DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the April 9th, 2026 arguments and remarks (“Remarks”).
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 Amendments
In response to the amendments received in the Remarks on April 9th, 2026:
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-10, and 13-14 are pending in the current application. Claims 1, 4, 6-7, and 10 have been amended. Claims 10 and 13-14 stand withdrawn. Claims 3, 5, and 11-12 have been cancelled.
The previous objection to the claims has been overcome in light of the amendment.
The previous rejection under 35 USC 112 is overcome in light of the amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed with the Remarks on April 9th, 2026 with respect to Claims 1-2, 4, and 6-9 are acknowledged, however, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that the prior art teaches an electrode resistance rather than an interface resistance is not persuasive.
While Saitou does disclose an electrode resistance R with a value between 0.01 Ωcm2 and 0.08 Ωcm2 ([0045]), Saitou also discloses an interface resistance Rs with a substantially similar range (see Examples 1-8 in Table 1, [0045]). Therefore, the Rs values of Saitou read on the instantly claimed interface resistance.
Based on this argument, the rejection of record is maintained.
Applicant’s argument that the instant application produces unexpected results when the value of Rs/(pvxd) is within the claimed range is not persuasive.
Applicant is correct in stating that the Rs/(pvxd) value of Example 1 of Saitou is 4.53, which would fall outside of the claimed range. However, based on the entire disclosure of Saitou – the range of Rs/(pvxd) encompasses the claimed range (see the rejection of Claim 1 in the Non-Final Rejection and reproduced below). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to try the various combinations of Rs, pv, and d within the ranges as disclosed by Saitou – including the instance when Rs = 0.01 Ωcm2, pv = 2 Ωcm, and d = 50 µm such that Rs/(pvxd)= 1 (which falls within the claimed range).
Further, Applicant’s own Comparative Example 4 (as shown in Table 2) has an Rs/(pvxd) value of 1.28 (which falls outside of the claimed range), however, Comparative Example 4 has a low temperature load characteristic value of 94 which is equal to or higher than that of Examples 9, 10, 17, 18, 22, 23, 28, and 29 (which have values of Rs/(pvxd) that fall within the claimed ranges). Therefore, Applicant’s results do not show that it is imperative that the Rs/(pvxd) value fall within the claimed ranges. And, thereby, the overlapping/encompassing ranges of Saitou deem the claimed ranges obvious.
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) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that 'suitable protection' is provided if the protective layer is 'about' 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant's] claimed range."). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.).
Based on this argument, the rejection of record is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The rejection of record is maintained. Any amendment to the rejection is as necessitated by the amendment.
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 (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 between 0.01 and 0.08 Ωcm2 ([0045]-[0046]), pv is a volume resistivity (Ωcm) of the positive-electrode mixture layer 103 with a value between 0.55 and 2.5 Ωcm ([0042]), and d is a thickness (cm) of the positive-electrode mixture layer 103 on one surface of the current collector with a value between 10 and 250 µm (equivalent to 0.001 cm and 0.025 cm) ([0072]),
such that the skilled artisan would recognize that Saitou discloses:
(1) when the thickness of the positive electrode mixture layer 103 is 35 µm or more and less than 58 µm, Rs/(pvxd) is between 0.69 (Rs = 0.01 Ωcm2; pv = 2.5 Ωcm; d = 0.0058 cm) and 41.56 (Rs = 0.08 Ωcm2; pv = 0.55 Ωcm; d = 0.0035 cm) (which encapsulates the claimed range of 1.0±0.2)1;
(2) when the thickness of the positive electrode mixture layer 103 is 58 µm or more and less than 68 µm, Rs/(pvxd) is between 0.59 (Rs = 0.01 Ωcm2; pv = 2.5 Ωcm; d = 0.0068 cm) and 25.08 (Rs = 0.08 Ωcm2; pv = 0.55 Ωcm; d = 0.0058 cm) (which overlaps the claimed range of 0.55 to 1.6)1; or
(3) when the thickness of the positive electrode mixture layer 103 is 68 µm or more and 80 µm or less, Rs/(pvxd) is between 0.50 (Rs = 0.01 Ωcm2; pv = 2.5 Ωcm; d = 0.008 cm) and 21.39 (Rs = 0.08 Ωcm2; pv = 0.55 Ωcm; d = 0.0068 cm) (which encapsulates the claimed range of 0.55 to 10)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 Saitou discloses wherein the thickness of the positive-electrode mixture layer 103 on one surface of the current collector is between 10 and 250 µm, more specifically between 40 and 100 µm (which overlaps the claimed range of 38 µm or more and less than 58 µm)1.
Regarding Claim 4, Saitou teaches the instantly claimed positive electrode according to Claim 1, and the skilled artisan would recognize that Saitou discloses:
(2) when the thickness of the positive electrode mixture layer 103 is 58 µm or more and less than 68 µm, Rs/(pvxd) is between 0.59 (Rs = 0.01 Ωcm2; pv = 2.5 Ωcm; d = 0.0068 cm) and 25.08 (Rs = 0.08 Ωcm2; pv = 0.55 Ωcm; d = 0.0058 cm) (which encapsulates the claimed range of 0.8 to 1.26)1.
Regarding Claim 6, Saitou teaches the instantly claimed positive electrode according to Claim 1, and the skilled artisan would recognize that Saitou discloses:
(3) when the thickness of the positive electrode mixture layer 103 is 68 µm or more and 80 µm or less, Rs/(pvxd) is between 0.50 (Rs = 0.01 Ωcm2; pv = 2.5 Ωcm; d = 0.008 cm) and 21.39 (Rs = 0.08 Ωcm2; pv = 0.55 Ωcm; d = 0.0068 cm) (which encapsulates the claimed range of 0.55 to 3.0)1.
Regarding Claim 7, Saitou teaches the instantly claimed positive electrode according to Claim 1, and the skilled artisan would recognize that Saitou discloses:
(3) when the thickness of the positive electrode mixture layer 103 is 68 µm or more and 80 µm or less, Rs/(pvxd) is between 0.50 (Rs = 0.01 Ωcm2; pv = 2.5 Ωcm; d = 0.008 cm) and 21.39 (Rs = 0.08 Ωcm2; pv = 0.55 Ωcm; d = 0.0068 cm) (which encapsulates the claimed range of 0.7 to 1.7)1.
Regarding Claim 8, Saitou discloses a lithium-ion battery 150 (non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery) ([0022, [0049], [0100], entire disclosure dependent upon throughout) 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 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 alloy 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 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 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 or 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, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
2The 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
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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 on (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