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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 8th 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on May 8th 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-2 & 4-14 remain pending in the application. Claims 21-25 were added by the Applicant. The amendment to the specification is acknowledged, however is objected to as noted below. The 103 rejections of the claims are withdrawn due to the Applicant’s amendments. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Ogawa et al. US 2017/0092986 A1, Tanaka et al. US 2013/0323573 A1, and McCalla et al. US 2018/0175459 A1. New rejections follow.
Specification
The amendment filed May 8th 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: Applicant submits the amendment to paragraph [0026] which introduces that the positive electrode material layer corresponds to reference number 13 in the figures. This is new matter, as the specification made no previous mention of Item 13 as the positive electrode material layer, and Item 13 (as shown in Figures 2 & 7) was not previously defined in the disclosure. Additionally, Examiner notes that the Applicant’s amendment lists paragraph [0026] as the paragraph to amend, however believes that the Applicant is meaning to amend paragraph [0025].
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-14, & 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inagaki et al. US 2008/0166637 A1, and further in view of Ogawa et al. US 2017/0092986 A1. Further evidence provided by Aerospace Specification Metals Inc. “ASM Material Data Sheet” and Thyssenkrupp Materials “Density of Aluminum”.
Regarding Claim 1, Inagaki discloses a lithium ion battery [0005] comprising an electrode core (electrode group) [0051, 0187] housed in a casing (“resin layer” Item 10 Figure 4 and “outer package tube” Item 97 Figure 6). Inagaki discloses that the electrode core comprises a positive electrode sheet (positive electrode), negative electrode sheet (negative electrode), and a separator between the positive and negative electrode sheets [0051, 0187]. Inagaki discloses that the positive electrode sheet (positive electrode) further comprises a positive current collector and a positive electrode material layer on the current collector [0052].
Inagaki fails to disclose that the length of the lithium ion battery is 500-2500mm. Inagaki fails to disclose that the L/W ratio is 10-30.
Ogawa discloses a sheet-laminated lithium secondary battery comprising a positive electrode sheet, a separator, and a negative electrode sheet stacked sequentially to form an electrode assembly accommodated in a sheet outer casing [Abstract], similar to the battery of Inagaki. Ogawa further discloses that the battery has a length of 50mm-2000mm and a width of 30mm-500mm [0039]. More specifically, Ogawa discloses in Example 1 a battery having a length of 600mm and a width of 50mm [0084].
Ogawa discloses that a battery with this configuration has high battery performance and can be produced at low cost with high productivity [0024].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the size of Inagaki’s battery to have the dimensions within the range as suggested by Ogawa to provide a battery with high performance, low cost, and high productivity. Thus modified Inagaki discloses that the length of the battery is 50-2000mm as modified by Ogawa, which overlaps with the claimed range. Additionally, modified Inagaki discloses that the L/W ratio is in the range of 0.1-66.7 which overlaps with the claimed range, as follows:
Length = 2000mm, Width = 30mm, L/W ratio = 66.7
Length = 50mm, Width = 500mm, L/W ratio = 0.1
In regards to the length of the battery and the L/W ratio, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 I. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ranges disclosed by Ogawa because selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Further, modified Inagaki using the dimensions as suggested by Ogawa in Example 1 [0084] discloses that the length of the battery is 600mm, which falls within the claimed range, and the L/W ratio, in this case 600mm/50mm, is 12, which falls within the claimed range.
Additionally, Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.04 IV A. In a situation “where the only different between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” In re Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Therefore, since the only difference between the claimed battery and the battery of Inagaki is the length of the battery, the claimed battery is not patentable distinct from the battery of Inagaki.
Modified Inagaki, as modified by Ogawa above, discloses that the dimensions of the battery are 50-2000mm in length and 30-500mm in width, thus the positive electrode current collector (as part of the electrode group in the battery) would have the same dimensions. Thus modified Inagaki discloses that the positive electrode current collector has a dimension in the first direction (length) of 50-2000mm and a dimension in the second direction (width) of 30-500mm (see Annotated Figures 3 & 4 below for first and second directions), thus Inagaki discloses that dimension in the first direction is 0.05-2m and the dimension in the second direction is 0.03-0.5m. Inagaki discloses that the positive electrode current collector has a thickness of 15µm or less [0157, 0224], or 1.5x10-5 m. As shown in Annotated Figures 3 & 4, Inagaki discloses that the electrode groups has 4 layers, thus Inagaki discloses that “n” is 4.
PNG
media_image1.png
647
813
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figures 3 & 4
Inagaki discloses that the positive electrode current collector is aluminum [0224], which as evidenced by Aerospace Specification Metal Inc. has a specific heat capacity of 896 J/kg°C [Page 2], or 896 J/kgK, and as evidenced by Thyssenkrupp has a density of 2710 kg/ m3 [Page 1]. Thus, modified Inagaki discloses that the positive electrode current collector meets the claimed formula, and overlaps with the claimed range:
1
≤
d
2
×
ρ
×
C
p
×
1.12
n
L
n
+
1
W
≤
500
When L=2m & W = 0.03m:
1.5
x
10
-
5
m
×
2710
k
g
m
3
×
896
J
k
g
K
×
1.12
4
2.0
m
4
+
1
0.03
m
=
2175.6
When L=0.05m & W = 0.5m
1.5
x
10
-
5
m
×
2710
k
g
m
3
×
896
J
k
g
K
×
1.12
4
0.05
m
4
+
1
0.5
m
=
3.26
More specifically, per Example 1 of Ogawa as mentioned above, modified Inagaki discloses that the positive electrode current collector meets the claimed formula as follows and falls within the claimed range:
When L=0.6m & W = 0.05m:
1.5
x
10
-
5
m
×
2710
k
g
m
3
×
896
J
k
g
K
×
1.12
4
0.06
m
4
+
1
0.05
m
=
391.6
In regards to the claimed formula above, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2131.03 I. In the case where the prior art “discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim”. UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Accordingly, the value disclosed in modified Inagaki anticipates the claimed range set forth in Claim 1. See MPEP 2131.03 I.
Inagaki discloses that electrode tabs are disposed on opposite ends of the electrode group in the first direction (see Annotated Figure 3 below) [0182], thus current is output from the electrode tabs in a direction that is parallel to the first direction. Inagaki discloses that the second direction intersects the first direction, as shown in Annotated Figure 3.
PNG
media_image2.png
278
712
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3
Regarding Claim 2, modified Inagaki discloses that the positive electrode current collector meets the claimed formula, having a range of 3.26-2175.6, and more specifically using the dimensions of Example 1 of Ogawa, discloses that the positive electrode current collector meets the claimed formula having a value of 391.6 as mentioned above, which falls within the further narrowed range, as mentioned above with regards to Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 4, Inagaki discloses a positive electrode tab (terminal Item 1 Figure 3) is led out from one side of the positive electrode current collector [0182], as further shown in Inagaki Annotated Figures 3 & 4 below). Inagaki discloses that the positive and negative current collectors project on opposite ends of the electrode group as shown in Figure 3, and that each current collector is connected to the corresponding electrode tab [0182]. Inagaki illustrates this for the negative current collector and negative electrode tab in Figure 4, and although not shown explicitly, discloses the same is true for the positive electrode current collector and tab [0182]. As shown in Annotated Figures 3 & 4 below, the first direction (width, as mentioned with regards to Claim 1 above) is parallel to the direction of the electrode tab.
PNG
media_image3.png
647
896
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Inagaki Annotated Figures 3 & 4
Regarding Claim 5, Inagaki discloses that the second direction (height) is perpendicular to the first direction (width), as mentioned with regards to Claims 1 & 4, and as illustrated in Annotated Figure 3.
PNG
media_image4.png
278
610
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3
Regarding Claim 6, Inagaki discloses, as mentioned with regards to Claim 1 above, the following:
The thickness of the positive electrode current collector is less than 15µm [0157, 0224], which overlaps with the claimed range.
The density of the positive electrode current collector (aluminum) [0224] is 2710 kg/ m3 [as evidenced by Thyssenkrupp Page 1].
The specific heat capacity of the positive electrode current collector (aluminum) [0224] is 896 J/kg°C [as evidenced by Aerospace Specification Metal Inc. Page 2], or 896 J/kgK, which falls within the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 7, Inagaki discloses that the positive electrode current collector is aluminum [0224].
Regarding Claim 8, Inagaki discloses that the electrode core meets the following:
The positive electrode material layer (active material layer) comprises a lithium iron phosphate [0137].
The negative electrode sheet comprises a negative electrode active material [0056] wherein the negative electrode active material comprises lithium titanate [0058], and graphite or carbon as a conductive agent [0082].
Regarding Claim 9, Inagaki discloses that the battery is a rectangular battery, as shown in Figure 6 [0031, 0186].
Regarding Claim 10, Inagaki discloses an embodiment wherein multiple electrode cores are packaged in the casing, as shown in Figure 4 [0181], Figure 6 [0187], & Figure 7 [0191] (Annotated Figure 4 shown below as one example).
PNG
media_image5.png
426
719
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4
Regarding Claim 11, Inagaki discloses that an encapsulation film (“thermoplastic resin layer” Item 11 Figure 4 [0180] or “case” Item 81 Figure 6 [0186]) is further disposed between the casing and the electrode core, and houses the electrode core [0180, 0186], further shown in Annotated Figures 4 & 6 below.
PNG
media_image6.png
649
1425
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figures 4 & 6
Regarding Claim 12, Inagaki discloses a battery pack, shown in Figure 7, comprising at least one battery (“unit cell” Item 21 Figure 7) according to Claim 1 [0191-0195].
Regarding Claim 13, Inagaki discloses a vehicle comprising a battery pack according to Claim 12, as shown in Figures 9-11 [0207].
Regarding Claim 14, Inagaki discloses an energy storage device comprising the battery pack [0220].
Regarding Claim 21, modified Inagaki discloses that the length of the battery is 500-2000mm [0039], as modified by Ogawa as mentioned above with regards to Claim 1, which overlaps with the narrowed range of the claim.
Regarding Claim 22, modified Inagaki, as mentioned above with regards to Claim 1, discloses that the L/W ratio can range from 0.1-66.7, which overlaps with the claimed range, and more specifically discloses an embodiment wherein the L/W ratio is 12 (Example 1 of Ogawa [0084], which falls within the claimed range.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inagaki and Ogawa, and further in view of Tanaka et al. US 2013/0323573 A1.
Regarding Claim 23, modified Inagaki is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Inagaki shows in Figure 4 a partial cross section of the number of layers of the laminated battery, wherein the number of layers are shown to be at least 4, however does not specifically disclose or limit the number of layers of the positive electrode current collector “n” as claimed.
Tanaka discloses a secondary battery comprising stacks, wherein the stacks comprise alternating layers of electrode current collectors, active material layers, and separators [0032-0033], similar to the electrode group of Inagaki. Tanaka discloses that the stacks are rectangular [0034] and are accommodated in a battery can [0034], similar to that of Inagaki. Tanaka further discloses that the number of stacked layers in the stacks are determined in accordance with the battery capacity necessary [0033], and discloses that capacity increases as the number of layers increases [0006, 0013-0014].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the number of layers is a result effective variable, and would seek to optimize this parameter, and would therefore arrive at the claimed range to achieve a battery with increased capacity. See MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to select a number of layers of the positive electrode current collector within the claimed range to provide a battery with increased capacity as suggested by Tanaka.
Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inagaki and Ogawa, and further in view of McCalla et al. US 2018/0175459 A1.
Regarding Claim 24, modified Inagaki is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Modified Inagaki is silent as to the negative electrode sheet comprising a negative electrode current collector being a copper foil.
McCalla discloses a lithium battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a separator [Abstract] similar to that of Inagaki. McCalla discloses that the positive electrode comprises a current collector of aluminum [0010], similar to that of Inagaki. McCalla discloses that the negative electrode comprises a current collector of copper or aluminum as alternatives to each other [0010, 0052]. McCalla discloses that in the examples, copper is used as the material for the negative current collector [0231].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to substitute one known negative current collector material, i.e. copper of McCalla, for another negative current collector material, i.e. aluminum of Inagaki, with reasonable expectation of success. The simple substitution of one negative current collector material for another to obtain predictable results is not patentable. See KSR International Co v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007); MPEP 2143 B.
In addition, by teaching the two alternative negative current collector materials, McCalla demonstrates that these are known equivalents in the art, and the selection of either negative current collector material would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.06.
Thus, modified Inagaki discloses that the negative electrode sheet comprises a negative electrode current collector made of copper.
Regarding Claim 25, modified Inagaki is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Modified Inagaki is silent as to the negative electrode sheet comprising a negative electrode active material comprising graphite.
As mentioned above with regards to Claim 24, modified Inagaki discloses that the negative electrode current collector is made of copper, as modified by McCalla. McCalla additionally discloses that graphite is a suitable negative electrode active material [0011, 0057] as an alternative to lithium titanate [0055-0057], which is the active material of Inagaki. McCalla more specifically discloses that when copper is used as the negative electrode current collector material, graphite should be used as the active material [0054, 0138]. McCalla also discloses in the examples that graphite is used as the active material on a copper current collector for the negative electrode [0231].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to substitute one known negative electrode active material, i.e. graphite of McCalla, for another negative electrode active material, i.e. lithium titanate of Inagaki, with reasonable expectation of success. The simple substitution of one negative electrode active material for another to obtain predictable results is not patentable. See KSR International Co v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007); MPEP 2143 B.
In addition, by teaching the two alternative negative electrode active materials, McCalla demonstrates that these are known equivalents in the art, and the selection of either negative electrode active material would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.06.
Thus, modified Inagaki discloses that the negative electrode sheet comprises a negative electrode active material comprising graphite.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant argues that none of the cited references teach the amended limitations of the length of the battery and the L/W ratio. Examiner respectfully points out that as stated in the rejection above, Inagaki and Wang were not used to teach these limitations. Instead, Ogawa was used to modify the size of Inagaki’s battery such that the length of the battery is 50mm-2000mm, which overlaps with the claimed range, to provide a high performing battery at low cost and high productivity. Additionally, Examiner respectfully points out that per MPEP 2144.04 IV A, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device if the only difference between the claimed device and the prior art device is a recitation of the relative dimensions, and would not be expected to perform differently, as mentioned in the rejection above. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA E GOULD whose telephone number is (571)270-1088. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/A.E.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 22 May 2026
Prosecution Insights