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 .
Status of Claims
This is a final office action for application 18/033,308 in response to the amendment(s) filed on 03/16/2026. Claims 1-10 are under examination.
Withdrawn Objections
The amendment(s) to the claim(s), specification, and/or drawing(s) filed 03/16/2026 is acknowledged and the previous objections are withdrawn.
Withdrawn Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
The amendment(s) to the claim(s) filed on 03/16/2026 is acknowledged and the previous rejection is withdrawn. However, in light of the amendments new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 are set forth below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 03/16/2026 have been fully considered but were not found persuasive over the previous prior art rejection of record for the reasons set forth below. See claims 1-10 rejections below.
Applicant argues “a person skilled in the art would have no motivation to combine HIDESATO with INAGAKI” (see e.g. page 6 of Applicant’s argument).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Inagaki and Hidesato are both directed to nonaqueous electrolyte/lithium ion batteries and both recognize that electrode pore structure affects battery performance. Inagaki teaches that macropores and mesopores in the negative electrode improve electrolyte impregnation and permit large-current performance and cycle performance to be maintained (see e.g. paragraph [0045] of Inagaki). Hidesato teaches that input/output performance can be improved by defining pore volume, pore surface area, and porosity of the positive and negative electrodes (see e.g. paragraphs [0007]-[0009], [0024]-[0028], and [0113] of Hidesato). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to apply Hidesato’s positive-electrode pore-structure optimization to the lithium ion battery of Inagaki in order to improve input/output/high-rate performance while maintaining electrolyte retention and cycle performance. For the above reason, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “INAGAKI’s core principle and technical objective focus on surface film formation of the negative electrode and optimization of pore wettability” and that Inagaki does not involve classified optimization of the positive electrode pore structure or the synergistic effect between positive and negative electrode pore structures and compacted density” (see e.g. page 6 of Applicant’s argument).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. A reference is not limited only to its preferred or primary objective. Inagaki is relevant because it teaches a lithium ion/nonaqueous electrolyte battery and teaches that pore structure, pore surface area, electrolyte impregnation, electrode density, large-current performance, and cycle performance are related battery design variables (see e.g. paragraphs [0045], [0051], [0057], [0059], and [0250]-[0252] of Inagaki). Hidesato is relied upon for the positive-electrode pore-structure teachings not expressly disclosed by Inagaki. Hidesato expressly teaches controlling positive electrode pore surface area, pore volume, and porosity to improve input/output performance (see e.g. paragraphs [0007]-[0009], [0024]-[0028], [0051], [0093], and [0113] of Hidesato). The rejection does not require Inagaki alone to disclose every feature of claim 1. For the above reason, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “the core principle and technical objective of HIDESATO are to improve the input-output performance of the battery” and that Hidesato focuses on pore volume and porosity without classifying pores into macro-pores and micro-mesopores or involving compacted density (see e.g. page 7 of Applicant’s argument).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Hidesato is relied upon for teaching control of positive electrode pore surface area, pore volume, and porosity to improve input/output performance, and for teaching that positive electrode pore distribution and porosity can be controlled by slurry stirring/dispersion conditions (see e.g. paragraphs [0007]-[0009], [0024]-[0028], [0051], [0093], and [0113] of Hidesato). Inagaki supplies the teaching of classifying pores into first and second pore regions corresponding to larger and smaller pore-diameter regions, including macropores and mesopores (see e.g. paragraphs [0045]-[0057] and Table 5 of Inagaki). Inagaki also discloses the claimed compacted density values, including a positive electrode density of 3.3 g/cm³ and a negative electrode density of 1.6 g/cm³ (see e.g. paragraph [0198] and Table 4 of Inagaki). The references are properly combinable because they address related electrode pore-structure variables in lithium ion/nonaqueous electrolyte batteries. For the above reason, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “the technical problems in INAGAKI and HIDESATO are not related to each other” because Inagaki addresses “high-temperature storage gas generation and large current performance” while Hidesato addresses “input-output performance” (see e.g. page 7 of Applicant’s argument).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The technical problems are related because large-current performance, input/output performance, electrolyte impregnation, ion transport, and cycle performance are all battery-performance characteristics affected by electrode pore structure. Inagaki expressly discusses large-current performance and cycle performance (see e.g. paragraphs [0045], [0051], [0057], and [0250]-[0252] of Inagaki). Hidesato expressly discusses input/output performance and teaches that it is improved by controlling positive and negative electrode pore surface area, pore volume, and porosity (see e.g. paragraphs [0007]-[0009], [0024]-[0028], and [0113] of Hidesato). The references therefore address closely related performance concerns in the same field of endeavor. For the above reason, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “there exists a conflict between the core design concepts of INAGAKI and HIDESATO” because Inagaki allegedly relies on “negative electrode single-electrode optimization assisted by electrolyte additives” while Hidesato relies on “matching overall pore volume and porosity between the positive and negative electrodes” (see e.g. page 7 of Applicant’s argument).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has not identified any teaching in Inagaki that would discourage or prohibit optimizing the positive electrode pore structure. Inagaki discloses a positive electrode and a negative electrode in a lithium ion/nonaqueous electrolyte battery and teaches that pore structure affects electrolyte impregnation and high-current/cycle performance. Hidesato teaches controlling the positive electrode pore surface area, pore volume, and porosity to improve input/output performance. These teachings are compatible because adding Hidesato’s positive-electrode pore optimization to Inagaki’s battery would merely apply known electrode pore-structure control to the positive electrode of a similar lithium ion/nonaqueous electrolyte battery for the predictable purpose of improving input/output/high-rate performance. For the above reason, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “the technical parameters are incompatible between INAGAKI and HIDESATO” and that Inagaki/Hidesato do not distinguish between macro-pores and micro-mesopores in the manner claimed” (see e.g. page 8 of Applicant’s argument):
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Inagaki expressly teaches that macropores and mesopores exist in the negative electrode and expressly divides the negative electrode pore distribution into a first pore peak and a second pore peak measured by mercury porosimetry (see e.g. paragraphs [0045]-[0057] and Table 5 of Inagaki). Hidesato teaches controlling positive electrode pore surface area, pore volume, and porosity by mercury intrusion and teaches controlling the pore distribution and porosity of the positive electrode by adjusting slurry stirring conditions (see e.g. paragraphs [0031]-[0035], [0051], and [0093] of Hidesato). Thus, the cited references teach the relevant pore-structure variables, the relevant mercury intrusion measurement method, and the relevant performance reason for optimizing those variables. For the above reason, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “INAGAKI does not disclose the compacted density parameter” and that “the compacted density and pore specific surface area of the present application are a core parameter pair for synergistic optimization” (see e.g. page 8 of Applicant’s argument).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Inagaki expressly discloses electrode density values. Inagaki discloses a positive electrode density of 3.3 g/cm³ (see e.g. paragraph [0198] of Inagaki), which falls within the claimed positive electrode compacted density range of 2.6 g/cm³ to 3.3 g/cm³. Inagaki also discloses a negative electrode density of 1.6 g/cm³ (see e.g. Comparative Example 8 in Table 4 of Inagaki), which falls within the claimed negative electrode compacted density range of 1.0 g/cm³ to 1.6 g/cm³. Further, Inagaki teaches that pore surface area affects electrode density, energy density, electrolyte impregnation, output performance, and cycle performance (see e.g. paragraphs [0051], [0057], [0059], and [0250]-[0252] of Inagaki). Therefore, electrode density and pore surface area are known result-effective variables in the cited art. Applicant has not provided persuasive evidence showing that the claimed ranges are critical or produce unexpected results commensurate in scope with claim 1. For the above reason, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “even if INAGAKI and HIDESATO were combined, a person skilled in the art could at best obtain” only a simple superposition of Inagaki’s negative electrode pore distribution, Hidesato’s positive electrode overall pore surface area and porosity, and Inagaki’s electrolyte additives” (see e.g. pages 8-9 of Applicant’s argument).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The proposed combination is not a mere unsupported superposition. Inagaki teaches that pore structure and pore surface area affect electrolyte impregnation, film resistance, large-current performance, and cycle performance. Hidesato teaches that positive and negative electrode pore volume, pore surface area, and porosity should be controlled to improve input/output performance. Hidesato also teaches that positive electrode pore distribution and porosity can be controlled by slurry stirring/dispersion conditions. Therefore, the references provide a reason to optimize positive and negative electrode pore parameters together to improve lithium ion battery performance. For the above reason, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “the classified and quantitative limitations of pore structures in distinguishing technical features 1) and 2) cannot be obtained” because neither Inagaki nor Hidesato proposes separately limiting the specific surface areas of macro-pores and micro-mesopores” (see e.g. page 9 of Applicant’s argument).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Inagaki teaches classified pore regions in the negative electrode, including macropores and mesopores, a first pore peak, and a second pore peak (see e.g. paragraphs [0045]-[0057] and Table 5 of Inagaki). Inagaki further discloses a micro-mesopore/second-pore-region surface area of 1.22 m²/g, which falls within the claimed negative electrode micro-mesopore range of 0.6 m²/g to 1.7 m²/g (see e.g. Example 33 in Table 5 of Inagaki), and a macro-pore/first-pore-region surface area of 2.01 m²/g, which is immediately adjacent to the claimed upper endpoint of 2.0 m²/g (see e.g. Comparative Example 7 in Table 5 of Inagaki). Hidesato teaches positive electrode pore surface area values, including 3.4 m²/g, and teaches controlling positive electrode pore distribution and porosity to improve input/output performance (see e.g. paragraphs [0051] and [0093] of Hidesato). In view of Inagaki’s teaching to classify and optimize pore regions by mercury porosimetry and Hidesato’s teaching to optimize positive electrode pore surface area, it would have been obvious to optimize the positive electrode pore surface area within macro-pore and micro-mesopore portions to obtain predictable improvements in input/output/high-rate performance. For the above reason, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “the synergistic optimization and quantitative limitation of compacted density and pore specific surface area in distinguishing technical feature 3) cannot be obtained” because Inagaki discloses a preferred negative electrode density of 2.0-2.5 g/cm³ and Hidesato does not disclose compacted density” (see e.g. pages 9-10 of Applicant’s argument).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Inagaki’s disclosure is not limited to its preferred range. Inagaki expressly discloses a negative electrode density of 1.6 g/cm³ in Table 4, which falls within the claimed negative electrode compacted density range of 1.0 g/cm³ to 1.6 g/cm³. Inagaki also expressly discloses a positive electrode density of 3.3 g/cm³ in paragraph [0198], which falls within the claimed positive electrode compacted density range of 2.6 g/cm³ to 3.3 g/cm³. Moreover, Inagaki teaches that pore surface area and electrode density are related to energy density, output performance, electrolyte impregnation, and cycle performance (see e.g. paragraphs [0051], [0057], [0059], and [0250]-[0252] of Inagaki). Thus, the cited prior art teaches or suggests the claimed density limitations and provides a reason to optimize the density and pore-surface-area variables. For the above reason, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “the claimed invention achieves significant technical benefits” because macro-pores provide lithium ion transmission paths, micro-mesopores provide electrolyte retention, and the claimed compacted densities allegedly cooperate with the claimed pore structures (see e.g. page 10 of Applicant’s argument).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Inagaki already teaches that macropores and mesopores improve electrolyte impregnation and large-current/cycle performance (see e.g. paragraph [0045] of Inagaki), and Hidesato teaches that controlling positive and negative electrode pore surface area, pore volume, and porosity improves input/output performance (see e.g. paragraphs [0007]-[0009], [0024]-[0028], and [0113] of Hidesato). Therefore, Applicant’s alleged benefits are the same type of benefits expected from the teachings of the cited references. Further, argument regarding technical benefits is not sufficient to overcome the prima facie case where Applicant has not provided persuasive evidence showing unexpected results over the closest prior art combination and commensurate in scope with the broad claim. Claim 1 is not limited to the particular examples, electrolyte, active materials, test conditions, or operating conditions relied upon by Applicant. For the above reason, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “the battery of the present application achieves “a discharge duration of 33 to 36 seconds under a 40C discharge condition and a 3C cycle life of 4700 to 5100 cycles,” allegedly superior to Inagaki and Hidesato” (see e.g. pages 10-11 of Applicant’s argument).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has not shown that the alleged results are commensurate in scope with amended claim 1. Claim 1 broadly recites a lithium ion battery having certain pore surface area and compacted density ranges, but does not recite the particular active materials, electrolyte composition, electrode formulation, cell structure, or testing conditions of the relied-upon examples. Further, Applicant’s comparison does not establish unexpected results over the closest combination of Inagaki and Hidesato. Hidesato is relied upon for positive-electrode pore-structure optimization, and Applicant has not provided a direct comparison showing that the claimed invention as broadly claimed produces unexpected results relative to the combined teachings of Inagaki and Hidesato. Further, Applicant’s reliance on Embodiments 1-5 is not persuasive because Applicant has not shown that the relied-upon examples are commensurate in scope with amended claim 1. For example, Embodiment 2 reports a negative electrode compacted density of 0.80 g/cm³, Embodiment 3 reports a negative electrode compacted density of 2.00 g/cm³, Embodiment 4 reports a negative electrode micro-mesopore specific surface area of 0.30 m²/g, and Embodiment 5 reports positive and negative electrode micro-mesopore specific surface area values outside the claimed ranges. Thus, the relied-upon embodiments do not consistently fall within amended claim 1 and do not establish criticality for the claimed ranges. For the above reason, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “although the input/output performance of Example A-1 of HIDESATO is improved, it does not involve high-rate cycle testing” (see e.g. page 11 of Applicant’s argument).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. A reference need not disclose the identical test protocol relied upon by Applicant in order to be properly combinable. Hidesato is relied upon for teaching positive-electrode pore surface area, pore volume, porosity, and the improvement of input/output performance. Inagaki is relied upon for teaching lithium ion/nonaqueous electrolyte batteries, classified negative electrode pore regions, pore surface area optimization, large-current performance, and cycle performance. The combined teachings would have provided a person of ordinary skill in the art with a reason to optimize the positive and negative electrode pore structures for improved input/output/high-rate performance. For the above reason, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In conclusion, the arguments and amendments filed were not found to be persuasive over the previous prior art rejection of record. The rejections of the claims have been updated to reflect the amendments where appropriate. See claims 1-10 rejections below.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, claim 1 recites “macro-pores” and “micro-mesopores” and assigns separate specific surface area ranges to each, but the claim does not define the pore-size boundary, measurement conditions, or classification method by which a pore is determined to be a macro-pore versus a micro-mesopore. The specification describes generally that macro-pores come from gaps caused by accumulation of active materials and micro-mesopores come from microstructures of active materials, conductive agent, adhesive agent and other materials (see e.g. page 4 of the instant specification), but does not provide a clear objective boundary or measurement protocol for separating the two pore classes. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claimed specific surface area limitations are unclear.
Regarding Claim 1, claim 1 recites the limitations "the positive electrode material layer" and “the negative electrode material layer” in lines 13 and 1. However, "a positive electrode material layer" and “a negative electrode material layer” were never properly introduced; thus there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claims 2-10, claims 2-10 are indefinite at least by virtue of their dependency from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inagaki et al. (US-20080176142-A1) and further in view of Hidesato et al. (JP 2015-60656 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Inagaki discloses a lithium ion battery (see e.g. “nonaqueous electrolyte battery” in paragraph [0013]), comprising:
a positive electrode piece (see e.g. “positive electrode” in paragraph [0014] and part number 3 in FIG. 2), comprising a positive electrode coating area (see e.g. “the positive electrode 3 comprises a current collector 3a and an active material-containing layer 3b laminated on the current collector 3a” in paragraph [0063] of Inagaki and part number 3b in FIG. 2) and a positive electrode empty foil area (see e.g. “A positive electrode terminal 14 is drawn from each short side of the strip-like positive electrodes 31 and 32” in paragraph [0162] of Inagaki and part number 14 in FIG. 5);
a negative electrode piece (see e.g. “negative electrode” in paragraph [0015] of Inagaki and part number 4 in FIG. 2), comprising a negative electrode coating area (see e.g. “the negative electrode 4 comprises a current collector 4a and an active material-containing layer 4b laminated on the current collector 4a” in paragraph [0063] of Inagaki and part number 4b in FIG. 2) and a negative electrode empty foil area (see e.g. “current collector 4a” in paragraph [0063] of Inagaki and part number 4a in FIG. 2), wherein the negative electrode coating area has macro-pores and micro-mesopores (see e.g. “making macropores and mesopores exist in the negative electrode” in paragraph [0045] of Inagaki).
Inagaki discloses that the negative electrode has a first pore peak having a mode diameter of 0.01 μm to 0.2 μm and a second pore peak having a mode diameter of 0.003 μm to 0.02 μm (see e.g. “there are a first peak having a mode diameter of 0.01 μm or more and 0.2 μm or less and a second peak having a mode diameter of 0.003 μm or more and 0.02 μm or less” in paragraph [0042] of Inagaki). Inagaki further discloses that pores reflected on the first peak are formed among negative electrode structural elements such as active material particles, conductive agent and binder (see e.g. paragraph [0048] of Inagaki), and that pores reflected on the second peak belong to those which the active material itself has (see e.g. paragraph [0054] of Inagaki). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the first pore peak corresponds to the claimed macro-pores and the second pore peak corresponds to the claimed micro-mesopores.
Inagaki further discloses the specific surface area of the micro-mesopores of the negative electrode coating area is 1.22 m²/g (see e.g. Example 33, “Specific Surface area of pores of negative electrode [0.003-0.02 μm]” in Table 5 of Inagaki). The disclosed value of 1.22 m²/g falls within the claimed range of 0.6 m²/g to 1.7 m²/g. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Inagaki further discloses the specific surface area of the macro-pores of the negative electrode coating area is 2.01 m²/g (see e.g. Comparative Example 7, “Specific Surface area of pores of negative electrode [0.01-0.2 μm]” in Table 5 of Inagaki). The disclosed value of 2.01 m²/g is immediately adjacent to and substantially the same as the claimed upper endpoint of 2.0 m²/g. The difference between 2.01 m²/g and 2.0 m²/g is only 0.01 m²/g. In the case where the prior art discloses a value close to the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists absent evidence of criticality. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Further, Inagaki teaches that the surface area of pores affects film resistance, electrolyte impregnation, electrode density, energy density, output performance, and cycle performance (see e.g. paragraphs [0051], [0057], [0059], and [0250]-[0252] of Inagaki). Therefore, the specific surface area of pores is a result-effective variable, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the specific surface area of the macro-pores of the negative electrode coating area, including slightly adjusting 2.01 m²/g to 2.0 m²/g, in order to balance electrolyte impregnation, ion transport, electrode density, energy density, output performance, large-current performance, and cycle performance as taught by Inagaki.
Inagaki further discloses that the compacted density of the positive electrode material layer is 3.3 g/cm³ (see e.g. “pressing to produce a positive electrode having an electrode density of 3.3 g/cm³” in paragraph [0198] of Inagaki), and the compacted density of the negative electrode material layer is 1.6 g/cm³ (see e.g. Comparative Example 8, “Density of negative electrode” in Table 4 of Inagaki)
Inagaki discloses points that lie within the ranges claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Inagaki is silent as to the positive electrode coating area having macro-pores and micro-mesopores, the specific surface area of the macro-pores of the positive electrode coating area being 3.0-7.0 m²/g, and the specific surface area of the micro-mesopores of the positive electrode coating area being 2-5 m²/g.
Hidesato, however, in the same field of endeavor, nonaqueous electrolyte/lithium ion batteries having porous positive and negative electrodes, discloses a positive electrode containing pores (see e.g. “The positive electrode has a pore volume of 0.03 to 0.15 ml/g by mercury intrusion method, a pore surface area of 2.8 to 4.8 m²/g by mercury intrusion method, and a porosity of 16 to 28% by mercury intrusion method” in paragraph [0006] of Hidesato). Hidesato further discloses that the positive electrode includes a positive electrode current collector and a positive electrode material layer supported on one or both surfaces of the current collector, wherein the positive electrode material layer includes an active material, a conductive agent, and a binder (see e.g. paragraph [0050] of Hidesato).
Hidesato further discloses that the positive electrode has a pore surface area of 3.4 m²/g (see e.g. “a positive electrode having a pore volume of 0.07 mL/g, a pore surface area of 3.4 m²/g, and a porosity of 22%” in paragraph [0093] of Hidesato). The disclosed positive electrode pore surface area of 3.4 m²/g lies within the numerical range recited for the claimed positive electrode macro-pore specific surface area and also lies within the numerical range recited for the claimed positive electrode micro-mesopore specific surface area. Hidesato further teaches that the positive electrode pore distribution and porosity can be controlled by adjusting slurry stirring conditions, including stirring method, number of rotations, and bead diameter (see e.g. paragraph [0051] of Hidesato). In view of Hidesato’s teaching that positive electrode pore distribution and pore surface area are controllable variables that improve input/output performance, and Inagaki’s teaching that pore regions may be classified by mercury porosimetry into larger and smaller pore-diameter regions and optimized for electrolyte impregnation and large-current performance, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the positive electrode pore surface area within the larger-pore and smaller-pore portions of the positive electrode coating area to obtain predictable improvements in electrolyte retention, lithium ion transmission, input/output performance, and high-rate performance.
Hidesato also teaches that input/output performance is governed by the electric conductivity of the electrode active material-containing layer and the nonaqueous electrolytic mass, and that excellent input/output characteristics can be obtained by identifying and controlling the pore volume, pore surface area, and porosity of each of the positive electrode and the negative electrode by mercury porosimetry (see e.g. paragraphs [0024]-[0028] of Hidesato) and that a nonaqueous electrolyte battery having excellent output performance can be realized by defining the pore distribution of the positive electrode and the negative electrode (see e.g. paragraph [0028] of Hidesato). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the lithium ion battery of Inagaki et al. such that it includes the positive electrode pore surface area and positive electrode pore-structure optimization as taught by Hidesato et al. in order to obtain a nonaqueous electrolyte battery having excellent output performance as suggested by Hidesato.
Regarding Claim 2, Inagaki in view of Hidesato discloses the lithium ion battery according to claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Inagaki further discloses that the positive electrode coating area comprises a positive electrode current collector (see e.g. "current collector" in paragraph [0161] and part number 3a in FIG. 4) and a positive electrode material layer coated on the surface of the positive electrode current collector (see e.g. "active material-containing layers 3 b laminated" in paragraph [0161] and part number 3b in FIG. 4).
Regarding Claim 3, Inagaki in view of Hidesato discloses the lithium ion battery according to claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Inagaki further discloses that the negative electrode coating area comprises a negative electrode current collector (see e.g. " current collector 4 a" in paragraph [0161] and part number 4a in FIG. 4) and a negative electrode material layer coated on the surface of the negative electrode current collector (see e.g. "active material-containing layers 4 b" in paragraph [0161] and part number 4b in FIG. 4).
Regarding Claim 4, Inagaki in view of Hidesato discloses the lithium ion battery according to claim 2 (see e.g. claim 2 rejection above).
Inagaki further discloses that the positive electrode material layer comprises a positive electrode active material (see e.g. "90% by weight of a lithium-cobalt oxide powder (LiCoO2) as an active material" in paragraph [0198]), a positive electrode conductive agent (see e.g. "3% by weight of acetylene black and 3% by weight of graphite as conductive agents" in paragraph [0198]) and a positive electrode adhesive (see e.g. "4% by weight of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVdF)" in paragraph [0198]), and the positive electrode conductive agent accounts for 6.0% of the total mass of the positive electrode material layer (see e.g. "3% by weight of acetylene black and 3% by weight of graphite as conductive agents" in paragraph [0198]; total conductive agents account for 6.0% by weight of the positive electrode material layer).
Inagaki discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 5, Inagaki in view of Hidesato discloses the lithium ion battery according to claim 4 (see e.g. claim 4 rejection above).
Inagaki further discloses that the positive electrode active material comprises a lithium cobalt oxide material (see e.g. "lithium-cobalt oxide powder (LiCoO2) as an active material" in paragraph [0198]).
Regarding Claim 6, Inagaki in view of Hidesato discloses the lithium ion battery according to claim 4 (see e.g. claim 4 rejection above).
Inagaki further discloses that the positive electrode conductive agent comprises graphite (see e.g. " 3% by weight of graphite" in paragraph [0198]); and the positive electrode adhesive comprises polyvinylidene fluoride (see e.g. "4% by weight of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVdF)" in paragraph [0198]).
Regarding Claim 7, Inagaki in view of Hidesato discloses the lithium ion battery according to claim 3 (see e.g. claim 3 rejection above).
Inagaki further discloses that the negative electrode material layer comprises a negative electrode active material (see e.g. "active material-containing layer" in paragraph [0067]), a negative electrode conductive agent (see e.g. "conductive agent" in paragraph [0086]) and a negative electrode adhesive (see e.g. "binder" in paragraph [0086]), and the negative electrode conductive agent accounts for 2% by weight or more and 28% by weight or less, of the total mass of the negative electrode material layer (see e.g. "2% by weight or more and 28% by weight or less" in paragraph [0086]).
Inagaki discloses a range that overlaps with the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range that overlaps the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 8, Inagaki in view of Hidesato discloses the lithium ion battery according to claim 7 (see e.g. claim 7 rejection above).
Inagaki further discloses the negative electrode active material comprises at least one of silicon oxide (see e.g. "silicon-based oxides" in paragraph [0070]), tin (see e.g. "tin-based oxides" in paragraph [0070]) and lithium titanate (see e.g. "lithium-titanium oxide" in paragraph [0071]).
Regarding Claim 9, Inagaki in view of Hidesato discloses the lithium ion battery according to claim 7 (see e.g. claim 7 rejection above).
Inagaki further discloses the negative electrode conductive agent comprises at least one of carbon black and graphite (see e.g. "conductive agent include… carbon black... graphite" in paragraph [0084]); and the negative electrode adhesive comprises at least one styrene-butadiene rubber, polyvinylidene fluoride and polytetrafluoroethylene (see e.g. "the binder include polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVdF)... styrene-butadiene rubber" in paragraph [0085]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inagaki et al. (US-20080176142-A1) in view of Hidesato et al. (JP 2015-60656 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kohiki et al. (US-20140346048-A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Inagaki in view of Hidesato discloses the lithium ion battery according to claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Inagaki further discloses that the positive electrode current collector is an aluminum foil (see e.g. "it is desirable for the current collector to be formed of an aluminum foil" in paragraph [0136]).
Inagaki in view of Hidesato does not disclose that the negative electrode current collector is a copper foil. Kohiki, however, in the same field of endeavor, lithium ion secondary batteries, discloses a negative electrode current collector that is a copper foil (see e.g. "when the electrolytic copper foil is used as the electrolytic copper foil for a secondary battery negative electrode current collector" in paragraph [0037]).
Kohiki also teaches that copper foil has the advantage of superior elongation while still retaining a high strength and a high thermal resistance which leads to the stress from the large volume change during charging and discharging being absorbed making it an ideal negative electrode current collector (see e.g. paragraph [0037] of Kohiki). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the negative electrode current collector of Inagaki et al. in view of Hidesato et al. such that it is a copper foil as taught by Kohiki et al. in order to have a negative electrode current collector with superior elongation while still retaining a high strength and a high thermal resistance as suggested by Kohiki.
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 JESSE EFYMOW whose telephone number is (571)270-0795. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 10:30 am - 8:30 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, TONG GUO can be reached at (571) 272-3066. 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.
/J.J.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights