teach the rechargeable battery has an inner pressure of about 0.95 kgf/cm2 to about 1.6 kgf/cm2.
However, Abe et al. teaches a lithium ion secondary battery (Para. [0036]) (i.e. a rechargeable lithium battery) wherein the internal pressure of a battery of the battery is kept from 1.0 atm to 2.1 atm (Para. [0082]) (i.e. the rechargeable lithium battery has an inner pressure of about 1.03 kgf/cm2 to about 2.17 kgf/cm2, overlapping with the claimed range of about 0.95 kgf/cm2 to about 1.6 kgf/cm2) via a membrane provided on a battery case (Para. [0009]).
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 battery of Park et al. to incorporate the teaching of the membrane keeping to the pressure range of Abe et al., as such a pressure range as it would keep an increase of internal pressure low ensuring sealing performance of the battery (Para. [0082]). 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 6, Park et al. as modified by Abe et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1.
Park et al. further teaches the cathode (i.e. positive) active material is LiNi0.88Co0.08Mn0.04O2 (Para. [0132]) (i.e. represented by Chemical Formula 2 of the instant claim, wherein a = 1, x = 0.88, y = 0.08, z = 0.04, t = 0 and x + y + z + t = 1).
Regarding Claim 7, Park et al. as modified by Abe et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1.
Park et al. further teaches the anode active material is a carbon-based active material (Para. [0097]) and may comprise a silicon-carbon composite (Para. [0098]) (i.e. wherein the negative active material is a carbon material or a mixture of a carbon material and a silicon material).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 26, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Abe at most shows that a battery that includes the membrane may build pressure at a slower rate than battery that does not include a membrane, and in particular, after the conditioning process of the example battery discussed therein was completed a whole was formed in the sealing plate which caused the internal pressure of the battery to be brought to 1 atm and thus, the internal pressures discussed in paragraph [0082] cannot be said to be the result of inclusion of the membrane.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Abe et al. explicitly teaches maintaining a pressure inside the battery between 1.00 atm and 2.1 atm with a membrane assembly, as such a pressure range as would keep an increase of internal pressure low ensuring sealing performance of the battery (Para. [0082]). Thus, such a pressure range is desirable. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Furthermore, the conditioning process in Abe involves 3 charge-discharge cycles (Para. [0079]). After such a conditioning process, the internal pressure sensor is fitted therein (Para. [0081]). This provides the “internal pressure before storage” measurement in Table 1 which is 1.0 atm. After such a conditioning process, the battery is charged, discharged (Para. [0079]), then charged again and stored for 800 hours after which internal pressure was measured again (Para. [0080]). Thus, Abe et al. explicitly teaches a rechargeable lithium battery having an inner pressure range of 1.0 atm to 2.1 atm and that such a pressure range is desirable due to ensured sealing performance (Para. [0082]). There is no teaching away from incorporating such a membrane with the pressure range of 1.0 atm to 2.1 atm. Thus, the argument is not persuasive and the rejection of record is maintained .
Applicant argues that the dependent claims are distinct from the prior art of record for the same reason as the independent claim.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection with respect to the independent claim has been maintained, and thus the rejections to the dependent claims are maintained as well.
Conclusion
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.
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