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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 08/05/2026 is acknowledged.
In light of the search uncovering prior art applicable to species C, D, and F, the species restriction between A, C, D, and F is withdrawn.
Claim 10 is withdrawn because neither the elected nor rejoined species include magnesium alloys having a calcium content from about 0.25 to about 10 weight percent calcium.
Claim 10 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/05/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 and 11-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said positive electrode " in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation will be interpreted as referring to the positive electrode of line 7 of the same claim.
Claims 2-9 and 11-30 are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
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.
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, 6-9, 12, 14, 16-17, 19-20, and 24-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2023/0085771 A1) in view of Oakes (US 2021/0265608 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a lithium-ion battery (1, FIGS. 11-13, [0167]-[0169]) comprising:
(a) a negative electrode (anode 2, FIGS. 11-13, [0167]-[0169]);
(c) a lithium-containing electrolyte ([0162] – [0166]);
(d) a separator (3, FIGS. 11-13, [0167]-[0169]) interposed between said negative electrode (2) and a positive electrode (cathode 4, FIGS. 11-13, [0167]-[0169]), wherein said separator (3) is permeable to lithium ions ([0158]); and
(e) a positive electrode (4).
Lee does not explicitly disclose a negative-electrode current collector in contact with said negative electrode (2), a positive-electrode current collector in contact with said positive electrode (4), or wherein the negative-electrode current collector comprises a magnesium alloy foil containing at least 50 atomic percent magnesium.
However, in the embodiment of FIG. 7, Lee teaches a current collector (200) in contact with an electrode (300) ([0124]). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have used a negative-electrode current collector in contact with said negative electrode and a positive-electrode current collector in contact with said positive electrode because Lee teaches both the negative and positive electrodes of the lithium-ion battery (1) may take the form of the electrode (300) of FIG. 7 ([0125]) and it has been held that combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in the prior art does not require a leap of inventiveness and involves only routine skill in the art.
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would find it obvious to use a magnesium alloy foil for the negative-electrode current collector of Lee because Lee teaches the material forming the electrode current collectors may include a magnesium alloy and may have the form of a foil ([0061]). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art [MPEP § 2144.07].
Oakes teaches an electrode current collector comprising a magnesium alloy containing at least 50 atomic percent magnesium (AZ31B, AZ91C, AM60B, or EV31A series, [0012]; the instant disclosure, see FIGS. 1A, 1C, and 1F, identifies these alloys as comprising at least 50 atomic percent magnesium). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have selected AZ31B, AZ91C, AM60B, or EV31A series magnesium alloys for the magnesium alloy foil of Lee because Oakes teaches the materials are suitable for use as electrode current collectors ([0012]) in lithium ion batteries ([0165]). Further, Lee teaches the battery may be modified beyond the disclosed embodiments ([0032]).
Regarding claim 2, Lee in view of Oakes teaches wherein said negative-electrode current collector (200) consists essentially of said magnesium alloy foil (Lee: collector 200 comprises only metal substrate in FIG. 7, [0061]).
Regarding claim 3, Lee in view of Oakes teaches wherein said magnesium alloy foil has a thickness selected from about 5 µm to about 14 µm (Lee: [0070]), which reads on the claimed range.
Regarding claim 6, Lee in view of Oakes teaches wherein said magnesium alloy foil contains from 50 atomic percent magnesium to 99.8 atomic percent magnesium (Oakes: AZ31B, AZ91C, AM60B, or EV31A series, [0012]; the instant disclosure, see FIGS. 1A, 1C, and 1F, identifies these alloys as comprising at least 50 atomic percent magnesium).
Regarding claim 7, Lee in view of Oakes teaches wherein said magnesium alloy foil further comprises aluminum, copper, manganese, zinc, calcium, zirconium, yttrium, cerium, lanthanum, or a combination thereof (Oakes: AZ31B, AZ91C, AM60B, or EV31A series, [0012]; the instant disclosure indicates these alloys include aluminum, calcium, copper, manganese, zinc, zirconium, and rare earth metals, see FIGS. 1A, 1C, and 1F).
Regarding claim 8, Lee in view of Oakes teaches wherein said magnesium alloy foil further comprises from about 2.5 weight percent to about 9.3 weight percent aluminum (Oakes: AZ31B, AZ91C, AM60B, [0012]; the instant disclosure indicates these alloys respectively comprise 2.5-3.5 weight percent, 8.1-9.3 weight percent, and 5.5-6.5 weight percent aluminum, see FIGS. 1A and 1C), which reads on the claimed range.
Regarding claim 9, Lee in view of Oakes teaches wherein said magnesium alloy foil further comprises from about 0.20 to about 1.4 weight percent zinc, which overlaps the claimed range of “0.25 to about 10 weight percent zinc,” thereby establishing a prima facie case of obviousness [MPEP § 2144.05(I)]. (Oakes: AZ31B, AZ91C, or EV31A series, [0012]; the instant disclosure indicates these alloys respectively comprise 0.6-1.4 weight percent, 0.40-1.0 weight percent, and 0.20-0.50 weight percent zinc, see FIGS. 1A and 1F.)
Regarding claim 12, Lee in view of Oakes teaches wherein said negative-electrode current collector is substantially copper-free (Oakes: AZ31B, AM60B, and EV31A series, [0012]; the instant disclosure, see [0138], states that “substantially copper-free” means less than 0.10 wt% copper, and identifies the listed alloys as respectively containing 0.05, 0.010, and 0.01 wt% copper, see FIGS. 1A, 1C, and 1F).
Regarding claim 14, Lee in view of Oakes teaches wherein said magnesium alloy foil contains a magnesium alloy selected from the group consisting of AZ31B, AZ91C, or AM60B (Oakes: [0012]).
Regarding claim 16, Lee in view of Oakes teaches wherein said magnesium alloy foil has a foil thickness of about 5 µm to about 14 µm (Lee: [0070]), which reads on the claimed range but does not disclose wherein said magnesium alloy foil has an areal capacity from about 2 to about 250 µAh/cm2 when biased at 20 mV vs Li0/Li+ for 12 hours.
However, Lee in view of Oakes is considered to teach wherein said magnesium alloy foil has an areal capacity from about 2 to about 250 µAh/cm2 when biased at 20 mV vs Li0/Li+ for 12 hours because this claim is directed toward a property of the magnesium alloy and Oakes teaches the use of magnesium alloys described in the instant disclosure (AZ31B, AZ91C, AM60B, or EV31A series, [0012]). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established [MPEP § 2112.01].
Regarding claim 17, Lee in view of Oakes is considered to teach wherein said magnesium alloy foil has a bulk electrical resistivity from about 5 to about 25 µΩ-cm because this claim is directed toward an intrinsic property of the magnesium alloy and Oakes teaches the use of magnesium alloys described in the instant disclosure (AZ31B, AZ91C, AM60B, or EV31A series, [0012]). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established [MPEP § 2112.01].
Regarding claim 19, Lee in view of Oakes does not disclose wherein said magnesium alloy foil has an elongation to fracture greater than 0.5%, but is considered to teach this limitation because it is directed toward an intrinsic property of the magnesium alloy and Oakes teaches the use of magnesium alloys described in the instant disclosure (AZ31B, AZ91C, AM60B, or EV31A series, [0012]). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established [MPEP § 2112.01].
Regarding claim 20, Lee in view of Oakes teaches (see Lee) wherein said lithium-ion battery (1) comprises an electrode/separator stack (assembly 7, FIGS. 11-13, [0167]-[0169]) containing said negative electrode (2), said separator (4), and said positive electrode (3).
Regarding claim 24, Lee in view of Oakes does not disclose wherein said positive-electrode current collector comprises a second magnesium alloy foil, and wherein said second magnesium alloy foil contains at least 50 atomic percent magnesium.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have formed the positive electrode current collector of a second magnesium alloy foil, and wherein said second magnesium alloy foil contains at least 50 atomic percent magnesium, because Lee teaches both the positive and negative electrodes of the lithium ion battery can be formed in the same manner ([0125]). Further, Lee teaches the battery may be modified beyond the disclosed embodiments ([0032]).
Regarding claim 25, Lee in view of Oakes does not disclose wherein said second magnesium alloy foil is compositionally the same as said magnesium alloy foil.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have formed the positive electrode current collector of a second magnesium alloy foil, and wherein said second magnesium alloy foil contains at least 50 atomic percent magnesium, because Lee teaches both the positive and negative electrodes of the lithium ion battery can be formed in the same manner ([0125]). Further, Lee teaches the battery may be modified beyond the disclosed embodiments ([0032]).
Regarding claim 26, Lee in view of Oakes teaches a sealed lithium-ion battery comprising said lithium-ion battery (1) of claim 1, wherein said sealed lithium-ion battery further comprises a battery casing (5, FIGS. 11-13, [0167]-[0170]) that sealably encloses said lithium-ion battery from the environment.
Regarding claim 27, Lee in view of Oakes teaches wherein said negative electrode comprises graphite, silicon, metallic lithium, or a combination thereof (Lee: [0100]).
Regarding claim 28, Lee in view of Oakes teaches wherein negative electrode material is mixed in a solvent and deposited onto said magnesium alloy foil (Lee: either electrode may be prepared by a wet process: [0156]).
Regarding claim 29, Lee in view of Oakes teaches wherein negative electrode material is deposited via a dry process (Lee: either electrode may be prepared by dry process described at [0134], [0156]).
Regarding claim 30, Lee in view of Oakes teaches (see Lee) wherein said electrolyte is a liquid ([0163]) or a solid ([0166]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2023/0085771 A1) and Oakes (US 2021/0265608 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fujimoto (US 7,195,842 B1).
Regarding claim 4, Lee in view of Oakes does not disclose wherein said magnesium alloy foil has an average roughness Ra selected from about 0.05 µm to about 2 µm.
Fujimoto teaches a lithium battery comprising a foil current collector (C1 L45-60, C3 L61-62), wherein said collector has an average roughness Ra selected from about 0.05 µm to about 0.5 µm (C2 L20-25). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have used a magnesium alloy foil having an average roughness Ra selected from about 0.05 µm to about 0.5 µm for the current collector of Lee in view of Oakes because Fujimoto teaches a foil having an average roughness Ra in this range has improved adhesion with active material (C12 L60-64). Further, Lee teaches the battery may be modified beyond the disclosed embodiments ([0032]).
.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2023/0085771 A1) and Oakes (US 2021/0265608 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suzuki (US 2014/0017564 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Lee in view of Oakes does not disclose wherein said magnesium alloy foil has a surface roughness Rz selected from about 0.25 µm to about 3 µm.
Suzuki teaches a lithium-ion battery comprising a negative-electrode current collector ([0001]), wherein said collector has a surface roughness Rz selected from about 0.8 to 2.8 μm ([0088]). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have optimized the surface roughness Rz of the magnesium alloy foil of Lee in view of Oakes, including to a range corresponding to from about 0.25 µm to about 3 µm, because Suzuki teaches the surface roughness should be high enough to reduce peeling between the active material and the current collector, but not so high as to decrease the capacity retention ratio of the battery ([0087]-[0088]). It has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art ([MPEP § 2144.05(II)A]). Further, Lee teaches the battery may be modified beyond the disclosed embodiments ([0032]).
Claims 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2023/0085771 A1) and Oakes (US 2021/0265608 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hong (CN-114843439-A; a machine translation is attached and referenced below).
Regarding claim 11, Lee in view of Oakes does not disclose wherein said magnesium alloy foil further comprises from about 1 to about 20 weight percent lithium.
Hong teaches a lithium-ion battery ([0030]) comprising a negative-electrode current collector, wherein said negative-electrode current collector comprises a magnesium alloy foil ([0007]), wherein said magnesium alloy foil further comprises from about 1 to about 20 weight percent lithium (overlapping range of 2% to 30%, [0018]). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have modified the battery of Lee in view of Oakes by adding about 1 to about 20 weight percent lithium to the magnesium alloy foil because Hong teaches doing so can improve plasticity, reduce density, and ensure the stability of the foil ([0018]). Further, Lee teaches the battery may be modified beyond the disclosed embodiments ([0032]).
Regarding claim 18, Lee in view of Oakes does not disclose wherein said magnesium alloy foil has an ultimate tensile strength greater than 150 MPa.
Hong teaches a lithium-ion battery ([0030]) comprising a negative-electrode current collector, wherein said negative-electrode current collector comprises a magnesium alloy foil ([0007]), wherein said magnesium alloy foil has an ultimate tensile strength greater than 150 MPa (200 MPa to 450 MPa, [0021]). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have used a magnesium alloy foil having an ultimate tensile strength of 200 MPa to 450 MPa, which reads on the claimed range of “greater than 150 MPa,” because Hong teaches the collector should have high mechanical properties to provide stable support for negative electrode active material, ensure its structural integrity, and prevent electrode breakage, pulverization, wrinkling, etc ([0021]). Further, Lee teaches the battery may be modified beyond the disclosed embodiments ([0032]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2023/0085771 A1) and Oakes (US 2021/0265608 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xiao (US 2022/0131126 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Lee in view of Oakes is silent as to whether said lithium-ion battery is substantially copper-free.
Xiao teaches a lithium-ion battery which is substantially copper free ([0034]). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have formed the lithium-ion battery of Lee in view of Oakes to be substantially copper-free because Xiao teaches that doing so simplifies the battery manufacturing process and lowers costs ([0034]). Further, Lee teaches the battery may be modified beyond the disclosed embodiments ([0032]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2023/0085771 A1) and Oakes (US 2021/0265608 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yushin (US 2019/0123339 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Lee in view of Oakes does not disclose wherein said magnesium alloy foil is a rolled foil.
Yushin teaches a lithium-ion battery comprising a negative-electrode current collector ([0118]), wherein said foil is a rolled foil ([0120]). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have selected a rolled foil for the magnesium alloy foil of Lee in view of Oakes because Yushin teaches that foils produced by rolling exhibit higher strength, higher fracture toughness, and better fatigue resistance ([0120]). Further, Lee teaches the battery may be modified beyond the disclosed embodiments ([0032]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2023/0085771 A1) and Oakes (US 2021/0265608 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen (US 2022/0328938 A1, cited in the IDS filed 07/30/2026).
Regarding claim 21, Lee in view of Oakes teaches (see Lee) wherein said negative-electrode current collector (200) is joined to a conductive metal body (tab TB, FIG. 7, [0124]), but does not disclose wherein the collector and body are joined via ultrasonic welding, laser welding, or an adhesive, or wherein said negative-electrode current collector is mechanically joined to said conductive metal body.
Chen teaches a negative-electrode current collector joined to a tab ([0026]) via laser welding ([0014]). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have used laser welding to join the electrode current collector to the conductive metal body of Lee in view of Oakes because Chen teaches doing so forms an electrical and mechanical connection between the battery members ([0026]). Further, Lee teaches the battery may be modified beyond the disclosed embodiments ([0032]).
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2023/0085771 A1) and Oakes (US 2021/0265608 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Saruwatari (US 2011/0053004 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Lee in view of Oakes teaches wherein said negative-electrode current collector is joined to a body (tab TB, FIG. 7, [0124]) but does not disclose wherein the body material comprises an additional magnesium alloy.
Saruwatari teaches a negative-electrode current collector (3a, FIG. 2, [0078]) joined to a body material comprising a magnesium alloy (negative electrode tab 18, FIG. 1, [0078]; aluminum alloy comprising magnesium, [0080]). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have used an additional magnesium alloy to prepare the body of Lee in view of Oakes because Saruwatari teaches it is preferable that the negative electrode tab comprises a material similar to that of the negative electrode current collector so as to decrease the contact resistance against the negative electrode current collector ([0080]). Further, Lee teaches the battery may be modified beyond the disclosed embodiments ([0032]).
Regarding claim 23, Lee in view of Oakes teaches wherein said negative-electrode current collector is joined to a body material (tab TB, FIG. 7, [0124]) but does not disclose wherein the body material comprises aluminum, an aluminum alloy, iron, steel, stainless steel, nickel, copper, zinc, a zinc alloy, or a combination thereof.
Saruwatari teaches a negative-electrode current collector (3a, FIG. 2, [0078]) joined to a body material comprising an aluminum alloy, which can comprise iron, copper, and zinc (negative electrode tab 18, FIG. 1, [0078]; negative electrode tab is prepared using aluminum alloy which can further comprise iron, copper, and zinc, [0080]). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have used an aluminum alloy comprising iron, copper, and or zinc to prepare the body of Lee in view of Oakes because Saruwatari teaches these materials are suitable to form electrode tabs ([0080]). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art [MPEP § 2144.07]. Further, Lee teaches the battery may be modified beyond the disclosed embodiments ([0032]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE C. DISNEY whose telephone number is (703)756-1076. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30 MT.
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, Tiffany Legette-Thompson can be reached at (571) 270-7078. 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.
/C.C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights