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 .
The Applicant’s amendment filed on 3/29/2026 was received. Claims 1, 4, 13, 18 were amended. Claims 2-3, 11-12, 16-17 were cancelled.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office action issued on 12/29/2025.
Claim Objections
The claim objection on claim 1 is withdrawn because Applicant amended independent claim 1. The claim objections on claims 2, 11, 16 are withdrawn because Applicant cancelled claims 2, 11, 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by He et al. (CN 101626099 A) on claims 1-7, 11-15 are withdrawn because Applicant amended independent claims 1, 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by He et al. (CN 101626099 A) on claim 3 is withdrawn because Applicant cancelled claim 3.
Claims 1, 4-7, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by He et al. (CN 101626099 A).
Regarding to claim 1: He et al. disclose a polymer lithium vanadium phosphate power battery (par. 2). The polymer lithium vanadium phosphate power battery comprises a positive electrode (par. 10). The positive electrode comprising: an aluminum foil (par. 31) (equivalent to a positive electrode current collector) and a positive electrode coating (par. 29-31) (equivalent to a positive electrode coating layer) that is coated on the aluminum foil (par. 31) and contains lithium vanadium phosphate (par. 29) (equivalent to a positive electrode active substance), wherein the positive electrode coating surface density (β) is 6-20 mg/cm2 (equivalent to 0.006-0.02 g/cm2)(par. 31); the compaction density (α) of the positive electrode is 1.5-3.5 g/cm3 (par. 32); and the thickness (γ) of aluminum foil is 16-30 μm (par. 31) (the formula: α^3*10*β/γ = 0.105 when α=3, β=0.007, γ=18). 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).
He et al. is silent on the formula: 0.1<α^3*10*β/γ <0.125. However, He et al. recognize the battery prepared by the method disclosed by He et al. can have benefits of long cycle life, high energy density, and stable structure (par. 41). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the three parameters (compaction density, surface density, thickness) for even better performance.
In addition, “A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments” (MPEP 2123.I.). The example (α=3, β=0.007, γ=18) is part of He’s disclosure since three parameters (α, β, γ) are within the range that He et al. teach.
Regarding to claim 4: He et al. disclose the positive electrode coating surface density (β) is 6-20 mg/cm2 (equivalent to 0.006-0.02 g/cm2)(par. 31); the compaction density (α) of the positive electrode is 1.5-3.5 g/cm3 (par. 32); and the thickness (γ) of aluminum foil is 16-30 μm (par. 31). 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding to claim 5: He et al. disclose the positive electrode active material is lithium vanadium phosphate (par. 44) (lithium vanadium phosphate is olivine structure as evidenced by Araki et al. (US 20210257610 A1) (par. 35 in Araki)).
Regarding to claim 6: He et al. disclose the positive electrode current collector is aluminum foil (par. 46).
Regarding to claim 7: He et al. disclose a preparation method for the positive electrode comprising:
mixing lithium vanadium phosphate with conductive agent (equivalent to an auxiliary agent) to prepare slurry (par. 29); and
applying the positive electrode slurry on the aluminum foil, baking (equivalent to drying) and electrode rolling (equivalent to cold-pressing) to obtain the positive electrode sheet (par. 31-33).
It is noted that claim 7 is a product-by-process claim. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. 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.” In re Thorpe, 777 F. 2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding to claim 13: He et al. disclose the positive electrode coating surface density (β) is 6-20 mg/cm2 (equivalent to 0.006-0.02 g/cm2)(par. 31); the compaction density (α) of the positive electrode is 1.5-3.5 g/cm3 (par. 32); and the thickness (γ) of aluminum foil is 16-30 μm (par. 31). 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding to claim 14: He et al. disclose the positive electrode active material is lithium vanadium phosphate (par. 44) (lithium vanadium phosphate is olivine structure as evidenced by Araki et al. (US 20210257610 A1) (par. 35 in Araki)).
Regarding to claim 15: He et al. disclose the positive electrode current collector is aluminum foil (par. 46).
Claims 8, 18-20 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (CN 101626099 A) as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Murashi et al. (US 20170179535 A1).
Regarding to claim 8: He et al. further disclose the polymer lithium vanadium phosphate power battery comprises a negative electrode, a separator (equivalent to an isolation film), and a polymer gel electrolyte (par. 10), wherein the positive electrode, the separator, and the negative electrode plate are used to stack successively to obtain an electrical core (par. 35), and the electrolyte is used to inject into the dry electrical core to obtain the battery (par. 39). He et al. fail to explicitly disclose the winding structure of the electrical core. However, Murashi et al. disclose a wound electrode group, an electrode group, and a nonaqueous electrolyte battery (par.2). The wound electrode group includes a positive electrode (2), a negative electrode (3), and separators (4) (par. 35, fig. 1, 3). Murashi et al. further disclose a stacked structure of the electrode group (par. 138, fig. 9, 10). The stacked structure of the electrode group includes a positive electrode (2), a negative electrode (3), and separators (4) (par. 139, fig. 9, 10). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the wound electrode group of Murashi et al. in the polymer lithium vanadium phosphate power battery of He et al. because Murashi et al. teach the wound structure and the stacked structure are workable structures to build an electrode group (par. 24, 123, fig. 1, 9).
Regarding to claim 18: He et al. disclose the positive electrode coating surface density (β) is 6-20 mg/cm2 (equivalent to 0.006-0.02 g/cm2)(par. 31); the compaction density (α) of the positive electrode is 1.5-3.5 g/cm3 (par. 32); and the thickness (γ) of aluminum foil is 16-30 μm (par. 31). 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding to claim 19: He et al. disclose the positive electrode active material is lithium vanadium phosphate (par. 44) (lithium vanadium phosphate is olivine structure as evidenced by Araki et al. (US 20210257610 A1) (par. 35 in Araki)).
Regarding to claim 20: He et al. disclose the positive electrode current collector is aluminum foil (par. 46).
Claims 9, 10 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (CN 101626099 A) in view of Murashi et al. (US 20170179535 A1) as applied in claim 8 above, and further in view of Hotta et al. (US 20200168913 A1).
Regarding to claim 9: He et al. disclose the negative electrode comprising: a copper foil (par. 31) (equivalent to a negative electrode current collector) and a negative electrode coating (par. 30-31) (equivalent to a negative electrode coating layer) that is coated on the copper foil (par. 31) and contains negative electrode material (par. 30) (equivalent to a negative electrode active substance); wherein, the compaction density of the negative electrode is 1.2-1.6 g/cm3 (par. 32); the negative electrode coating surface density is 4-8 mg/cm2 (equivalent to 0.004-0.008 g/cm2) (par. 31); and the thickness of the copper foil is 10-20 µm. He et al. fail to explicitly disclose the thickness of the negative electrode current collector is 8 µm. However, Hotta et al. disclose a secondary battery (abstract). The secondary battery includes a negative electrode current collector (par. 45, 48). The thickness of the negative electrode current collector is preferably 5 μm to 50 μm (par. 49). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the negative electrode current collector with 8 μm thickness of Hotta et al. as the thickness of the copper foil of He et al. because Hotta et al. teach that the thickness of the current collector is a balance between the strength of the electrode and the weight reduction (par. 49). 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 to claim 10: He et al. disclose the negative electrode material is one or more of the following: artificial graphite, natural graphite, mesophase carbon microspheres, or hard carbon materials (par. 26).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments filed on 03/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues:
The technical problem solved by the amended Claim 1 of the present application is different from that of HE.
HE individually discloses the respective value ranges for the thickness of the aluminum foil, the areal density of the positive electrode coating, and the compaction density of the positive electrode, HE fails to disclose any relationship among these three parameters. Moreover, HE does not teach that controlling these three parameters within specific ranges enables a lithium-ion secondary battery to simultaneously achieve a long service life and excellent DCR performance.
HE does not disclose a technical solution with a compaction density of the positive electrode of 3 g/cm3, a coating surface density of the positive electrode of 0.007g/cm2, and a thickness of the aluminum foil of 18 µm. It is impossible to unambiguously obtain this specific combination of parameters or the formula from HE.
The instant application discloses a narrower range of the compaction density and the surface density compared to the broader range that HE discloses. The narrow range can achieve both a long service life and excellent DCR performance.
None of the Examples from HE satisfies 0.1<α^3*10*β/γ <0.125.
In response:
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The instant claims do not recite technical problems and technical benefits (longer service life and DCR improvement). Therefore, the technical problems and the technical benefits do not have patentable weight.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. HE is silent on the relationship among these three parameters. However, “a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments” (MPEP 2123.I.). Therefore, one of ordinary skill could discover the optimum or workable ranges through routine experiments as HE teaches that the range of these three parameters can provide excellent electrochemical performance (par. 9 in HE).
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The three parameters of the specific combination (a compaction density of the positive electrode of 3 g/cm3, a coating surface density of the positive electrode of 0.007g/cm2, and a thickness of the aluminum foil of 18 µm) are within the range HE disclosed. Though the combination picked from a large range, it has been held that though a specific embodiment is not taught as preferred makes it no less obvious, also, that the mere fact that a reference suggests a multitude of possible combinations does not in and of itself make any one of those combinations less obvious, see Merck v. Biocraft, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed Cir 1985)
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. To establish unexpected results (unexpected benefits) over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 716.02(d)(II)
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments (MPEP 2123.I.).
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 PIN JAN WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7057. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on 571-272-1295. 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.
/PIN JAN WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights