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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 16 January 2024 and 02 April 2025 were considered by the examiner.
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, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2016/0013517 (Nakazawa et al.) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2024/0128555 (Kim et al.).
In regards to claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 3, and 5, Nakazawa et al. is directed to a non-aqueous electrolyte solution and a secondary battery using the same solution (Abstract). The embodiment described of the battery comprising of a positive electrode and negative electrode (¶0019) with a separator disposed between them (¶0439). The solution is disclosed to contain an electrolyte, non-aqueous solvent, and at least one compound selected from a group of a compound having a fluorosulfonyl structure, and others (¶0045). The concentration of the fluorosulfonate as the additive compound is generally 0.001% by mass and generally 10% mass or less (¶0057). The embodiment of the disclosed battery uses a carbonaceous material as the negative electrode material and is taught to have a BET specific surface area of most preferably 1.5 m2/g or more and 10 m2/g (¶0328). The carbonaceous particles are disclosed to have a circulatory, degree of the sphere, is preferably 0.85 or more and especially preferably 0.9 or more (¶0333). The ranges considered are overlapping with the claimed limitations of the BET specific and average sphericity of the negative electrode active material layer claimed in claim 1 and claim 5. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). The battery structure taught is disclosed to either be an electrode group of a stacked structure or being spirally wound (¶0450).
While Nakazawa gives the general structure of the battery and the electrolyte solution it does not explicitly set forth the specific measurements of the electrode assembly structure particularly the width.
In the same field of endeavor of secondary batteries Kim et al. discloses a secondary battery that can be containing an electrode assembly in a rectangular shape (¶0017) or an assembly that is wound along a winding axis (¶0018). The size of the electrode assembly satisfies conditions to increase frictional force suppressing separation of the assembly (¶0007). The electrode assembly is described as having a width of 40 mm to 200 mm (¶0025). Where the width can be defined by the electrode assembly being wound along a winding axis parallel to the width (¶0018).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized the electrolyte solution and general battery structure of Nakazawa et al. with the electrode assembly of Kim et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the desire and expectation of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, including utilizing an electrode assembly sized specifically to improve function of the battery.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakazawa in view of Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2026/0024802 (Hong et al.).
As set forth above, Nakazawa et al. in view of Kim et al. teaches the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery. However, Nakazawa et al. in view of Kim et al. does not teach the average particle size of the negative electrode active material being 10 µm or more and 30 µm or less.
In the same field of endeavor of secondary batteries, Hong et al. is directed to a lithium secondary battery where the difference in width can be adjusted to improve performance (Abstract). The exemplary embodiment of the battery uses a silicon-based material for the negative electrode (¶0007). The silicon-based active material is described to have a D50, average particle diameter, of 4.5 µm to 11 µm (¶0061) which overlaps with the claimed range of the 10 µm or more. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DREW E. HALES whose telephone number is (571)270-5710. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (572) 272-0604. 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.
/D.E.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1784
/HUMERA N. SHEIKH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights