DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2021-109587, filed June 30th, 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted on December 26th, 2023 and May 4th, 2026 have been received and considered by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
Cited Art
Fukui US PG Publication 2005/0244711 (“Fukui”)
Huang WO2026040412 (“Huang”)
Sawa US PG Publication 2013/0316229 (“Sawa”)
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukui US PG Publication 2005/0244711, as evidenced by Huang WO2026040412.
Regarding Claim 1, Fukui discloses a lithium secondary cell (corresponding to the instantly claimed lithium secondary battery) (Abstract, entire disclosure dependent upon) comprising:
a positive electrode 1 containing a positive electrode [active] material ([0044]) capable of absorbing and releasing lithium ions (Fig. 1, [0046], [0063]);
a negative electrode 2 including a negative electrode current collector 7 (Fig. 1, [0005], [0063]);
a separator 3 disposed between the positive electrode 1 and the negative electrode 2 ([0063]-[0064]); and
a nonaqueous electrolyte comprising an ether solvent having lithium ion conductivity ([0045]), wherein
an oxygen content in the negative electrode current collector is 0 (which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of 50 ppm or less, the skilled artisan recognizing there is no oxygen in copper foil) ([0051]), and
the negative electrode current collector 7 has a tensile strength (breaking strength) of at least 80 N/mm2 (which overlaps the claimed range of 300 MPa or less1, the skilled artisan recognizing that 1 MPa is equivalent to 1 N/mm2) ([0007]) and has a breaking elongation of 1% or more (which encompasses the claimed range of 4% or more1) ([0007]).
The skilled artisan would recognize that the lithium secondary battery of Fukui would at the negative electrode have lithium metal deposit during charging and the lithium metal dissolve during discharging due to the characteristics and properties of lithium metal secondary batteries utilizing lithium metal as the negative electrode material and having ether-based electrolyte solvents – as evidenced by Huang [0187].
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 2, Fukui teaches the instantly claimed lithium secondary battery according to Claim 1, and Fukui discloses wherein the nonaqueous electrolyte contains a nonaqueous solvent ([0045]) and a lithium salt such as LiPF6 dissolved in the nonaqueous solvent ([0045]), and
the nonaqueous solvent contains at least one ether compound (such as 1,2-dimethoxyethane or 1,2-diethoxyethane) in a content of greater than 0% (which encompasses the claimed range of 80 mass% or more1) ([0045]).
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).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukui US PG Publication 2005/0244711, as applied to Claim 1, further in view of Sawa US PG Publication 2013/0316229.
Regarding Claim 3, Fukui teaches the instantly claimed lithium secondary battery according to Claim 1.
While Fukui discloses wherein thickness of the negative electrode current collector 7 is between 10 and 100 µm ([0028]), Fukui fails to disclose a thickness of the separator.
However, Sawa discloses a lithium non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (Abstract, entire disclosure dependent upon) comprising a separator interposed between a positive electrode and a negative electrode ([0439]). Sawa teaches a separator thickness between 1 and 50 µm has excellent insulating characteristics and excellent mechanical strength ([0442]).
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 lithium secondary battery of Fukui such that the separator has a thickness between 1 and 50 µm due such that the separator has excellent insulating characteristics and excellent mechanical strength, as taught by Sawa.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the lithium secondary battery of Fukui in view of Sawa has a ratio Y/X of a thickness Y of the separator (between 1 and 50 µm – Sawa [0442]) to a thickness X of the negative electrode current collector (between 10 and 100 µm – Fukui [0028]) between 0.01 (Y=1, X=100) and 5 (Y=50, X=10) (which overlaps the claimed range of 2.5 or more1).
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).
Conclusion
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 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.
/O.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights