DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the September 10th, 2026 arguments and remarks (“Remarks”).
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 .
Response to Amendments
In response to the amendments received in the Remarks on September 10th, 2026:
Claims 1-2 and 4-7 are pending in the current application. Claim 1 has been amended. Claim 3 has been cancelled. Claims 4-7 are newly added.
All changes made to the rejection are as necessitated by the amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed with the Remarks on September 10th, 2026 with respect to Claims 1-2 and 4-7 are acknowledged, however, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that unexpected results occur when a ratio Y/X of a thickness Y of the separator to a thickness X of the negative electrode current collector is 4.5 or more is not persuasive.
Applicant highlights the data in Table 1 of the instant application for justification of unexpected results for a lithium secondary battery satisfying the claimed range of the ratio Y/X. However, the examples in Table 1 fail to disclose any ratio Y/X with a value greater than 4.5. Therefore, there is no evidence that there are improved discharge capacity characteristics at a ratio Y/X greater than 4.5. For example, a ratio of Y/X of 4.5 could be the most efficient value in terms of discharge capacity and a value such as 4.6 could result in a decrease in discharge capacity. There is no way to know whether this is true or not based on the information as presented.
Therefore, this argument is not persuasive and the rejection of record is maintained. Any modification to the rejection is as necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Interpretation
The limitation “breaking strength,” as seen in at least line 10 of Claim 1 is interpreted to be equivalent to tensile strength. This interpretation is supported by Applicant’s original disclosure, including paragraph [0019] of Applicant’s own PG Publication.
Prior Art
Yamamoto US PG Publication 2016/0285076 (“Yamamoto”)
Zou US PG Publication 2021/0119258 (“Zuo”)
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 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto US PG Publication 2016/0285076.
Regarding Claim 1, Yamamoto discloses a lithium ion secondary battery ([0010], entire disclosure dependent upon), comprising:
a positive electrode containing a positive electrode active material capable of absorbing and releasing lithium ions ([0049]-[0063]);
a negative electrode including a negative electrode current collector ([0038]);
a separator disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode ([0201], [0274]); and
a nonaqueous electrolyte having lithium ion conductivity ([0046], [0196]-[0203]), wherein
at the negative electrode, lithium metal deposits during charging, and the lithium metal dissolves during discharging ([0078], [0084]),
an oxygen content in the negative electrode current collector is 0 ppm (which falls within and therefore anticipates the instantly claimed range of 50 ppm or less, wherein the skilled artisan would recognize that the nickel foil does not contain any oxygen) ([0171]-[0173], [0217]),
the negative electrode current collector has a breaking strength of 150 N/mm2 or more (wherein 150 N/mm2 or more is equivalent or 150 MPa or more, which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 300 MPa or less)1 ([0187]) and has a breaking elongation of 1.50% or more (which encompasses the instantly claimed range of 4% or more) ([0182]-[0183])1, and
a thickness Y of the separator is 20 µm ([0274]) and a thickness X of the negative electrode current collector is 15 µm or less ([0194]).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Yamamoto discloses wherein a ratio Y/X of the thickness Y of the separator to the thickness X of the negative electrode current collector is 1.3 or more (which encompasses the instantly claimed range of 4.5 or more)1.
1 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).
Regarding Claim 6, Yamamoto teaches the instantly claimed lithium secondary battery according to Claim 1, and (as previously described in the rejection of Claim 1) Yamamoto discloses wherein the oxygen content in the negative electrode current collector is 0 ppm (which falls within and therefore anticipates the instantly claimed range of 30 ppm or less) ([0171]-[0173], [0217]), and
The negative electrode current collector has a breaking strength of 150 MPa or more (which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 200 MPa or less)1 and has a breaking elongation of 1.50% or more (which encompasses the instantly claimed range of 10% or more) ([0182]-[0183])1.
1 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).
Regarding Claim 7, Yamamoto teaches the instantly claimed lithium secondary battery according to Claim 1, and (as previously described in the rejection of Claim 1) Yamamoto discloses wherein the oxygen content in the negative electrode current collector is 0 ppm (which falls within and therefore anticipates the instantly claimed range of 15 ppm or less) ([0171]-[0173], [0217]), and
the negative electrode current collector has a breaking strength of 150 MPa or more (which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 50 MPa or more and 150 MPa or less)1 and has a breaking elongation of 1.50% or more (which encompasses the instantly claimed range of 15% or more and 40% or less) ([0182]-[0183])1.
1 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).
Claims 2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto US PG Publication 2016/0285076, as applied to Claim 1, further in view of Zou US PG Publication 2021/0119258.
Regarding Claim 2, Yamamoto teaches the instantly claimed lithium secondary battery according to Claim 1, and Yamamoto discloses wherein the nonaqueous electrolyte contains a nonaqueous solvent ([0197]) and a lithium salt dissolved in the nonaqueous solvent ([0199]-[0202]).
Yamamoto fails to explicitly disclose wherein the nonaqueous solvent contains at least one ether compound in a content of 80 mass% or more2. However, Zou discloses a lithium ion battery including an electrolytic solution (Abstract, entire disclosure dependent upon).
Zou teaches the inclusion of a low viscous solvent comprising 1,2-dimethoxyethane (DME) in a content of 10 to 80 wt% of the electrolytic solution and a wetting agent comprising 1,1,2,2,-tetrafluoroethyl-2,2,2-trifluoroethyl in a content of 0.1 to 10 wt% of the electrolytic solution in order to achieve a desired flow rate and thereby improving the infiltration rate of the electrolytic solution in the positive electrode ([0074]-[0078]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the nonaqueous solvent of Yamamoto to contain 1,2-dimethoxyethane (DME) in a content of 10 to 80 wt% of the electrolytic solution and 1,1,2,2,-tetrafluoroethyl-2,2,2-trifluoroethyl in a content of 0.1 to 10 wt% of the electrolytic solution in order to achieve a desired flow rate and thereby improving the infiltration rate of the electrolytic solution in the positive electrode, as taught by Zou.
1 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).
2 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, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding Claim 4, Yamamoto in view of Zou teaches the instantly claimed lithium secondary battery according to Claim 2, and (as previously described in the rejection of Claim 2) Yamamoto in view of Zou discloses wherein the at least one ether compound includes 1,1,2,2,-tetrafluoroethyl-2,2,2-trifluoroethyl ether (Zou [0074]-[0078]).
Regarding Claim 5, Yamamoto in view of Zou teaches the instantly claimed lithium secondary battery according to Claim 4, and (as previously described in the rejection of Claim 2) Yamamoto in view of Zou discloses wherein the at least one ether compound further includes 1,2-dimethoxyethane (Zou [0074]-[0076]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA MASON MELFI whose telephone number is (703)756-4652. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7am-6pm EST.
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 on (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.
/O.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights