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 Interpretation
Claim 1 includes a limitation wherein the non-aqueous electrolyte contains at least one of a cyclic imide component and a pyrrole component. Claim 7 defines the pyrrole as “wherein the pyrrole component contains indole”, without requiring the presence of the pyrrole. Thus, Claim 7 is interpreted as defining “the pyrrole” without requiring the presence thereof.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shikita (US 2015/0372349) in view of Nunome et al. (US 2012/0308901) .
Regarding Claim 1, Shikita teaches a lithium primary battery having a positive electrode, a negative electrode and non-aqueous electrolytic solution (Para. [0109]) (i.e. a lithium primary battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a non-aqueous electrolyte) wherein the positive electrode for lithium primary battery includes MnO2 (Para. [0117]) (i.e. the positive electrode contains a positive electrode material mixture that contains LixMnO2- wherein x = 0), and a negative electrode active material includes a lithium metal and a lithium alloy (Para. [0131]) (i.e. the negative electrode contains at least one of metal lithium and a lithium alloy), wherein the nonaqueous electrolyte solution contains 0.3% by mass or more to 2% by mass or less of lithium salt wherein the lithium salt may be selected from lithium tetrafluoro(oxalate)phosphate and lithium difluorobis(oxalate) phosphate (Para. [0099], [0100]) (i.e. the non-aqueous electrolyte contains at least an oxalate phosphate complex component as a second component, the concentration of the second component in the non-aqueous electrolyte is 6 mass% or less).
Shikita does not teach the non-aqueous electrolyte solution contains at least one of a cyclic imide and a pyrrole component as a first component, the concentration of the first component in the non-aqueous electrolyte is 1 mass% or less or a mass ratio of the first component relative to the second component in the non-aqueous electrolyte is 0.02 or more and 10 or less.
However, Nunome et al. teaches a lithium primary battery comprising a nonaqueous electrolyte (Para. [0014]) wherein the nonaqueous electrolyte comprises phthalimide added in a ratio of 0.05 mass% to 0.5 mass% (Para. [0052]) (i.e. the non-aqueous electrolyte contains at least a cyclic imide as a first component, the concentration of the first component in the non-aqueous electrolyte is 1 mass% or less).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the nonaqueous electrolyte of Shikita to incorporate the teaching of phthalimide added in a ratio of 0.05 mass% to 0.5 mass% as taught by Nunome et al., as such an additive allows for reduced degradation of discharge performance (Para. [0051], [0052], [0102]). Thus, the natural result of the combination would result in a mass ratio of the first component relative to the second component in the non-aqueous electrolyte of 0.05/2 to 0.5/0.3 or 0.025 or more and 1.67 or less, within the claimed range of the mass ratio of the first component relative to the second component in the non-aqueous electrolyte is 0.02 or more and 10 or less.
Regarding Claim 2, Shikita teaches a lithium primary battery having a positive electrode, a negative electrode and non-aqueous electrolytic solution (Para. [0109]) (i.e. a lithium primary battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a non-aqueous electrolyte) wherein the positive electrode for lithium primary battery includes MnO2 (Para. [0117]) (i.e. the positive electrode contains a positive electrode material mixture that contains LixMnO2- wherein x = 0), and a negative electrode active material includes a lithium metal and a lithium alloy (Para. [0131]) (i.e. the negative electrode contains at least one of metal lithium and a lithium alloy), wherein the nonaqueous electrolyte solution contains 0.3% by mass or more to 2% by mass or less of lithium salt wherein the lithium salt may be selected from lithium tetrafluoro(oxalate)phosphate and lithium difluorobis(oxalate) phosphate (Para. [0099], [0100]) (i.e. the non-aqueous electrolyte contains at least an oxalate phosphate complex component as a second component, the concentration of the second component in the non-aqueous electrolyte is 0.1 mass% or more and 6 mass% or less).
Shikita does not teach the non-aqueous electrolyte solution contains at least one of a cyclic imide and a pyrrole component as a first component, the concentration of the first component in the non-aqueous electrolyte is 0.1 mass% or more and 1 mass% or less.
However, Nunome et al. teaches a lithium primary battery comprising a nonaqueous electrolyte (Para. [0014]) wherein the nonaqueous electrolyte comprises phthalimide added in a ratio of 0.05 mass% to 0.5 mass% (Para. [0052]) (i.e. the non-aqueous electrolyte contains at least a cyclic imide as a first component, the concentration of the first component in the non-aqueous electrolyte is overlapping with 0.1 mass% or more and 1 mass% or less).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the nonaqueous electrolyte of Shikita to incorporate the teaching of phthalimide added in a ratio of 0.05 mass% to 0.5 mass% as taught by Nunome et al., as such an additive allows for reduced degradation of discharge performance (Para. [0051], [0052], [0102]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 3, Shikita as modified by Nunome et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 2 as explained above.
Shikita teaches the nonaqueous electrolyte solution contains 0.3% by mass or more to 2% by mass or less of lithium salt wherein the lithium salt may be selected from lithium tetrafluoro(oxalate)phosphate and lithium difluorobis(oxalate) phosphate (Para. [0099], [0100]).
Shikita does not teach the non-aqueous electrolyte solution contains at least one of a cyclic imide and a pyrrole component as a first component, or a mass ratio of the first component relative to the second component in the non-aqueous electrolyte is 0.02 or more and 10 or less.
However, Nunome et al. teaches a lithium primary battery comprising a nonaqueous electrolyte (Para. [0014]) wherein the nonaqueous electrolyte comprises phthalimide added in a ratio of 0.05 mass% to 0.5 mass% (Para. [0052])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the nonaqueous electrolyte of Shikita to incorporate the teaching of phthalimide added in a ratio of 0.05 mass% to 0.5 mass% as taught by Nunome et al., as such an additive allows for reduced degradation of discharge performance (Para. [0051], [0052], [0102]). Thus, the natural result of the combination would result in a mass ratio of the first component relative to the second component in the non-aqueous electrolyte of 0.05/2 to 0.5/0.3 or 0.025 or more and 1.67 or less, within the claimed range of the mass ratio of the first component relative to the second component in the non-aqueous electrolyte is 0.02 or more and 10 or less.
Regarding Claim 4, Shikita as modified by Nunome et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Shikita further teaches the lithium salt may be selected from lithium tetrafluoro(oxalate)phosphate and lithium difluorobis(oxalate) phosphate (Para. [0099], [0100]) (i.e. the oxalate phosphate complex component contains at least one selected from tetrafluoro(oxalate)phosphate complex component and a difluorobis(oxalate) phosphate complex component).
Regarding Claim 5, Shikita as modified by Nunome et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Shikita does not teach the cyclic imide component contains at least one selected form the group consisting of phthalimide and N-substituted phthalimide.
However, Nunome et al. teaches a lithium primary battery comprising a nonaqueous electrolyte (Para. [0014]) wherein the nonaqueous electrolyte comprises phthalimide (Para. [0052])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the nonaqueous electrolyte of Shikita to incorporate the teaching of phthalimide as taught by Nunome et al., as such an additive allows for reduced degradation of discharge performance (Para. [0051], [0052], [0102]).
Regarding Claim 6, Shikita as modified by Nunome et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Shikita does not teach the cyclic imide component contains phthalimide.
However, Nunome et al. teaches a lithium primary battery comprising a nonaqueous electrolyte (Para. [0014]) wherein the nonaqueous electrolyte comprises phthalimide (Para. [0052])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the nonaqueous electrolyte of Shikita to incorporate the teaching of phthalimide as taught by Nunome et al., as such an additive allows for reduced degradation of discharge performance (Para. [0051], [0052], [0102]).
Regarding Claim 7, Shikita as modified by Nunome et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Since the instant claim is being interpreted as defining the pyrrole without requiring the presence thereof, the presence of the cyclic imide as taught by Nunome et al. (explained in the rejection to claim 1 above not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake) meets the limitations of claim 7.
Regarding Claim 13, Shikita teaches a lithium primary battery having a positive electrode, a negative electrode and non-aqueous electrolytic solution (Para. [0109]) (i.e. a non-aqueous electrolyte of a lithium primary battery that is used in a lithium primary battery that includes a positive electrode, negative electrode and non-aqueous electrolyte) wherein the positive electrode for lithium primary battery includes MnO2 (Para. [0117]) (i.e. the positive electrode contains a positive electrode material mixture that contains LixMnO2- wherein x = 0), and a negative electrode active material includes a lithium metal and a lithium alloy (Para. [0131]) (i.e. the negative electrode contains at least one of metal lithium and a lithium alloy), wherein the nonaqueous electrolyte solution contains 0.3% by mass or more to 2% by mass or less of lithium salt wherein the lithium salt may be selected from lithium tetrafluoro(oxalate)phosphate and lithium difluorobis(oxalate) phosphate (Para. [0099], [0100]) (i.e. the non-aqueous electrolyte contains at least an oxalate phosphate complex component as a second component, the concentration of the second component in the non-aqueous electrolyte is 0.1 mass% or more and 6 mass% or less).
Shikita does not teach the non-aqueous electrolyte solution contains at least one of a cyclic imide and a pyrrole component as a first component, the concentration of the first component in the non-aqueous electrolyte is 0.1 mass% or more and 1 mass% or less.
However, Nunome et al. teaches a lithium primary battery comprising a nonaqueous electrolyte (Para. [0014]) wherein the nonaqueous electrolyte comprises phthalimide added in a ratio of 0.05 mass% to 0.5 mass% (Para. [0052]) (i.e. the non-aqueous electrolyte contains at least a cyclic imide as a first component, the concentration of the first component in the non-aqueous electrolyte is overlapping with the claimed range of 0.1 mass% or more and 1 mass% or less).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the nonaqueous electrolyte of Shikita to incorporate the teaching of phthalimide added in a ratio of 0.05 mass% to 0.5 mass% as taught by Nunome et al., as such an additive allows for reduced degradation of discharge performance (Para. [0051], [0052], [0102]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shikita (US 2015/0372349) in view of Nunome et al. (US 2012/0308901) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakai et al. (WO2018/179935A), cited in the Information Disclosure Statement received March 27, 2023. The U.S. version of Nakai et al. (US 2021/0104725), cited by Applicant, is used as the English translation and is referred to hereinafter as Nakai ‘725.
Regarding Claim 8, Shikita as modified by Nunome et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Shikita further teaches the positive electrode collector may be stainless steel (Para. [0119]).
Shikita does not teach the positive electrode material mixture further contains a sulfate and the amount of sulfur atoms contained in the positive electrode material mixture is 0.05 parts by mass or more and 3 parts by mass or less relative to 100 parts by mass of manganese atoms contained in the positive electrode material mixture.
However, Nakai ‘725 teaches a lithium primary battery containing a nonaqueous electrolyte and a positive electrode containing a positive electrode active material containing manganese dioxide and a sulfate (Para. [0018]) (i.e. wherein the positive electrode material mixture further contains a sulfate) and the amount of sulfur element is 0.05 parts by mass to 2 parts by mass per 100 parts by mass of manganese dioxide (Para. [0038]) (i.e. the amount of sulfur atoms contained in the positive electrode mixture is 0.05 parts by mass or more and 3 parts by mass or less relative to 100 parts by mass of manganese atoms contained in the positive electrode material mixture).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode material mixture of Shikita to incorporate the teaching of the sulfate and amount of sulfur atoms contained in the positive electrode material mixture as taught by Nakai ‘725, as incorporating the sulfate of Nakai ‘725 in such an amount would provide enhanced permeability (Para. [0038]).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shikita (US 2015/0372349) in view of Nunome et al. (US 2012/0308901) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morigaki (US 2011/0195316)
Regarding Claim 9, Shikita as modified by Nunome et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Shikita does not wherein LixMnO2 has a median particle size of 10 micrometers or more and 40 micrometers or less .
However, Morigaki teaches a lithium primary battery comprising a positive electrode including manganese dioxide as a positive electrode active material (Para. [0020]) comprising a non-aqueous electrolyte solution (Para. [0027]) wherein the manganese dioxide has a medium particle size of 20 to 50 micrometers (i.e. a median particle size range overlapping with the claimed range of 10 micrometers or more and 40 micrometers or less).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the manganese dioxide of Shikita to incorporate the teaching of the median particle size as taught by Morigaki as such a particle size provides suppression of the generation of gas (Para. [0074]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 10, Shikita as modified by Nunome et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Shikita does not wherein LixMnO2 has a BET specific surface area of 10 m2/g or more and 40 m2/g or less.
However, Morigaki teaches a lithium primary battery comprising a positive electrode including manganese dioxide as a positive electrode active material (Para. [0020]) comprising a non-aqueous electrolyte solution (Para. [0027]) wherein the manganese dioxide has a BET specific surface area of 8 m2/g to 30 m2/g. (i.e. a BET specific surface area overlapping with the claimed range of 10 m2/g or more and 40 m2/g or less.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the manganese dioxide of Shikita to incorporate the teaching of the BET specific surface area as taught by Morigaki as such a BET specific surface area provides suppression of the generation of gas (Para. [0074]).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shikita (US 2015/0372349) in view of Nunome et al. (US 2012/0308901) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakai et al. (WO2019/181027A), cited in the Information Disclosure Statement received March 24, 2025. The U.S. version of Nakai et al. (US 2021/0020957), cited by Applicant, is used as the English translation and referenced hereinafter as Nakai ‘957 .
Regarding Claim 11, Shikita as modified by Nunome et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Shikita does not teach the positive electrode includes a porous current collector and the positive electrode material mixture filling the current collector, the current collector contains at least one material selected from the group consisting of SUS 444, SUS 430 and SUS 316, and the positive electrode has a thickness of 300 micrometers or more and 900 micrometers or less.
However, Nakai ‘957 teaches a lithium primary battery comprising a positive electrode containing manganese dioxide as positive electrode active material (Para. [0011]) and a positive electrode collector formed from SUS430 expanded metal wherein the positive electrode mixture fills into pores of the expanded metal (Para. [0049]) (i.e. wherein the positive electrode include a porous current collector and the positive electrode material mixture filling the current collector, the current collector contains at least SUS 430) and having a thickness of 0.4 mm (Para. [0049], line 9) (i.e. the positive electrode has a thickness of 400 micrometers, within the claimed range).
The combination of the current collector as taught by Nakai ‘957 as taught by Nakai ‘957 with Shikita would yield the predictable result of providing a positive electrode containing manganese dioxide as active material for a lithium primary battery (see Shikita – Para. [0117] and Nakai ‘957 – Para. [0011]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to combine the current collector as taught by Nakai ‘957 as taught by Nakai ‘957, as the combination would yield the predictable result of providing a positive electrode containing manganese dioxide as active material for a lithium primary battery (see Shikita – Para. [0117] and Nakai ‘957 – Para. [0011]). The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 12, Shikita as modified by Nunome et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Shikita further teaches a negative electrode active material includes a lithium metal and a lithium alloy (Para. [0131]) (i.e. the negative electrode includes metal lithium and a lithium alloy)
Shikita does not teach the negative electrode includes a metal lithium foil or a lithium alloy foil, and has a shape that includes a lengthwise direction and a widthwise direction, and a long piece of tape that includes a resin substrate and an adhesive layer is attached to at least one main surface of the negative electrode along the lengthwise direction.
However, Nakai ‘957 teaches a lithium primary battery comprising a negative electrode including foil composed of metal lithium or a lithium alloy (i.e. the negative electrode includes a metal lithium foil or a lithium alloy foil), a negative electrode has a shape extending in a longitudinal direction and a short direction (Para. [0038] and Fig. 1, #21) (i.e. and has a shape that includes a lengthwise direction and a widthwise direction), and along the longitudinal direction a long tape is adhered including a resin substrate and an adhesive layer on a main surface of the negative electrode (Para. [0012]) (i.e. long piece of tape that includes a resin substrate and an adhesive layer is attached to at least one main surface of the negative electrode along the lengthwise direction).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shikita to incorporate the teaching of the negative electrode and long tape as taught by Nakai ‘957 as it would suppress a dissolution reaction during discharge, thereby causing breakage of the negative electrode to be less likely to occur (Para. [0012]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues there is no rationale which prompts the skilled artisan to derive that the phthalimide in Nunome would benefit the device of Shikita by reducing degradation of discharge performance as Nunome uses the phthalimide to lower the volage in order to use a lithium primary battery as an alternative to a dry battery and that Shikita must contain MnO2 where the voltage is 3 V or higher and thus, there is no motivation without fundamentally changing the principle of operation of Shikita.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is unclear where Nunome teaches the purpose of using phthalimide is to use a lithium primary battery as an alternative to a dry battery. It is also unclear how this would preclude the combination with Shikita or change the principle of operation of Shikita. Shikita does not recite that positive electrode must contain MnO2-. -Cited paragraph [0117] lists MnO2 as a possible positive electrode material, and further lists sulfur compounds as a possible positive electrode material. The iron disulfide positive electrode active material of Nunome is also a sulfur compound. Furthermore, Nunome teaches the negative electrode material is a lithium alloy (Para. [0035]). Shikita teaches the negative electrode active material is a lithium alloy (Para. [0121]). Thus, there is a reasonable expectation of success in incorporating the phthalimide as taught by Nunome with the electrolyte of Shikita and the benefits (i.e. reduced degradation of discharge performance which is the motivation to incorporate the phthalimide) would be expected. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues as there is no disclosure as to film formation by decomposing a cyclic imide on the surface of a 3V range positive electrode and thus, there is not disclosure prompting a skilled artisan to apply phthalimide to Shikita.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. There is no requirement in Shikita that the positive electrode has a 3V range positive electrode. Thus, the modification would not change the principle of operation. Furthermore, there is no proof or evidence that the decomposition of cyclic imide In response to applicant's argument that The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
would not occur. The motivation and reasonable expectation of success have been addressed above. Therefore, 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.
With respect to the arguments regarding the 103 rejections, Applicant argues that the prior art used to render obvious the rejected claims (Nakai ‘935, Morigaki and Nakai ‘027) do not cure the deficiencies of the rejection applied to the independent claim. Applicant does not argue how the combination is not proper. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the obviousness rejections and upholds the rejection to the independent claim, as above.
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 ARMINDO CARVALHO JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-5292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a.m.-5p.m..
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571 272-1481. 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.
/ARMINDO CARVALHO JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights