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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-12) in the reply filed on August 18, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on August 18, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son et al. (US 2019/0067702).
Regarding Claim 1, Son et al. teaches a method for manufacturing a lithium secondary battery (Para. [0002]) comprising a positive electrode (Fig. 1, #10), a negative electrode current collector (Fig. 1, #21) and a separator (Fig. 1, #30) wherein the negative electrode mixture is separated from the negative electrode current collector and located between the positive electrode mixture and separator (Para. [0020]) (i.e. a positive electrode, a negative electrode not having a negative-electrode active material and a separator) comprising a polymer protective layer comprising an ion conductive polymer and a solvent (Para. [0030]) (i.e. a gel electrolyte) formed between the negative electrode current collector and the separator (Para. [0026]) (i.e. applying a gel electrolyte to one of the surfaces of the separator, forming the negative electrode on the surface of the gel electrolyte) wherein the polymer protective layer has a thickness of 0.01 to 50 micrometers (Para. [0029]) and the negative electrode current collector has a thickness of 3 micrometers to 500 micrometers (Para. [0036]). Regarding the negative electrode being thinner than the gel electrolyte, this would be obvious as this limitation is choosing from a finite number of solutions (in this case, choosing from the negative electrode being: a. thinner, b. thicker or c. the same thickness) from the thickness ranges taught by Son et al.. An "obvious to try" rationale may support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious where one skilled in the art is choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. " [A] person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. See MPEP § 2143(I)(E).
Regarding Claim 2, Son et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Son et al. further teaches the negative electrode current collector has a thickness of 3 micrometers to 500 micrometers (Para. [0036]) (i.e. overlapping with the claimed negative electrode thickness of 0.5 micrometers or more and 6.0 micrometers or less). 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, Son et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Son et al. further teaches the lithium ion conductive polymer may be polyethylene oxide, polyvinylidene fluoride, PVDF-HFP (i.e. vinylidene fluoride/hexafluoropropylene copolymer) (Para. [0028]).
Regarding Claim 5, Son et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Son et al. further teaches the polymer protective layer has a thickness of 0.01 micrometers to 50 micrometers (Para. [0029]) (i.e. the gel electrolyte has a thickness overlapping with the claimed range of 6 micrometers or more and 15 micrometers or less). 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 12, Son et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Son et al. teaches the same method of manufacturing a lithium secondary battery and the method’s structure as claimed as explained above. Accordingly, the energy density of Son et al. would either (a) be expected to satisfy an energy density of 500 Wh/kg or more or (b) differences in the energy density set forth in the instant claim, having an energy density of Wh/kg or more would be slight differences in ranges that would be obvious. With respect to (a): The reasons regarding expectedness are that the structure is identical to that of the instant claim, therefore it is expected that the lithium secondary battery of Son et al. would satisfy these conditions. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." See MPEP 2112.01. With respect to (b): If it is shown that such characteristics are not present, then any differences (regarding the energy density) would be small and obvious. 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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son et al. (US 2019/0067702) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Watabe et al. (US 2018/0079872).
Regarding Claim 4, Son et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Son et al. does not teach the gel electrolyte comprises as a solvent a compound having at least one monovalent group represented by formula A and B as claimed.
However, Watabe et al. teaches forming a polymer electrolyte membrane with fluorinated solvent (Para. [0054]) such as 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl-2,2,2-trifluoroethyl ether (Para. [0051]) (i.e. a gel electrolyte as a solvent comprises a compound having a monovalent group represented by formula A as claimed).
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 polymer protective layer of Son et al. to incorporate the teaching of the fluorinated solvent as taught by Watabe et al., as such a solvent makes cracking less likely to occur (Para. [0051]).
Claims 6-7 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son et al. (US 2019/0067702) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Affinito et al. (US 2011/0068001).
Regarding Claim 6, Son et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Son et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the step of forming the negative electrode comprises a step of attaching a negative electrode material having release paper to the surface of the gel electrolyte and a step of removing the release paper.
However, Affinito et al. teaches fabricating an electrode using a release layer to separate portions of the electrode from a carrier substrate which can then be removed from the electrode during or after assembly of the electrode into an electrochemical cell (Para. [0019]) wherein the release paper may be positioned on a current collector, then any protective layers can be positioned on the release layer then the release layer and carrier substrate are removed (Para. [0028]) (i.e. forming the negative electrode via a step of attaching the negative electrode material having release paper to the surface of a protective layer and a step of removing the release paper).
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 step of forming the negative electrode and gel electrolyte of Son et al. to incorporate the teaching of using a release paper method as taught by Affinito et al. as such a method allows for more extreme processing conditions and reduces that the number of adverse reactions that may occur in a cell (Para. [0019]).
Regarding Claim 7, Son et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Son et al. does not explicitly teach the step of forming the negative electrode is a step of forming the negative electrode on the surface of the gel electrolyte by a vapor deposition method or plating.
However, Affinito et al. teaches a current collector may be positioned on a surface by vapor deposition (i.e. vapor deposition method) (Para. [0111]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the method of forming the negative electrode on the surface of the gel electrolyte as taught by Son et al. with the teaching of vapor deposition as taught by Son et al., as substituting such a method would achieve the predictable result of forming a negative electrode current collector (see Affinito et al. – Para. [0011]). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding Claim 10, Son et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Son et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the step of forming the positive electrode current collector comprises a step of attaching a positive electrode current collector material having release paper to the surface of the gel electrolyte and a step of removing the release paper.
However, Affinito et al. teaches fabricating an electrode using a release layer to separate portions of the electrode from a carrier substrate which can then be removed from the electrode during or after assembly of the electrode into an electrochemical cell (Para. [0019]) wherein the release paper may be positioned on a current collector, then any protective layers can be positioned on the release layer then the release layer and carrier substrate are removed (Para. [0028]) (i.e. forming the negative electrode via a step of attaching the negative electrode material having release paper to the surface of a protective layer and a step of removing the release paper).
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 step of forming the positive electrode current collector of Son et al. to incorporate the teaching of using a release paper method as taught by Affinito et al. as such a method allows for more extreme processing conditions and reduces that the number of adverse reactions that may occur in a cell (Para. [0019]).
Regarding Claim 11, Son et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 9 as explained above.
Son et al. does not explicitly teach the step of forming the negative electrode is a step of forming the negative electrode on the surface of the gel electrolyte by a vapor deposition method or plating.
However, Affinito et al. teaches a current collector may be positioned on a surface by vapor deposition (i.e. vapor deposition method) (Para. [0111]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the method of forming the negative electrode on the surface of the gel electrolyte as taught by Son et al. with the teaching of vapor deposition as taught by Affinito et al., as substituting such a method would achieve the predictable result of forming a negative electrode current collector (see Affinito et al. – Para. [0011]). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son et al. (US 2019/0067702) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hirama et al. (US 2018/0159120).
Regarding Claim 8, Son et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Son et al. does not teach a step of applying a positive electrode material containing the gel electrolyte to the other surface of the separator to form the positive electrode.
However, Hirama et al. teaches manufacturing a lithium ion secondary battery (Para. [0133]) wherein the positive electrode and negative electrode in which a gel electrolyte layer was formed on both surfaces thereof, and the separator were laminated in the order of the positive electrode, the separator and the negative electrode (Para. [0226]) (i.e. a step of applying a positive electrode material containing gel electrolyte to the other surface of the separator to form the positive electrode).
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 to incorporate the teaching of applying a positive electrode material containing the gel electrolyte to the other surface of the separator as such a structure provides high ion conductivity (Para. [0149]).
Regarding Claim 9, Son et al. as modified by Hirama et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 8 as explained above.
Son et al. further teaches the positive electrode current collector is the same as described in the negative electrode current collector (Para. [0041]) and the negative electrode current collector has a thickness of 3 micrometers to 500 micrometers (Para. [0036]) (i.e. overlapping with the claimed positive electrode thickness of 1.0 micrometers or more and 6.0 micrometers or less). 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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son et al. (US 2019/0067702) in view of Hirama et al. (US 2018/0159120) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Affinito et al. (US 2011/0068001).
Regarding Claim 11, Son et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 9 as explained above.
Son et al. does not explicitly teach the step of forming the positive electrode current collector is a step of forming the positive electrode current collector on the surface of the positive electrode by a vapor deposition method or plating.
However, Affinito et al. teaches a current collector may be positioned on a surface by vapor deposition (i.e. vapor deposition method) (Para. [0111]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the method of forming the negative electrode on the surface of the gel electrolyte as taught by Son et al. with the teaching of vapor deposition as taught by Affinito et al., as substituting such a method would achieve the predictable result of forming a positive electrode current collector (see Affinito et al. – Para. [0011]). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Conclusion
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