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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received June 4, 2026:
Claims 1-18 are pending with claims 7-8 and 16-18 withdrawn as being drawn to an unelected invention.
The previous objection to the drawings has been withdrawn in light of the amendment.
The previous claim objection has been withdrawn in light of the amendment.
The previous 112 rejections have been withdrawn in light of the amendment.
The core of the previous prior art rejections is maintained with slight changes made in light of the amendment. All changes to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment. Thus, the action is final.
Drawings
The drawings were received on June 4, 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20130024595 (Kim et al.).
As to claim 1, Kim et al. teach a battery, comprising a battery housing (battery exterior) (para 0070), a positive electrode plate (positive electrode) (para 0047), a negative electrode plate (negative electrode (para 0048), and a non-aqueous electrolyte (para 0089-0090), wherein a gas reducer is disposed inside the battery housing (i.e. within the electrode) (para 0070, 0073, 0095-0097), the gas reducer comprises at least one of an alkali metal or an alkali metal alloy (metal powders such as Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs, Fr) (para 0065-0066), and the gas reducer is in no contact with or in non-electrical contact with the negative electrode plate (as it is within the cathode (para 0095-0097), and thus is electrically insulated from the anode). Additionally, Kim et al. teach of adding an amount of oxygen scavenger to efficiently remove air within the battery while preventing the battery capacity per volume from decreasing, establishing a most preferable amount of 0.01 to 0.5 molar based on 1 mol of Li2MnO3 and exemplifies 10 parts by weight in the positive electrode (para 0096).
Thus, Kim et al. does not specifically teach a molar ratio of the gas reducer to a solvent of nonaqueous electrolyte is 1-10%.
However, Kim et al. renders this limitation obvious. The amount of oxygen scavenger added is a result effective variable, as it effects being able to efficiently remove air (more material removes more air) within the battery and the battery capacity per volume (more material decreases the capacity per volume, as it occupies space that could be occupied by active materials) (para 0062). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the amount of oxygen scavenger (and thus its amount, relative to the amount of electrolyte solvent present in the battery, as all are materials within the system and factor into battery capacity per volume – i.e. a molar ratio of 1-10% to a solvent of the non-aqueous electrolyte), since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It has been held that discovering that general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller,105 USPQ 233. Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). Also, see MPEP §2144.05(II)(B).
(Note 1: Although Kim et al. teach alkali metals as part of their recognized oxygen scavengers, no example/sufficient specificity exists to pick, Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs, Fr). Thus, Kim et al.’s teaching is not seen to anticipate the claimed invention. However, Kim et al. renders obvious the use of alkali metals (Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs, Fr), as such oxygen scavengers is within the art and thus would obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use one of the listed alkali metals (Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs, Fr).
Note 2: The above reasoning is applicable regarding obviousness to all of the teachings of Kim et al., wherein a list of materials are listed as potential materials for a specific purpose (i.e. oxygen scavenger, active materials, etc.) and will not be reiterated below for brevity’s sake.)
As to claim 2, Kim et al. teach of adding an amount of oxygen scavenger to efficiently remove air within the battery while preventing the battery capacity per volume from decreasing, establishing a most preferable amount of 0.01 to 0.5 molar based on 1 mol of Li2MnO3 and exemplifies 10 parts by weight in the positive electrode (para 0096).
Thus, Kim et al. does not specifically teach the molar ratio of the gas reducer to the solvent of nonaqueous electrolyte is 3-5%.
However, Kim et al. renders this limitation obvious. The amount of oxygen scavenger added is a result effective variable, as it effects being able to efficiently remove air (more material removes more air) within the battery and the battery capacity per volume (more material decreases the capacity per volume, as it occupies space that could be occupied by active materials) (para 0062). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the amount of oxygen scavenger (and thus its amount, relative to the amount of electrolyte solvent present in the battery, as all are materials within the system and factor into battery capacity per volume – i.e. a molar ratio of 3-5% to a solvent of the non-aqueous electrolyte), since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It has been held that discovering that general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller,105 USPQ 233. Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). Also, see MPEP §2144.05(II)(B).
As to claim 4, Kim et al. teach the gas reducer is lithium metal or sodium metal (Li, Na) (para 0065, 0066).
As to claim 5, Kim et al. teach the gas reducer is disposed on a positive electrode current collector of the positive electrode plate (in active material slurry and applied to a current collector (foil)) (para 0100-0101).
As to claim 11, Kim et al. teach wherein the solvent of the non-aqueous electrolyte is a carbonate-based solvent (carbonates one of four electrolyte types (small number solvents for sufficient specificity)) (para 0089).
As to claim 12, Kim et al. teach the battery is a lithium-ion battery or a sodium-ion battery (lithium ion, as indicated by lithium ion passage; para 0088).
As to claim 13, Kim et al. teach a positive-electrode material of the positive electrode plate is a ternary positive-electrode material, lithium iron phosphate, sodium iron phosphate, or lithium cobalt oxide, and/or a negative-electrode material of the negative electrode plate is lithium metal, sodium metal, or graphite (0.5 Li2MnO3 · 0.5 LiNi0.33Co0.33Mn0.33O2 set forth for the positive electrode (para 0996); Li metal included as a negative electrode active material (para 0083-0084)).
As to claim 14, Kim et al. teach the positive-electrode material of the battery is lithium nickel cobalt manganate or lithium nickel cobalt aluminate, and the negative- electrode material of the battery is lithium metal (0.5 Li2MnO3 · 0.5 LiNi0.33Co0.33Mn0.33O2 set forth for the positive electrode (para 0996); Li metal included as a negative electrode active material (para 0083-0084)).
As to claim 15, Kim et al. teach an apparatus (vehicles, power tools) (para 0093), provided with the battery according to claim 1 (battery of claim 1 set forth in the rejection to claim 1, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2013/0343983 (Ito et al.).
As to claim 3, Kim et al. do not teach wherein a specific surface area of the gas reducer is 5-100m2/g.
However, Ito et al. generally teach that surface area affects gas adsorption (para 0045). Thus, the surface area of is a result effective variable, as it effects being able to adsorb gas (para 0045). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the surface area of the gas reducer (5-100m2/g), since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It has been held that discovering that general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller,105 USPQ 233. Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). Also, see MPEP §2144.05(II)(B).
Claim(s) 6, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2012/0088129 (Kaneda et al.).
As to claim 6, Kim et al. teach wherein the positive electrode current collector of the positive electrode plate at an end of a battery cell has a first surface and a second surface that are opposite, a positive-electrode material is disposed on the first surface (para 0096-0097).
Kim et al. do not teach the gas reducer is disposed on the second surface.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kaneda et al. teach of an inclusion of gas adsorbent [22] (gas reducer) in pores of the current collector [4] (fig. 3; para 0040). The motivation for having the gas adsorbent (gas reducer) within the current collector is to produce a battery that reduces swelling without degrading the battery characteristics (para 0042).
At the very least, substituting having the gas reducer in active material layer with having the gas reducer in the current collector would yield the predictable result of reducing the gas/swelling in a battery (as the substituted components and their functions were known in the art). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to substitute having the gas reducer in active material layer with having the gas reducer in the current collector, as the substitution would yield the predictable result of reducing the gas/swelling in a battery (as the substituted components and their functions were known in the art). “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I).
The combination would render the claim limitation (the gas reducer is disposed on the second surface, while the positive electrode active material is on the first), as pores around the second surface that hold the gas reducer would be applicable to the limitation. Office personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Also, limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. See In re Zletz, 893F.2d 319, 321-22,13 USPQ2d, 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
As to claim 9, Kim et al. teach wherein the positive electrode current collector of the positive electrode plate at an end of a battery cell has a first surface and a second surface that are opposite, a positive-electrode material is disposed on the first surface (para 0096-0097).
Kim et al. do not teach the gas reducer is sheet-shaped.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kaneda et al. teach of having a gas adsorbing layer [19] (thus being sheet-shaped) adjacent to the positive active material (fig. 2a; para 0022-0023). The motivation for having the gas adsorbent (gas reducer) within the current collector is to produce a battery that reduces swelling without degrading the battery characteristics (para 0024).
At the very least, substituting having the gas reducer in active material layer with having the gas reducer as a separate layer (thus being sheet-shaped) would yield the predictable result of reducing the gas/swelling in a battery (as the substituted components and their functions were known in the art). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to substitute having the gas reducer in active material layer with having the gas reducer as a separate layer (thus being sheet-shaped), as the substitution would yield the predictable result of reducing the gas/swelling in a battery (as the substituted components and their functions were known in the art). “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I).
As to claim 10, Kim et al. teach the presence of a housing (battery exterior) (para 0070).
Kim et al. do not teach any specifics to the shape of the exterior, i.e. that the battery is a pouch battery, a prismatic battery, a button battery, or a cylindrical battery.
However, Kaneda et al. teach of a battery with an exterior package [14] that is a pouch (laminate) (figs. 1A, 1B; para 0020). Substituting having an unspecified housing with a pouch housing would yield the predictable result of providing a housing to the battery (as the substituted components and their functions were known in the art). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to a housing of unknown shape with a pouch housing, as the substitution would yield the predictable result acting as a battery battery (as the substituted components and their functions were known in the art). “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 4, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues regarding claim 1 that a molar ratio of the gas reducer to a solvent of nonaqueous electrolyte is 1-10% is critical, citing examples 1 and 23-26 (within claimed range) and examples 24 (0.2%) and 27 (20%) lying outside of the claimed range, wherein the claimed range allows for higher cycling (150 or higher), while those outside have lower cycling performance (126 or lower), citing para 00117 as an explanation (i.e having enough of the gas reducer to have the desired effect, but avoiding too much to via electrolyte loss through side reactions).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The burden to show unexpected results has not been met. For non-limiting example MPEP 716.02(d)(II) requires that to establish results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show criticality of the claimed range. This burden has not been met, as not enough sufficient data has been shown outside of the claimed range to establish criticality/unexpected results. For non-limiting example, how does the claimed range show a criticality over a molar ratio % of 0.9% or 11%? A comparison at only two points far away from the claimed range does not meet the requirement of MPEP 716.02(d). Additionally, Kim et al. teach the amount of oxygen scavenger added is a result effective variable, as it effects being able to efficiently remove air (more material removes more air) within the battery and the battery capacity per volume (more material decreases the capacity per volume, as it occupies space that could be occupied by active materials) (para 0062). Accordingly, the reasons in Kim et al. are similar to that of the instant application (i.e. needing to add enough gas reducer to provide the gas reducing function). MPEP 716.02(c)(II) states that expected results are evidence of obviousness. Thus, the argument is not persuasive, and the rejection of record is maintained.
Applicant argues that newly cited claim 2 (regarding the range of 3-5%) is not obvious over the prior art’s teaching of 10% regarding the oxygen remover.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In light of the amendment (regarding molar ratio), the molar ratio being a result effective variable is relied upon (rather than the 10% weight). The argument is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. Thus, the argument is not persuasive, and the rejection of record is maintained.
Applicant argues that Kim’s gas remover removes oxygen, while that of the instant application removes carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, sulfur trioxide, and nitrogen, and thus an optimization of oxygen remover would not result in a 3-5% molar ratio for removing carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, sulfur trioxide, and nitrogen.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the gas remover removes carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, sulfur trioxide, and nitrogen) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Thus, the argument is not persuasive, and the rejection of record is maintained.
Applicant argues regarding claim 3 that the specific surface is critical citing examples 1 and 29-31 having unexpected excellent cycling performance (148 or higher), while examples 28 and 32 have poor cycling performance (115 or lower), citing para 0118 as an explanation (if surface area is too small, the area for the reaction is small; if it is too large, side reactions with the electrolyte will occur).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The burden to show unexpected results has not been met. For non-limiting example MPEP 716.02(d)(II) requires that to establish results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show criticality of the claimed range. This burden has not been met, as not enough sufficient data has been shown outside of the claimed range to establish criticality/unexpected results. For non-limiting example, how does the claimed range show a criticality over a surface area of 4 or 101? A comparison at only two points far away from the claimed range does not meet the requirement of MPEP 716.02(d). Additionally, Ito et al. generally teach that surface area affects gas adsorption (para 0045).
Thus, the argument is not persuasive, and the rejection of record is maintained.
Applicant argues that the dependent claims are distinct from the prior art of record for the same reason as the independent claim.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection with respect to the independent claim has been maintained, and thus the rejections to the dependent claims are maintained as well.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 EUGENIA WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4942. The examiner can normally be reached a flex schedule, generally Monday-Thursday 5:00 -7:30 (AM) and 9:45-3:15 ET.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/EUGENIA WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights