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 .
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 December 26, 2023 and January 29, 2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yoshimura, et al. (US 2004/0142247 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshimura teaches a lithium secondary battery including a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a nonaqueous electrolyte (¶ [0010], Ln. 1-3). Yoshimura teaches that the negative electrode includes a lithium-aluminum-manganese alloy in which lithium is occluded and released in an aluminum-manganese alloy (lithium metal deposits during charging and dissolves during discharging) (¶ [0010], Ln. 4-6). Yoshimura teaches that the positive electrode includes a positive electrode material and that LiMn2O4 having a spinel structure or a lithium-manganese composite oxide including boron is preferred (capable of absorbing and releasing lithium ions) (¶ [0028], Ln. 9-13). Specifically, in Example A1, a coin shaped lithium secondary battery is assembled by preparing a positive electrode including a LiMn2O4 active material (¶ [0036], Ln. 1-2), preparing a negative electrode including a lithium-aluminum-manganese alloy (¶ [0038], Ln. 8-10), and a nonaqueous electrolyte prepared by dissolving lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonimide) in a mixture of propylene carbonate and diethylene glycol dimethyl ether (having lithium ion conductivity) (¶ [0040], Ln. 1-7). The positive electrode is mounted on a positive electrode current collector, the negative electrode is mounted on a stainless steel (SUS304) (austenitic stainless steel) current collector, and a separator impregnated with the nonaqueous electrolyte is placed between the positive electrode and negative electrode (¶ [0042], Ln. 1-8).
Regarding claim 2, Yoshimura teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, including a negative electrode current collector of stainless steel (SUS304) (¶ [0042], Ln. 3-5). Thus, the negative electrode current collector has a breaking strength of 850 MPa or less and a breaking elongation of 3% or more.
Regarding claim 3, Yoshimura teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches the use of a polyethylene glycol dialkyl ether (¶ [0025], Ln. 1-2), which may be combined with a cyclic carbonate in a range of 0.1-20 weight % cyclic carbonate for the electrolyte (contains at least one ether component in a content of 80 mass% or more) (¶ [0026], Ln. 6-8). Yoshimura teaches several lithium salts that may be dissolved in the nonaqueous electrolyte, including lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonimide) (¶ [0027], Ln. 1-9). Specifically, the electrolyte of Example A1 includes lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonimide) dissolved in a solvent including 99% by volume diethylene glycol dimethyl ether and 1% by volume propylene carbonate (¶ [0040], Ln. 1-5).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshimura, et al. (US 2004/0142247 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tazoe (US 2018/0287133 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Yoshimura teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. In looking to Figure 1 of Yoshimura, the separator (3) is substantially thicker than the negative electrode current collector (6), however, Yoshimura does not expressly teach the thicknesses of any layer in the battery and thus does not expressly teach that the ratio of Y/X, wherein Y is the separator thickness and X is the negative electrode current collector thickness, is 2.5 or more.
Tazoe teaches a non-aqueous secondary battery with an electrode mixture provided on one or both sides of a current collector, wherein the current collector is made of austenitic stainless steel and has a thickness of 1 to 12 µm (¶ [0015], Ln. 1-10). Tazoe teaches that when the thickness of the current collector is reduced to 1 to 12 µm, the current collector can sufficiently mitigate the pressing force applied thereto during the punching or cutting of the electrode, suppressing separation between the electrode mixture layer and the current collector (¶ [0032], Ln. 1-7). Specifically, Tazoe teaches a negative electrode current collector constituted by an SUS316L foil having a thickness of 5 µm in Example 1 (¶ [0083], Ln. 7-11). Tazoe further teaches that a separator is disposed between the positive electrode and negative electrode of the battery which is constituted by a microporous membrane (¶ [0072], Ln. 1-2; Fig. 4). Tazoe teaches that the thickness of the separator is preferably 5 to 25 µm (¶ [0074], Ln. 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the current collector of Yoshimura to have a reduced thickness, such as 5 µm, based on the teachings of Tazoe. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include the current collector with this thickness in order to suppress separation between the electrode mixture layer and the current collector. Additionally, one would find it obvious to modify the separator of Yoshimura to have a thickness within the range of 5 to 25 µm, based on the teachings of Tazoe. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to include a separator with a large enough thickness to effectively separate the positive and negative electrode layers, and thus, would be motivated to include a separator with a thickness on the higher end of the range taught by Tazoe. Additionally, provided the Figure taught by Yoshimura, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to select a separator thickness larger than the current collector thickness. Based on the current collector thickness of 5 µm, a separator thickness greater than 12.5 µm meets the claim limitation of having a ratio of Y/X of 2.5 or more. Thus, the combination of references teaches overlapping ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH J JACOBSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291.
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.
/SARAH J JACOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/MARK RUTHKOSKY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights