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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/24/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 6/24/2026 does not put the application in condition for allowance.
Examiner withdraws all rejections in the prior office action due to the amendments.
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, 5-7, 9-11, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP2019/164964, Machine Translation) in view of Kobayashi (US Pub No. 2020/0365942)
Regarding Claim 1-4 and 13-14, Tanaka et al. teaches a lithium secondary battery [Fig. 1, 0018], comprising a positive electrode [20, Fig. 1, 0018], and a negative electrode [32, Fig. 1, 0018] not having a negative electrode active material [Fig. 1, the negative electrode 32 and anode active material layer 34 are separate; therefore, the negative electrode does not have a negative electrode material since it is separate from the anode active material layer 34]; wherein the lithium secondary battery comprises a compound have a 1,3,5-triazine ring skeleton [0032-0033, 1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-trithiol].
Tanaka et al. is silent on the compounds in claim 1.
Kobayashi et al. teaches a triazine compound for a lithium battery [2b, formula 5, page 7 top left of page, 0085-0086], the compound is used to provide a nonaqueous electrolyte capable of providing a nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device with reduced direct current resistance and an increased capacity retention ratio after charge-discharge cycles [0007].
Since Tanaka et al. teaches the use of a triazine compound in a battery, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to replace the triazine compound of Tanka et al. with the triazine compound of Kobayashi et al. in order to provide reduced direct current resistance and an increased capacity retention ratio after charge-discharge cycles [0007].
Within the combination above, the following compound is taught:
PNG
media_image1.png
127
191
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, within the combination above, modified Tanaka et al. teaches further comprising a separator or a solid electrolyte which is placed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode [separator 10, Fig. 1, 0058].
Regarding Claim 6, within the combination above, modified Tanaka et al. teaches wherein at least a part of the compound is applied onto at least a part of a surface of the negative electrode facing the positive electrode [0032-0033].
Regarding Claim 7, within the combination above, modified Tanaka et al. teaches further comprising electrolyte solution; wherein the electrolyte solution comprises the compound [0033].
Regarding Claim 9, within the combination above, modified Tanaka et al. teaches wherein the lithium secondary battery is a lithium secondary battery in which charging and discharging are performed by depositing lithium metal on the surface of the negative electrode and electrolytically dissolving the deposited lithium [0070-0072].
Regarding Claim 10, within the combination above, modified Tanaka et al. teaches wherein the negative electrode is an electrode consisting of at least one selected from the group consisting of Cu, Ni, Ti, Fe, and other metals that do not react with Li, alloys thereof, and stainless steel (SUS) [0021].
Regarding Claim 11, within the combination above, modified Tanaka et al. teaches wherein the negative electrode does not have a lithium metal on a surface of the negative electrode before initial charge and/or at an end of discharge [0024-0025, 0070-0072, 0021].
Regarding Claim 12, within the combination above, modified Tanaka et al. is silent on wherein the lithium secondary battery has an energy density of 350 Wh/kg or more.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the battery, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the battery are changed, the precise parameters of the battery would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein the lithium secondary battery has an energy density of 350 Wh/kg or more.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters in the battery of Tanaka et al. to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the 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 223).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP2019/164964, Machine Translation) in view of Kobayashi (US Pub No. 2020/0365942) as applied above in addressing claim 1, in further view of Xu (US Pub No. 2018/0090751)
Regarding Claim 8, within the combination above, modified Tanaka et al. teaches the use of an electrolyte [0059] but is silent on the electrolyte solution of the claim, comprising
Xu et al. teaches the use of HFE as an additive for an electrolyte [0053-0054], which results in better cycle performance of the battery [0074].
Since Tanaka et al. teaches the use of an electrolyte solution [0025, 0059], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention apply the electrolyte additive of Xu et al. with the electrolyte of Tanaka et al. in order to provide a battery with better cycle performance [0074].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, and 5-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL Y SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-0557. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-7PM.
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, MATTHEW MARTIN can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/MICHAEL Y SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights