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 Amendment
This is a final Office action in response to Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed on 05/05/2026. Claims 1 and 7 are amended. Claim 10 is new. Claims 1 – 10 are pending in the current Office action.
The claim objections set forth in the previous Office action are withdrawn.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection set forth in the previous Office action is maintained for claims 1 – 6 and 8 – 10. A new grounds of rejection, necessitated by applicant’s amendments to claim 7, is also established below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, applicant argues that although Martin discloses that the protection layer may penetrate into the active material layer, it does not teach/or suggest the extent of such penetration at all, and applicant point to Fig. 4b showing as such. Applicant further argues that Martin’s conventional approach of having maximum electrode porosity prior to coating simply fails to teach/suggest the claimed amount of atomic layer deposition coating layer of the lowermost positive electrode active material layer to an amount of the atomic layer deposition coating layer of the uppermost positive electrode active material layer being in a range of 40 wt% to less than 100 wt% and from greater than 100 wt% to 120 wt%.
In response to applicant's arguments against the Martin individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The examiner respectfully reminds applicant that the claimed amount of atomic layer deposition coating layer was rejection based on Martin, Gaben, and Kim 2 and that Fig. 4a-4b is also only representative of an embodiment in Martin and not fully what Martin generally teaches which is a penetrating ALD coating in [0062];[0081 – 0083]. The examiner further notes that the claimed invention is directed to a product and not a method of making; therefore, applicant’s arguments regarding Martin’s conventional ALD coating method is not fully persuasive due to being incommensurate with the claimed scope and further in light of applicant’s arguments regarding the method of Comparative Example 2. That is, as argued by the applicant (see pg. 8), Comparative Example 2, shows that ALD coating a low porosity electrode makes it difficult to achieve adequate penetration but Martin, as acknowledged by the applicant teaches having a maximum porosity prior to coating, and thus achieves, as established in the in the rejection and the previous Office action, some level of penetration of the ALD coating in the electrode.
Applicant further argues that there is no combination to combine Gaben with Martin because Gaben teaches that ALD deposition is not performed in environments where binder is used. (see pg. 9).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Gaben was further relied upon to render obvious including more coating on collector/lower sections of active material layer in Martin. Specifically Gaben teaches a benefit of including ALD coating material closer/in the region closest to the collector of an electrode and, as Martin is directed to an ALD coated positive electrode active material layer where the coating layer penetrates the active material layer in a thickness direction, Gaben’s taught benefit of allowing for both effective blocking of electrochemical reactions of dissolution and protection against corrosion without prevent the passage of electrons (Gaben: [0154 – 0157]), appears applicable to Martin, and thus the rejection made in view of Gaben still appears proper per MPEP 2123(I). Examiner further respectfully reminds applicant, in response to applicant’s arguments regarding Gaben teaching performing ALD in environments without binder, that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant further argues that since Kim II relates to a structurally distinct component of a separator and not to a cathode active material layer and the purpose and effects of ALD coating are different {i.e. Kim 2 teaches coating to one-half of the total thickness whereas claim 1 is with respect to the entire active material thickness Kim II: [0016 – 0019]}, Kim II does not teach/suggest the amount of oxide layer formed in the lower most layer and a PHOSTA would not be motivated to apply Kim II to Martin.
Examiner acknowledges that Kim II teaches an ALD coating depth to only ½ the thickness of a porous separator body; however, the examiner respectfully notes that Kim II was relied upon for providing/suggesting a motivation for controlling the thickness of a protective inorganic oxide ALD coating along the thickness of a porous structure used in a battery {i.e. To ensure that the effects of the coating are maximized without sacrificing ion mobility} and thus further support to the rejection made in view of Martin and Gaben. That is, coating thickness corresponds to coating amount and as such Kim suggests a reason to optimize amount of coating throughout thickness when coating is included in porous structure. Furthermore, since Martin teaches an ALD coating of an inorganic oxide on an electrode that is porous and has a protective function, the teachings of Kim appear relevant to Martin, especially since Kim teaches coating materials also taught in Martin in [0044]) so the rejection still seems proper per MPEP 2123(I).
As such, in light of the above discussion, Martin explicitly teaching using binder (Martin: [0057]) and further absent a showing of criticality with respect to the claimed amount of atomic layer deposition coating layer, applicant’s arguments are rendered unpersuasive and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection made in view of Martin (US PG Pub. US2016/0172682 A1), Kim (US PG Pub. 2015/0162598 A1), Gaben (US PG Pub. 2021/0074991 A1), Kim II (US PG Pub. 2017/0301902 A1) and Hah (KR20160094063A) is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 7 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references used in the current rejection. Specifically, in the new grounds of rejection a new primary reference Se-Hee (US PG Pub. 2012/0077082 A1) is relied upon.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation “wherein an amount of the atomic layer deposition coating of the lowermost positive electrode active material layer is in a range of 40 wt% to less than 100 wt% and from greater than 100 wt% to 120 wt%” is unclear because a single value cannot exist in two mutually exclusive ranges at the same time . Appropriate correction is required.
In the interest of compact prosecution, and in light of lines 21 – 23 on pg. 16 and lines 1 – 5 on pg. 17 of the instant specification, the examiner is interpreting the instant limitation to recite -- wherein an amount of the atomic layer deposition coating of the lowermost positive electrode active material layer is in a range of 40 wt% to less than 100 wt% or from greater than 100 wt% to 120 wt%--.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 6 and 8 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (US PG Pub. US2016/0172682 A1) in view of Kim (US PG Pub. 2015/0162598 A1), Gaben (US PG Pub. 2021/0074991 A1, foreign priority date of 05/07/2018), Kim (US PG Pub. 2017/0301902 A1), hereinafter Kim II, and Hah (KR20160094063A). {Examiner Note: All prior art was cited in previous Office action mailed 02/05/2026}.
Regarding Claims 1 – 2 and 6, Martin discloses a positive electrode for a lithium ion secondary battery (Figs. 4a – 4b; [0033];[0051];[0074 – 0075]), comprising a current collector (Figs. 4a – 4b; [0059 – 0060]), a binder ([0057]), and a positive electrode active material layer disposed an at least one surface of the current collector (Figs. 4a – 4b; [0052 – 0055]).
Martin teaches selecting the positive electrode active material from spinel lithium-manganese-nickel oxides (for example: LiMnMO4, with M=Cr, Fe, Co and/or Ni), cobalt oxides (for example: LiCoO2), vanadium oxides (for example: LiV3O8, V2O5), manganese oxides (for example: LiMn2O4, LiMnO2), iron phosphate (for example: LiFePO4), graphites, silicon, and titanium oxides ([0052]).
Martin does not explicitly disclose the positive electrode active material layer comprising a plurality of positive electrode active materials.
Kim teaches a positive electrode with a positive electrode active material layer comprising two different active materials, particularly, a lithium cobalt oxide material and a lithium nickel-based oxide material ([0010]). Kim further teaches that it is known in the art to use a mixtures of two or more kinds of lithium transition metal oxides to overcome the drawbacks of using one lithium transition metal oxide and ultimately obtain an electrode with improved battery characteristics ([0003 – 0006]). The combination of a lithium cobalt oxide material and a lithium nickel-based oxide material is taught by Kim to provide an electrode with both excellent cycle characteristics and high-potential operating range due to stability at high voltage ([0011]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize more than one positive electrode active material such as a combination of a lithium cobalt oxide material and a lithium nickel-based oxide material, as taught Kim, and thus obtain the claimed positive electrode active material layer comprising a plurality of positive electrode active materials, with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining an active material composition suitable for the electrode of Martin and capable of providing an electrode with improved battery characteristics.
Martin teaches that the protection layer is preferably an ALD layer that deposited on the surface and penetrates into the active material layer so as to include the layer across the electrode thickness (Refer to Figs. 4a – 4b; [0038];[0046][0062];[0081 – 0083]); therefore, one with ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the active material layer of modified Martin to include an atomic layer deposition coating layer disposed in surfaces and pores of the positive electrode active materials and in gaps between the plurality of positive electrode active materials.
For the protection layer Martin teaches a preference for using the metal oxide Al2O3 ([0043]). Martin further discloses an atomic layer deposition coating layer thickness of 3 to 15 Angströms {i.e. 0.3 nm to 1.5 nm}, which significantly overlaps the claimed range of 0.2 to 1 nm, and further overlaps the claimed range of 0.2 to 0.8 nm (Claim 6).
Kim teaches, for Al2O3 coatings of a positive electrode active material, thicknesses in the range of 0.5 to 2 nm, and further teaches that as the thickness of the coating increases, surface resistance of the active material is relatively increased ([0029- 0030];[0049 – 0050]). Kim additionally teaches that excessively thin thicknesses do not allow for beneficial effects of the coating to be obtained ([0029- 0030];[0049 – 0050]).
Selection of a coating thickness within the overlapping portion of the Martin’s taught range and the claimed range would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the surface resistance of the active material while also ensuring the effects of the coating, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [See MPEP 2144.05(II)].
Based on Figs. 4a – 4b [i.e. where Martin shows the atomic layer deposition coating included in depths of active material layer near the collector} and Martin’s general teaching of having an atomic layer deposition coating included on the surface and penetrating the pores of the active material layer ([0062];[0081 – 0083]), Martin appears to suggest a positive electrode active material layer, when divided into five layers in a thickness-wise direction, where a portion of the positive electrode active material layer in contact with the current collector is referred to as a lowermost positive electrode active material layer and a surface portion of the positive electrode active material layer farthest away from the current collector is referred to as an uppermost positive electrode active material layer, having an amount of the atomic layer deposition coating layer of the lowermost positive electrode active material layer be relatively lower than an amount of the atomic layer deposition coating layer of the uppermost positive electrode active material layer.
As such, generally, Martin appears to teach having less than 100 wt% of atomic layer deposition coating layer of the lowermost positive electrode active material layer relative to an amount of the atomic layer deposition coating layer of the uppermost positive electrode active material layer, which overlaps the claimed range of 40 wt% to less than 100 wt% or from greater than 100 wt% to 120 wt%.
Gaben teaches porous electrode for a battery and further teaches, by atomic layer deposition, coating the a layer of electrically-insulating material on and inside the pores of the porous electrode layer and the electrically-insulating material is taught to be chosen from Al2O3, SiO2, ZrO2 ([0021];[0042]). The coating is taught to cover all of the surfaces of the electrode that contacts the electrolyte and further provide a reduction in faradic reactions at the interface between the electrolyte and electrode (Fig. 4; [0149 – 0150];[0156]). Gaben teaches the coating having a thickness less than 5 nm and, in in Fig. 4, Gaben shows the coating 62/63 covering the pores of the electrode and further portions of the current collector, allowing for both effective blocking of electrochemical reactions of dissolution and protection against corrosion without prevent the passage of electrons. ([0154 – 0157]).
Kim II teaches, with respect to coating a porous separator with an inorganic oxide layer by atomic layer deposition, particularly controlling the thickness of the inorganic oxide layer on a surface of the porous separator and the thickness of the inorganic oxide layer formed in the internal pores at a position corresponding to ½ a total thickness of the porous separator in a direction from the surface of the porous separator to the center of the porous separator to vary ([0016 – 0019]). Specifically Kim II teaches having the inorganic oxide layer thickest at the surface and decreasing the thickness from the surface of the porous separator to the inside to change the physical properties of the porous separator and maximize the benefits of the coating {i.e. balance heat stability effects from coating vs. ion mobility} ([0031]). As such, Kim II suggests that it is possible and desirable to manipulate the thickness of a protective inorganic oxide ALD coating along the thickness of a porous structure used in a battery in order ensure that the effects of the coating are maximized without sacrificing ion mobility.
One with ordinary skill in the that art would appreciate that coating thickness and coating weight are directly related, that is a thicker coating would require more material and thus have a higher coating weight than a thinner coating.
Therefore, selection of amounts of atomic layer deposition coating in the lowermost positive electrode active material layer and uppermost positive electrode active material layer that provide an amount within the claimed range for modified Martin would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; because such weight ratios are within the scope of Martin’s teachings; would allow for an amount of coating to be included on the collector as taught to be desirable for the purpose of corrosion protection by Gaben; and, as suggested by Kim II, would have a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at a positive electrode with optimized thicknesses of coating on the surface and within the electrode, and by extension maximized coating effects without the hindering ion mobility of electrode, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [See MPEP 2144.05].
Martin further teaches performing the deposition step when the electrode has maximum porosity and then, one the protection layer has been deposited, teaches densifying the electrode by calendaring ([0062];[0083]). Particularly Martin teaches calendaring to decrease the porosity to obtain a satisfactory electronic percolation ([0079]).
Modified Martin does not particularly disclose wherein the positive electrode has a porosity of 15% to 35%, and further 20 to 30% (Claim 2).
Hah teaches a cathode comprising a lithium composite oxide with a metal oxide coating layer included on the surface ([0010 – 0017]). Hah further teaches forming the cathode with a porosity of 20 – 30% to ensure optimal conductivity ([0034]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to calendar modified Martin’s positive electrode to a porosity of 20 – 30%, as taught by Hah, and thus obtain a positive electrode with a porosity within the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining an electrode with optimal conductivity.
Regarding Claims 3 – 5, modified Martin discloses all limitation as set forth above. Martin further discloses wherein the atomic layer deposition coating layer comprises a metal oxide ([0043];[0047]), which is within the claimed scope of at least one of an oxide, nitride, oxynitride, sulfide, fluoride, or phosphate of a metal or metalloid (Claim 3).
Martin further generally teaches selecting a metal oxide from Al2O3, Cr2O3, ZrO, ZrO2, MgO, and particularly teaches having the protection layer be Al2O3 ([0043]); therefore Martin further discloses wherein the metal or metalloid comprises at least one of Al, which is within the claimed selection of Al, Zr, Si, Zn, Ti, Sn, Mn, Nb, W, or Li (Claim 4), and further is within the scope of at least one of ZrOx, AlOx, SiOx, ZnOx, TiOx, SnOx, MnOx, NbOx, WOx, lithium aluminum oxide, lithium zirconium oxide, lithium niobium oxide or lithium tungsten oxide, wherein x is greater than 0 and 3 or smaller, particularly AlOx where x = 3 (Claim 5).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Martin discloses all limitations as set forth above. Martin further discloses wherein an amount of the atomic layer deposition coating is most preferably smaller than 5%, by weight, which encompasses the claimed range of 300 ppm to 6,000 ppm.
The weight range of deposition coating is taught by Martin to provide an acceptable mass density ([0050]). Martin further teaches, in addition to active material, including binder and conductive particles in the positive electrode active material mixture {i.e. positive electrode ink} ([0057 – 0058]).
Kim further teaches varying the amount metal oxide coating depending on the active material type included in the positive electrode active material ([0028 – 0030];[0048 – 0050]). For lithium cobalt oxide, Kim teaches having the coating amount be 0.001 – 2000 ppm, based on the total amount of the lithium cobalt-based oxide ([0028]). For lithium nickel-based oxide, Kim teaches having the coating amount be 0.001 – 3000 ppm, based on the total weight of lithium nickel-based oxide ([0048]). Therefore, based on a total amount of active material, Kim necessarily teaches having a total coating layer amount of 0.002 – 5000 ppm. Kim further teaches controlling the amounts of coating to optimize the coating effects, the active material amount, the active material surface resistance, and battery rate characteristics ([0030];[0050]). With respect to the composition of the active material layer, Kim teaches including conductive material and binder in an amount of 1 – 30 wt% to provide the electrode with increased conductivity and achieve sufficient binding between the electrode active material layer components and between the collector and active material layer ([0060 – 0061]).
Selection of an amount of coating within the overlapping portion of Martin’s taught range and the claimed range would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the coating effects, the active material amount, the active material surface resistance, battery rate characteristics, conductivity, and binding capability of the active material layer, as taught by Kim, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [See MPEP 2144.05(II)].
Regarding Claim 9, modified Martin discloses all limitations as set forth above. Martin further discloses a lithium secondary battery ([0061]) comprising an electrode assembly (cell core; [0064]) comprising a positive electrode ([0051 – 0052];[0064]), a negative electrode ([0063 – 0064]), and a separator interposed between the positive electrode and negative electrode ([0064];[0068]).
Modified Martin does not explicitly disclose the lithium secondary battery comprising a battery case to receive the electrode assembly; however, one with ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the battery of Martin to necessarily and inherently further include a battery case to house the electrode assembly, because it is well known in the art to include the electrode assemblies of a battery in case, as shown by Kim who teaches manufacturing a lithium secondary battery by accommodating the electrode assembly in an aluminum can or an aluminum pouch (Kim: [0092]).
Martin teaches impregnating the separator of the lithium secondary battery with organic electrolyte that is a mixture of organic solvents and alkaline metal salts ([0066 – 0068]); therefore, Martin further discloses the battery comprising a non-aqueous electrolyte solution.
Modified Martin does not explicitly disclose injecting the non-aqueous electrolyte solution into the battery case; however, in order to impregnate the separator, which is housed within the battery case of modified Martin, with electrolyte, one with ordinary skill in the art would know to inject the electrolyte solution in the battery case, because it is well known in the art, as shown by Kim who teaches injecting electrolyte into an aluminum can/pouch that accommodates an electrode assembly prior to sealing in order to manufacture a lithium secondary battery (Kim: [0092]).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Martin discloses all limitations as set forth above. Martin teaches the binder of the positive electrode active material being a polyacrylic acid or a fluoropolymer type binder ([0057]), as such Martin’s selection of binder overlaps in scope with the claimed selection consisting of vinylidene fluoride hexafluoropropylene copolymer (PVDF-CO-HFP), polyvinylidenefluoride, polyacrylonitrile, polymethylmethacrylate, polyvinyl alcohol, carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), starch, hydroxypropyl cellulose, regenerated cellulose, polyvinylpyrrolidone, tetrafluoroethylene, polyethylene, polypropylene, polyacrylic acid, ethylene-propylene-diene monomer (EPDM), sulfonated EPDM, styrene butylene rubber (SBR) and fluorine rubber.
Hah, as established above to be directed to a cathode comprising a lithium composite oxide with a metal oxide coating layer included on the surface ([0010 – 0017]), further exemplifies using binders such as polyvinylidene fluoride, polyvinyl alcohol, carboxymethylcellulose (CMC), starch, hydroxypropylcellulose, regenerated cellulose, polyvinylpyrrolidone, tetrafluoroethylene, polyethylene, polypropylene, ethylene-propylene-diene terpolymer (EPDM), sulfonated EPDM, styrene butadiene rubber, and fluororubber, ([0047]). One with ordinary skill in the art would recognize polyvinylidene fluoride and fluororubber to be fluoropolymer type binders.
Therefore, Since Martin teaches a selection of binder overlapping in scope with claimed selection and Hah teaches that fluoropolymer type binders such as fluorine rubber and polyvinylidene fluoride are binders known in the art to be suitable for positive electrode active material layers, selection of a binder within the overlapping portion of Martin’s scope, Hah’s scope, and the claimed scope, would have been obvious to try because such a selection would a selection from a finite list of example binder types that, as evidenced by Hah, would have a reasonable expectation of success in being a suitable binder for a positive electrode layer and further achieve the desired binding effect ([See MPEP 2143(I)(E)].
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Se-Hee (US PG Pub. 2012/0077082 A1 – cited in 11/08/2021 IDS) in view of Kim (US PG Pub. 2015/0162598 A1), Li (US PG Pub. 2018/0108908 A1 – cited in 09/12/2022 IDS), Gaben (US PG Pub. 2021/0074991 A1) and Hah (KR20160094063A).
Regarding Claims 1 and 7, Se-Hee discloses a positive electrode for a secondary battery ([0012 – 0013]) comprising a current collector ([0028];[0030]), a binder ([0021];[0026]), and a positive electrode active material layer ([0022];[0027 – 0028]).
Se-Hee teaches cathode active materials including inorganic compounds such as transition metal oxides, transition metal/lithium composite oxides, lithium/transition metal composite phosphates, transition metal sulfides, metal oxides, and transition metal silicates ([0022]). Se-Hee further teaches that mixtures of two or more types of cathode active materials can be used ([0022]).
Se-Hee does not explicitly disclose an embodiment of positive electrode active material layer comprising a plurality of positive electrode active materials.
Kim teaches a positive electrode with a positive electrode active material layer comprising two different active materials, particularly, a lithium cobalt oxide material and a lithium nickel-based oxide material ([0010]). Kim further teaches that it is known in the art to use a mixtures of two or more kinds of lithium transition metal oxides to overcome the drawbacks of using one lithium transition metal oxide and ultimately obtain an electrode with improved battery characteristics ([0003 – 0006]). The combination of a lithium cobalt oxide material and a lithium nickel-based oxide material is taught by Kim to provide an electrode with both excellent cycle characteristics and high-potential operating range due to stability at high voltage ([0011]).
Since Se-Hee already suggests using more than one type of cathode active material ([0022]), it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize more than one positive electrode active material in Se-Hee, such as a combination of a lithium cobalt oxide material and a lithium nickel-based oxide material as taught by Kim, and thus obtain the claimed positive electrode active material layer comprising a plurality of positive electrode active materials, with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining an active material composition suitable for the electrode of Se-Hee and capable of improved battery characteristics.
Se-Hee further discloses the positive electrode comprising an atomic layer deposition coating ([0032]).
Se-Hee teaches the deposition occurring on at least the exposed surfaces of the electrode, and further teaches the occurrence of internal deposition happening within the electrode, that is where the coating material enters the voids and pores that exist in the electrode material ([0047]). As such, Se-Hee appears to further discloses having the atomic layer deposition in surfaces and pores of the positive electrode active materials and in gaps between the plurality of positive electrode active materials, but does not explicitly disclose an embodiment of a positive electrode active material layer having such a coating configuration.
The ability to obtain deposition of the coating material within the electrode material is taught by Se-Hee to depend, at least in part, on the thickness of the electrode material as thicker materials present a greater barrier to penetration of the reactants into the center of the material ([0047 – 0048]). Se-Hee additionally suggests coating all particle surfaces and further suggests that when all exposed surfaces of the active particles are coated, more effective protection by the ALD coating can be achieved ([0007];[0023];[0099]).
Li, directed to stabilization coatings that are uniform and penetrating for lithium rich metal oxide cathode active materials (Abstract), teaches that uniform and penetrating ALD coating layers provides an advantage with respect to battery shelf-life ([0028 – 0029];[0063 – 0064]). Specifically, Li teaches that with more uniform and penetrating coatings, transition metal dissolution is significantly reduced during the first cycle activation, especially at higher voltages and shelf life is found to significantly stabilize ([0029]). Nanoscale gaps in stabilization coatings are taught by Li to lead to instabilities but also correspondingly facilitate lithium release and uptake from the coated material ([0029]).
Therefore, since Se-Hee already suggests coating to cover all exposed surfaces of the active material ([0052]), it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to coat the positive electrode active material of modified Se-Hee such that all exposed surfaces of all the active material particles, including the pores/voids of the active material particles are uniformly, as taught/suggested by Se-Hee and Li, and thus obtain the claimed atomic layer deposition coating configuration, with a reasonable expectation of success in achieving Se-Hee’s desired effect of more effective stabilization of the positive electrode active material, and further, as taught by Li the effect of improved battery shelf-life, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Since each of the active material particles included throughout modified Se-Hee’s positive electrode include the atomic layer deposition coating {i.e. as established above all the exposed surface of the active material are coated, including the pores and, due to each particle including the coating, the gap between particles also includes coating}, one with ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect, when the positive electrode active material of modified Se-Hee is divided into five layers in a thickness-wise direction, a portion of the positive electrode active material layer in contact with the current collector, referred to as a lowermost positive electrode active material layer, to have an amount of the atomic layer deposition coating that is relatively similar {i.e. close to 100%} to a surface portion of the positive electrode active material layer farthest away from the current collector, referred to as an uppermost positive electrode active material layer.
Modified Se-Hee does not explicitly disclose an amount of atomic layer deposition coating layer of the lowermost positive electrode being in a range of greater than 100 wt% to 120 wt% relative to the amount of atomic layer deposition coating layer of the uppermost positive electrode active material layer (Claim 7).
Li further teaches that in general, thicker stabilization coatings can be expected to provide more stabilization of the materials; however, additional inert coating provides added weight to the active material which can decrease electrochemical performance of the active material ([0043]).
Gaben teaches porous electrode structures for a battery and further teaches, by atomic layer deposition, coating the a layer of electrically-insulating material on and inside the pores of the porous electrode layer and the electrically-insulating material is taught to be chosen from Al2O3, SiO2, ZrO2 ([0021];[0042]). The coating is taught to cover all of the surfaces of the electrode that contacts the electrolyte and further provide a reduction in faradic reactions at the interface between the electrolyte and electrode (Fig. 4; [0149 – 0150];[0156]). Gaben teaches the coating having a thickness less than 5 nm and, in in Fig. 4, Gaben shows the coating 62/63 covering the pores of the electrode and further portions of the current collector, allowing for both effective blocking of electrochemical reactions of dissolution and protection against corrosion without prevent the passage of electrons. ([0154 – 0157]).
Therefore, when modifying the atomic layer deposition coating of Se-Hee to be included on all the exposed surfaces of the active material particles, as well as in the pores of the particles and between gaps of the particles, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a relatively larger amount of the ALD in the region of the active material layer on/near the collector, and further a relative amount that is within the claimed range, in order to have include an amount of coating that effectively protects the current collector from corrosion, as taught by Gaben, while ensuring that the amount of coating does not negatively impact the electrochemical performance {i.e. capacity} of the active material, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [See MPEP 2144.05].
Se-Hee further discloses a preference for having an atomic layer deposition coating thickness of 2 – 10 Å {i.e. 0.2 – 1 nm} ([0049]), which is within the claimed range of 0.2 to 1 nm in thickness.
Se-Hee teaches pores or voids existing in the electrode material and that electrodes tend to have porous structures ([0002];[0047]), but does not explicitly disclose a positive electrode embodiment where the positive electrode has a porosity of 15% to 35%.
Hah teaches a cathode comprising a lithium composite oxide with a metal oxide coating layer included on the surface ([0010 – 0017]). Hah further teaches forming the cathode with a porosity of 20 – 30% to ensure optimal conductivity ([0034]).
Since Se-Hee already suggests electrodes where the active material includes voids or pores, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to calendar modified Se-Hee’s positive electrode to a porosity of 20 – 30%, as taught by Hah, and thus obtain a positive electrode with a porosity within the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining an electrode with optimal conductivity.
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 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 ARYANA Y ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5986. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 AM - 5:00 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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.
/A.Y.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights