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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on July 29th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on July 29th, 2026:
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-10, and 13-14 are pending in the current application. Claims 10 and 13-14 stand withdrawn. Claims 3, 5, and 11-12 have been cancelled.
Applicant’s arguments filed on July 29th, 2026 in respect to the interface resistance values of the prior art have been fully considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of Saitou as set forth in the previous Office Action has been withdrawn. New grounds of rejection over the prior art using the interface resistance values corresponding to the instantly claimed interface resistance values are set forth in the rejection below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed with the Remarks on July 29th, 2026 with respect to Claims 1-2, 4, and 6-9 in regard to unexpected results over the prior art have been fully considered by the Examiner, however, they are not found to be persuasive.
Applicant argues that the instantly claimed battery can achieve the unexpected result of maintaining both load and storage characteristics at a high level as compared to the prior art is not persuasive.
Within the instant specification, Applicant argues that it is desirable to achieve “high degrees of load characteristics and storage characteristics at the same time” (see PG Publication paragraph [0155]). In Table 1 and paragraph [0102], Applicant defines a low temperature load characteristic of 92 and an 85oC storage characteristic of 101 as undesirable due to the Rs/(ρvxd) value of Comparative Example 2 that falls outside of the claimed range. However, in Table 7 and paragraph [0167], Applicant defines a low temperature load characteristic of 84 and an 85oC storage characteristic of 98 as desirable due to the Rs/(ρvxd) value of Example 23 that falls within the claimed range. Due to Applicant’s lack of a consistent definition of what “high degrees of load characteristics and storage characteristics at the same time” are, it is improper to say that the Comparative Examples with Rs/(ρvxd) values that fall outside of the claimed range display undesirable results in comparison to the Examples with Rs/(ρvxd) values that fall within the claimed range.
Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Claim Interpretation
All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
Prior Art
Previously cited Saitou US PG Publication 2019/0280283 (“Saitou”)
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 1-2, 4, and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saitou US PG Publication 2019/0280283.
Regarding Claim 1, Saitou discloses a positive electrode for a lithium-ion battery (corresponding to the instantly claimed non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery) ([0022], [0049], entire disclosure dependent upon throughout) comprising a positive-electrode mixture layer 103 and a conductive auxiliary agent (assistant) on at least one surface of a current collector layer 101 (which meets the claim limitation of one surface or both surfaces) (Abstract, [0014]-[0017]),
wherein Rs is an interface resistance (Ωcm2) between the positive-electrode mixture layer 103 and the current collector 101 with a value less than 0.10 Ωcm2 and greater than 0.0010 Ωcm2, more specifically less than or equal to 0.040 Ωcm2 and greater than or equal to 0.0080 Ωcm2 ([0037]-[0039]), ρv is a volume resistivity (Ωcm) of the positive-electrode mixture layer 103 with a value less than or equal to 5.0 Ωcm and greater than or equal to 0.010 Ωcm, more specifically less than or equal to 2.5 Ωcm and greater than or equal to 0.55 Ωcm ([0042]), and d is a thickness (cm) of the positive-electrode mixture layer 103 on one surface of the current collector 101 with a value between 10 and 250 µm (equivalent to 0.001 cm to 0.025 cm), more specifically between 40 and 100 µm (equivalent to 0.004 cm to 0.010 cm) ([0072]).
The skilled artisan would recognize that Saitou discloses when the thickness of the positive-electrode mixture layer 103 is 40 µm or more and 100 µm or less (which overlaps or encompasses the instantly claimed ranges of 35 µm or more and less than 58 µm, 58 µm or more and less than 68 µm, or 68 µm or more and 80 µm or less)1, Rs/(ρvxd) is between 0.32 and 18.18 (which encompasses the instantly claimed ranges of 1.0±0.2, 0.55 to 1.6, or 0.55 to 10, respectively)1.
1 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).
Regarding Claim 2, Saitou teaches the instantly claimed positive electrode according to Claim 1, and (as previously described in the rejection of Claim 1) Saitou discloses wherein the thickness of the positive-electrode mixture layer 103 on one surface of the current collector 101 is 40 µm or more and 100 µm or less (which overlaps the instantly claimed ranges of 35 µm or more and less than 58 µm)1 ([0072]).
1 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).
Regarding Claim 4, Saitou teaches the instantly claimed positive electrode according to Claim 1, and (as previously described in the rejection of Claim 1) Saitou discloses wherein the thickness of the positive-electrode mixture layer 103 on one surface of the current collector 101 (d) is 40 µm or more and 100 µm or less (which encompasses the instantly claimed ranges of 58 µm or more and less than 68 µm)1 ([0072]), the interface resistance between the positive-electrode mixture layer 103 and the current collector 101 (Rs) is less than or equal to 0.040 Ωcm2 and greater than or equal to 0.0080 Ωcm2 ([0037]-[0039]), and the volume resistivity of the positive-electrode mixture layer 103 (ρv) is less than or equal to 2.5 Ωcm and greater than or equal to 0.55 Ωcm ([0042]).
Therefore, the skilled artisan would recognize that Saitou discloses when the thickness of the positive-electrode mixture layer 103 on one surface of the current collector 101 is 58 µm or more and less than 68 µm, Rs/(ρvxd) is between 0.47 and 12.54 (which encompasses the instantly claimed range of 0.8 to 1.26)1.
1 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).
Regarding Claim 6, Saitou teaches the instantly claimed positive electrode according to Claim 1, and (as previously described in the rejection of Claim 1) Saitou discloses wherein the thickness of the positive-electrode mixture layer 103 on one surface of the current collector 101 (d) is 40 µm or more and 100 µm or less (which encompasses the instantly claimed ranges of 68 µm or more and 80 µm or less)1 ([0072]), the interface resistance between the positive-electrode mixture layer 103 and the current collector 101 (Rs) is less than or equal to 0.040 Ωcm2 and greater than or equal to 0.0080 Ωcm2 ([0037]-[0039]), and the volume resistivity of the positive-electrode mixture layer 103 (ρv) is less than or equal to 2.5 Ωcm and greater than or equal to 0.55 Ωcm ([0042]).
Therefore, the skilled artisan would recognize that Saitou discloses when the thickness of the positive-electrode mixture layer 103 on one surface of the current collector 101 is 68 µm or more and 80 µm or less, Rs/(ρvxd) is between 0.40 and 10.69 (which encompasses the instantly claimed range of 0.55 to 3.0)1.
1 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).
Regarding Claim 7, Saitou teaches the instantly claimed positive electrode according to Claim 1, and (as previously described in the rejection of Claim 1) Saitou discloses wherein the thickness of the positive-electrode mixture layer 103 on one surface of the current collector 101 (d) is 40 µm or more and 100 µm or less (which encompasses the instantly claimed ranges of 68 µm or more and 80 µm or less)1 ([0072]), the interface resistance between the positive-electrode mixture layer 103 and the current collector 101 (Rs) is less than or equal to 0.040 Ωcm2 and greater than or equal to 0.0080 Ωcm2 ([0037]-[0039]), and the volume resistivity of the positive-electrode mixture layer 103 (ρv) is less than or equal to 2.5 Ωcm and greater than or equal to 0.55 Ωcm ([0042]).
Therefore, the skilled artisan would recognize that Saitou discloses when the thickness of the positive-electrode mixture layer 103 on one surface of the current collector 101 is 68 µm or more and 80 µm or less, Rs/(ρvxd) is between 0.40 and 10.69 (which encompasses the instantly claimed range of 0.7 to 1.7)1.
1 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).
Regarding Claim 8, Saitou discloses a lithium-ion battery 150 (non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery) ([0022], [0049], [0100], entire disclosure dependent upon) comprising:
a positive electrode 120 ([0101]);
a negative electrode 130 ([0101]);
a separator interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode within an electrolyte layer ([0101]); and
an electrolyte which may comprise a non-aqueous solvent ([0101], [0105]),
wherein the positive electrode 120 is the positive electrode for the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery as described in the rejection of Claim 1 above ([0101]).
Regarding Claim 9, Saitou teaches the instantly claimed battery according to Claim 8, and Saitou discloses wherein the negative electrode includes a lithium allow including a metal based material ([0055]-[0056])2.
Saitou fails to explicitly disclose wherein the negative electrode includes an aluminum or aluminum alloy foil. However, Saitou discloses that aluminum is beneficial for its price, ease of procurement, and electrochemical stability ([0074]) and that aluminum based lithium alloys are suitable materials for electrodes ([0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery of Saitou such that the negative electrode includes a lithium alloy comprising aluminum (which meets the instant claim limitation of both an aluminum foil or an aluminum alloy foil and a Li-Al alloy) because aluminum is beneficial for its price, ease of procurement, and electrochemical stability and because aluminum based lithium alloys are suitable materials for electrodes, as taught by Saitou.
Claim 9 is considered a product-by-process claim. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product of apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 9066 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
2 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, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA MASON MELFI whose telephone number is (703)756-4652. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7am-6pm 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, 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.
/O.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights