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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 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),
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]).
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) 6-8 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 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
wherein the electrolytic solution includes a cyclic carbonic acid ester (see [0052]) and a dialkoxyalkane,
the cyclic carbonic acid ester includes propylene carbonate, butylene carbonate, or both (see [0052]),
the dialkoxyalkane includes 1,2-dimethoxyethane (see [0065]-[0066]), 1,2-diethoxyethane (see [0065]-[0066]), or both, and
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 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 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 a lithium alloy, a carbon material, or both.
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 a lithium alloy, 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 the lithium alloy, and the lithium alloy includes a lithium-aluminum alloy (Watanabe: see [0053]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Tokuda and Watanabe teaches 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 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.
Conclusion
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 4 April 2026
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights