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 .
Summary
This is the second Office Action based on Application 18/243,595and is in response to Applicant Arguments/Remarks filed 06/10/2026.
Claims 1-9 are previously pending, of those claims, claims 1 and 6 have been amended, claims 2-3 and 7-8 are canceled, and new claims 10-11 are added. Claims 1, 4-6, and 9-11 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ONIZUKA (US 2016/0294006 A1) in view of ENDO (US 2017/0062872 A1), HOSOE (US 2022/0294015 A1), HIDAKA (US 2021/0119256 A1), and TOKUDA (US 9,281,541 B2).
With respect to claims 1 and 4. ONIZUKA teaches a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary cell that comprises a nonaqueous electrolyte solution, a positive electrode and a negative electrode (claim 1). The negative electrode contains an active material and a sodium component being present as an unavoidable impurity (paragraph 0009). The nonaqueous electrolyte solution includes lithium bis(oxalate)borate (paragraph 0009).
ONIZUKA teaches removing at least a portion of the Na component (paragraph 0009). ONIZUKA then teaches the Na dissolution amount such as between 0.0003-0.0287 mmol/L (Table 1). ONIZUKA does not teach the amount of the Na being between 532 ppm to 71100 ppm.
ENDO teaches a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery (paragraph 0019). There is included a positive electrode, a negative electrode and a nonaqueous electrolyte (paragraph 0020). Included is a lithium transition metal oxide that contains Na in an amount of 900 ppm or more and 16000 ppm or less (paragraph 0037-0038). Having the amount of Na be within this range is beneficial in order to improve the discharge capacity of the electrode (paragraph 0038).
Therefore at the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated control the amount of the Na in the negative electrode of ONIZUKA to be within the amount of ENDO, as ENDO teaches that such a value is beneficial in order to improve the discharge capacity.
ONIZUKA teaches the electrolyte includes a lithium bis(oxalate)borate (paragraph 0114). But does not explicitly teach a concentration of 0.35 wt%-0.56 wt%.
HOSOE teaches a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery that includes a nonaqueous electrolyte solution containing lithium bis(oxalate)borate (abstract). The content of LiBOB is 0.3 mass% or higher and 0.7 mass% or less (paragraph 0040). In one example the amount is 0.5 mass% (paragraph 0062).
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to control the amount of the LiBOB of ONIZUKA to be within the amount of HOSOE as this is a combination of known prior art elements in order to achieve predictable results.
ONIZUKA teaches the negative electrode includes a current collector (abstract). However, ONIZUKA does not explicitly teach the density of the active material layer.
HIDAKA teaches an electrode formed form the negative electrode active material (paragraph 0614). The active material on the current collector has a density of 1 g/cc or higher, preferably 1.2 g/cc or higher and 1.9 g/cc or less (paragraph 0614).
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to control the density of the negative electrode active material of ONIZUKA for the amount of HIDAKA as this is a combination of known prior art elements in order to achieve predictable results.
ONIZUKA does not explicitly teach the viscosity of the electrolyte.
TOKUDA teaches a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery (abstract). The battery includes a nonaqueous electrolyte with a viscosity of 0.6 cP or lower (column 6 lines 13-21).
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have the viscosity of the electrolyte of ONIZUKA be within the value of 0.6 cP or lower as taught by TOKUDA as this is a simple combination of known prior art elements in order to achieved predictable results.
With respect to claim 5. ONIZUKA teaches a wound electrode unit (paragraphs 0025-0026). The resistance of the central region then is larger than the end regions (paragraph 0007).
With respect to claims 6 and 9. The rejection of claim 1 from above is repeated here. ONIZUKA further teaches the electrodes are fabricated and placed in a case, and then the electrolyte is injected into the electrode (paragraph 0013).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ONIZUKA (US 2016/0294006 A1) in view of ENDO (US 2017/0062872 A1), HOSOE (US 2022/0294015 A1), HIDAKA (US 2021/0119256 A1), and TOKUDA (US 9,281,541 B2) as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of MIYAHISA (US 2011/0091754 A1).
Claim 10 is dependent upon claim 1, and claim 11 is dependent upon claim 6 both of which are rejected above under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of ONIZUKA, ENDO, HOSOE, HIDAKI, and TOKUDA. However, ONIZUKA does not explicitly teach the delamination resistance of the negative electrode.
MIYAHISA teaches a negative electrode for a nonaqueous battery (abstract). The negative electrode has a peel resistance of 4-6 N/m (paragraph 0070). If the peel resistance is too low than the active material may fall from the current collector (paragraph 0067).
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have a peel resistance of at least 4-6 N/m as taught by MIYAHISA for the negative electrode of ONIZUKA in order to ensure the peel resistance is suitable for the negative electrode to prevent the active material from falling from the current collector.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 5-8 of Applicant Arguments/Remarks, Applicant argues against the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1, 4-6, and 9 in view of ONIZUKA, ENDO, and HOSOE. Applicant argues that ONIZUKA teaches a part of the sodium component contained in the electrode is removed (page 6 of Applicant Arguments/Remarks). Therefore Applicant argues that ONIZUKA does not directly disclose the “sodium concentration in the negative electrode”. In contrast Applicant argues that the instant specification teaches the amount of the sodium is set to maintain a high delamination resistance. Therefore on page 8 Applicant concludes that ONIZUKA merely reduces the sodium component contained in the electrode, and does not provide any motivate to increase the sodium component in the electrode.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the present case the rejection is in view of ONIZUKA, ENDO, and HOSOE.
ENDO in particular is relied upon to teach the Na in the claimed amount to increase the discharge capacity of the electrode (ENDO paragraph 0038). Therefore it is the combination of the references that teaches the claimed element.
On page 8 of Applicant Arguments/Remarks Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined ONIZUKA with ENDO and HOSOE. However, Applicant has not specifically argued why these teachings of ONIZUKA would not teach the combination of elements as claimed. Therefore this argument is not persuasive.
On pages 8-9 Applicant argues that claims 1 and 6 have been amended to recite the limitations previously claimed in claims 2-3. Applicant argues on page 9 neither HIDAKA nor TOKUDA teaches the density or viscosity in combination with the sodium concentration and the LIBOB concentration. This argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As noted above the rejection is made in view of the combination of ONIZUKA, ENDO, HOSOE, HIDAKA, and TOKUDA. Further Applicant has failed to show any unexpected properties with the combined claimed elements. Therefore this argument is not persuasive.
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 JONATHAN G JELSMA whose telephone number is (571)270-5127. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571)272-3433. 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.
/JONATHAN G JELSMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights