DETAILED ACTION
The applicant’s amendment filed on June 24, 2026 was received. Claim 18 was amended.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office 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 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.
Claims 1, 2 and 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (hereinafter “Li”) (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0152964 A1, already of record) in view of Saruwatari et al. (hereinafter “Saruwatari”) (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0141323 A1, already of record).
Regarding claims 1, 2 and 14-16, Li teaches a lithium-ion secondary battery comprising a positive electrode plate, a negative electrode plate, a separator, and an electrolyte (see paragraph 36).
The positive electrode plate comprises a positive electrode current collector and a positive active material layer disposed on at least one surface of the positive electrode current collector (see paragraph 38). The positive electrode current collector may comprise aluminum (see paragraph 52). A compact density of the positive active material layer is preferably from 3.1 g/cm3 to 3.65 g/cm3 (P2) (see paragraph 49).
The negative electrode plate comprises a negative electrode current collector and a negative active material layer disposed on at least one surface of the negative electrode current collector (see paragraph 14). The negative electrode current collector may comprise copper (see paragraph 34). A compact density of the negative active material layer is preferably from 1.5 g/cm3 to 1.75 g/cm3 (P1) (see paragraph 26).
The electrolyte comprises a lithium salt and a solvent (see paragraph 54). The electrolyte further contains a fluorine-containing lithium salt type additive (see paragraph 63). As the fluorine-containing lithium salt type additive, lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate (compound of Formula 1; both X and Y represent a fluorine atom; H4) may be used (see paragraph 64). The mass percentage of the fluorine-containing lithium salt type additive in the electrolyte is from 0.05 wt % to 1.5 wt % (A1) (see paragraph 65).
Li is silent as to a thickness of the negative electrode current collector.
Saruwatari teaches that it is known to utilize metal foil current collectors in the positive and negative electrodes of a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery, wherein the metal foil current collectors have a thickness of 15 µm or less (H1) (see paragraphs 21, 32 and 36). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See 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); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2144.05). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized metal foils of the thickness taught by Saruwatari in the secondary battery of Li because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
In the combination of Li and Saruwatari, a ratio of A1/H1 is 0.1 or less. A ratio of P1/A1 is from 1.0 to 35.
Regarding claims 6-9, Li teaches that as the lithium salt, one or more from among lithium hexafluorophosphate, lithium tetrafluoroborate, lithium perchlorate, lithium hexafluoroarsenate, lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide, and lithium difluorophosphate may be used (see paragraph 55).
Regarding claims 10-12, Li teaches that the solvent may comprise one or more of ethylene carbonate and propylene carbonate (see paragraph 56). The electrolyte may further contain a negative-electrode film-forming additive comprising one or more of vinylene carbonate, vinyl ethylene carbonate, and fluoroethylene carbonate (see paragraphs 60 and 61).
Regarding claim 13, Li teaches that the electrolyte may further comprise, as an additive, tris(trimethylsilyl)phosphate (see paragraph 67).
Regarding claims 17-20, it is well known in the art to provide a plurality of individual battery cells within a single battery module, and to further provide a plurality of modules within a single battery pack, particularly when utilizing batteries to provide power to electric tools and vehicles.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li and Saruwatari as applied to claims 1, 2 and 6-20 above, and further in view of Inoue et al. (hereinafter “Inoue”) (JP 2009-048876 A; see English machine translation already of record).
Regarding claims 3-5, Li and Saruwatari are silent as to an elongation at break of the positive electrode current collector.
Inoue teaches that an aluminum foil current collector for the positive electrode of a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery having a thickness of 12 µm (H2) may be 1.4% (Q) (see paragraphs 65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have utilized the aluminum foil current collector of Inoue in the secondary battery of Li because Inoue teaches that by maintaining the elongation and tensile strength of the positive electrode current collector above a specific value, cracks and breakage of the positive electrode current collector due to expansion of the positive electrode mixture layer during charging can be prevented (see paragraph 5).
In the combination of Li and Saruwatari with Inoue, a ratio of A1/H2 is approximately 0.004 to 0.125. A value of Q+A1 is from 1.45 to 2.9. A ratio of P2/A1 is approximately 2.07 to 73.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principal arguments are as follows:
The combination of Li and Saruwatari do not recognize the unexpected results when A1/H1 is 0.003 to 0.4, as evidenced by paragraphs [00191] to [00193] of the instant application.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, please consider the following comments:
It is noted that with respect to showings of unexpected results, objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support. In this case, the Examples of Applicant’s invention discussed in paragraphs [00191] to [00193] correspond to a non-aqueous electrolyte that is prepared only with the compound H4. Claim 1, on the other hand, encompasses a great many compounds which are distinct from compound H4. As such, the evidence provided in paragraphs [00191] to [00193] is not commensurate in scope with claim 1.
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 STEPHAN J ESSEX whose telephone number is (571)270-7866. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571) 272-1330. 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.
/STEPHAN J ESSEX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights