DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s amendment filed 13 July 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1, 7, and 9-12 have been amended, new claims 14-18 have been introduced, and claims 1-18 remain pending.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokuda (JP 2019-164999 A; using the attached English machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Tokuda teaches a primary battery (see [0162]) comprising:
a positive electrode including manganese dioxide (see [0162]);
a negative electrode including a lithium-based material (see [0162]); and
an electrolytic solution including an alkali metal compound represented by Formula (1) and a dicarboxylic anhydride compound represented by Formula (2),
wherein the electrolytic solution includes a cyclic carbonic acid ester (see [0052]) and a dialkoxyalkane (see [0065]-[0066]),
a ratio of a content of the dialkoxyalkane in the electrolytic solution to a content of the cyclic carbonic acid ester in the electrolytic solution is greater than or equal to 0.10 and less than or equal to 7.00 (see [0053]-[0054] and [0067] – content of the saturated cyclic carbonate is 3% by volume or more, and 90% by volume or less, in 100% by volume of the non-aqueous solvent with a single type and when used in combination of two or more types, usually 1% by volume or more and 30% by volume or less, and the content of the dialkoxyalkane is 1% by volume or more and 30% by volume or less in 100% by volume of the non-aqueous solvent. Therefore, this sets up a ratio of between 0.01 to 10 for a dialkoxyalkane to a single cyclic carbonate or a ratio of between 0.03 to 30 for a dialkoxyalkane to a combination of two or more cyclic carbonates. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I)),
MeN(CxF2x+1SO2)(CyF2y+1SO2) (1)
where
Me is an alkali metal element, and
x and y are each an integer of 0 or greater (lithium bisfluorosulfonylimide, see [0016], [0022], [0023], and [0168]),
W(—C(═O)—O—C(═O)—)z (2)
where W is a benzene-based aromatic ring from which 2z-number of hydrogen atoms are eliminated, and
z is an integer of 2 or greater (pyromellitic anhydride, see [0117]).
Regarding claim 2, Tokuda teaches wherein the alkali metal element comprises lithium (see [0016], [0022], [0023], and [0168]).
Regarding claim 3, Tokuda teaches wherein the alkali metal compound includes at least one of lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (see [0016], [0022], [0023], and [0168]), lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide, or lithium bis(pentafluoroethanesulfonyl)imide.
Regarding claim 4, Tokuda teaches wherein the dicarboxylic anhydride compound includes pyromellitic anhydride (see [0117]), mellitic anhydride, or both.
Regarding claim 5, Tokuda teaches wherein a content of the alkali metal compound in the electrolytic solution is greater than or equal to 1.0 weight percent and less than or equal to 22.0 weight percent (4.99% by mass, see [0168]).
Regarding claim 6, Tokuda teaches wherein a content of the dicarboxylic anhydride compound in the electrolytic solution is greater than or equal to 0.1 weight percent and less than or equal to 5.0 weight percent (0.01% by mass or more and usually 5% by mass or less; see [0118]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 7, Tokuda teaches
the cyclic carbonic acid ester includes propylene carbonate, butylene carbonate, or both (see [0052]), and
the dialkoxyalkane includes 1,2-dimethoxyethane (see [0065]-[0066]), 1,2-diethoxyethane (see [0065]-[0066]), or both.
Regarding claim 8, Tokuda teaches wherein
the electrolytic solution includes an electrolyte salt (see [0044]-[0045]),
the electrolyte salt includes lithium perchlorate (see [0045]), and
a content of the electrolyte salt in the electrolytic solution is greater than or equal to 1 weight percent and less than or equal to 12 weight percent (8-18% by mass, see [0046]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 13, Tokuda is silent to wherein a ratio of a weight of the electrolytic solution to a weight of the positive electrode is greater than or equal to 0.18 and less than or equal to 0.33. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to perform routine experimentation to find the optimal ratio of a weight of the electrolytic solution to a weight of the positive electrode for the goal of improving input/output characteristics and charge/discharge characteristics (see [0017]).
Claim(s) 9-12 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokuda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Watanabe et al. (WO 2019/044771 A1; hereinafter “Watanabe”; using US 2020/0203709 for the English translation and citations).
Regarding claim 9, Tokuda teaches:
a separator disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (see [0124]).
Tokuda is silent to a powder layer disposed between the negative electrode and the separator and including an electrically conductive material in a powder form.
Watanabe teaches a powder layer (fine powder layer 17, see Fig. 2A; [0053]) disposed between the negative electrode (negative electrode 12, see Fig. 2A; [0053]) and the separator (separator 13, see Fig. 2A; [0023]) and including a lithium alloy (a lithium-aluminum alloy, see [0053]). Watanabe teaches that adopting such a configuration improves pulse characteristics at a low temperature (see [0053]).
In view of Watanabe’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the primary battery of Tokuda to include a powder layer disposed between the negative electrode and the separator and including an electrically conductive material in a powder form, as taught by Watanabe, because it improves pulse characteristics at a low temperature
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Tokuda and Watanabe teaches wherein the powder layer includes a lithium alloy as the electrically conductive material (Watanabe: see [0053]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Tokuda and Watanabe teaches wherein the lithium alloy includes a lithium-aluminum alloy (Watanabe: see [0053]), but is silent to wherein the lithium-aluminum alloy has a composition represented by Formula (3),
LimAln …… (3)
where m and n satisfy m>0, n>0, and 1.00 ≤ m/n ≤ 2.25.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to perform routine experimentation to find the optimal composition for the lithium-aluminum alloy for improving pulse characteristics at a low temperature.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Tokuda and Watanabe teaches wherein the lithium alloy includes a lithium-aluminum alloy (Wantanabe: see [0053]), but is silent to wherein a ratio of a weight of aluminum included in the powder layer to a sum of a weight of the negative electrode and a weight of the powder layer is greater than or equal to 0.08 and less than or equal to 0.50. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to perform routine experimentation to find the optimum ratio of the weight of the aluminum included in the powder layer to a sum of a weight of the negative electrode and a weight of the powder layer for improving pulse characteristics at a low temperature.
Regarding claim 16, Tokuda is silent to a ring-shaped member that contains the positive electrode.
Watanabe teaches a ring-shaped member (ring member 18, see Fig. 2B; [0054]) that contains the positive electrode (positive electrode 11, see Fig. 2B; [0054]). In the case of adopting such a configuration, it is possible to suppress a decrease in an internal contact at the time of discharging the battery, and to suppress a decrease in a current collection effect (see [0054]).
In view of Watanabe’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the primary battery of Tokuda to include a ring-shaped member that contains the positive electrode because it helps to suppress a decrease in an internal contact at the time of discharging the battery, and to suppress a decrease in a current collection effect.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Tokuda and Watanabe teaches wherein the ring-shaped member (Watanabe: ring member 18, see Fig. 2B; [0054]) includes a metal material (Watanabe: see [0055]).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Tokuda and Watanabe teaches wherein the positive electrode (Tokuda: see [0161]; Watanabe: positive electrode 11, see Figs. 1-2B; [0023]), the negative electrode (Tokuda: see [0161]; Watanabe: negative electrode 12, see Figs. 1-2B; [0023]), and the electrolytic solution (Tokuda: see [0161]; Watanabe: see [0023]) are contained in a battery can (Tokuda: see [0161]; Tokuda: see [0161]; Watanabe: container 14, see Figs. 1-2B; [0024]), the battery can includes a positive electrode container (Watanabe: positive electrode can 14A, see Fig. 2B; [0054]) and a negative electrode container (Watanabe: negative electrode cup 14B, see Fig. 2B; [0024]), and the ring-shaped member (Watanabe: ring member 18, see Fig. 2B; [0054]) is fixed to an inner bottom surface (Watanabe: see Fig. 2B) of the positive electrode container (Watanabe: positive electrode can 14A, see Fig. 2B; [0054]).
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Tokuda and Watanabe as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of SANO et al. (US 2016/0344039; hereinafter “Sano”).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Tokuda and Watanabe is silent to wherein the powder layer includes a carbon material as the electrically conductive material.
Sano teaches a coating layer 17 is formed on a facing surface of negative electrode 12 facing positive electrode 11 (see Figure). Coating layer 17
includes a powder or fibrous material (hereinafter, referred to as a coating material). The coating material may include ceramic, a conductive material, and the like. Among them, it is preferable that the coating material includes a conductive material from the viewpoint of reducing the internal resistance. The conductive material may include a carbon material such as carbon black, graphite, carbon nanofiber, and carbon nanotube. Among the conductive materials, it is preferable that at least one selected from the group consisting of carbon black and graphite is used because it has particularly high conductivity (see [0028]).
In view of Sano’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the primary battery of the combination of Tokuda and Watanabe to include wherein the powder layer includes a carbon material as the electrically conductive material because it helps to reduce internal resistance.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Tokuda, Watanabe, and Sano teaches wherein the carbon material includes at least one of graphite or carbon black (Sano: see [0028]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 7-11, Applicant argues that the prior art of Tokuda does not teach “a ratio of a content of the dialkoxyalkane in the electrolytic solution to a content of the cyclic carbonic acid ester in the electrolytic solution is greater than or equal to 0.10 and less than or equal to 7.00”, a limitation of original claim 7, which is now recited in amended claim 1. Applicant further argues that Tokuda at most discloses broad classes of saturated cyclic carbonates and ether compounds, and broad content ranges for those compounds. Tokuda does not provide a reason to select the particular configuration now recited in amended claim 1.
The Examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive because Tokuda makes obvious all the limitations of amended claim 1 (see rejection for claim 1 above). More specifically, Tokuda teaches wherein the electrolytic solution includes a cyclic carbonic acid ester (see [0052]) and a dialkoxyalkane (see [0065]-[0066]), a ratio of a content of the dialkoxyalkane in the electrolytic solution to a content of the cyclic carbonic acid ester in the electrolytic solution is greater than or equal to 0.10 and less than or equal to 7.00 (see [0053]-[0054] and [0067] – content of the saturated cyclic carbonate is 3% by volume or more, and 90% by volume or less, in 100% by volume of the non-aqueous solvent with a single type and when used in combination of two or more types, usually 1% by volume or more and 30% by volume or less, and the content of the dialkoxyalkane is 1% by volume or more and 30% by volume or less in 100% by volume of the non-aqueous solvent. Therefore, this sets up a ratio of between 0.01 to 10 for a dialkoxyalkane to a single cyclic carbonate or a ratio of between 0.03 to 30 for a dialkoxyalkane to a combination of two or more cyclic carbonates. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I)). Regarding Applicant’s argument that Tokuda does not provide a reason to select the particular configuration that is now recited in amended claim 1, the Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive because Tokuda teaches that the organic solvents are not particularly limited and can be used individually or in combination of two or more types (see [0051]). Furthermore, "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose....” See MPEP §2144.06(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 STEVEN HA whose telephone number is (571)270-5934. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458 . 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.
/S.S.H/Examiner, Art Unit 1735 21 September 2026
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
