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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/28/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claims 1 and 7, the units for the amount of the atomic layer deposition coating layer of the lower most positive electrode active material are inconsistently written {i.e. the claims use weight%, % and wt% to represent the same unit and for consistency the unit should be the same}. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Amendment
This is a nonfinal Office action in response to Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed on 06/27/2025. Claims 1 and 7 are amended. Claims 1 – 9 are pending review in the current Office action.
In light of applicant’s amendment to claim 1, the objection set forth in the previous Office action is withdrawn. In light of applicant’s amendment to claim 7, the 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection set forth in the previous Office action is withdrawn. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections set forth in the previous Office are withdrawn, and a new grounds of rejection is established below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant particularly argues that the teachings in Martin do not establish a prima facie case of obviousness for the claimed invention, because Martin suggests a uniform application of the coating layer during ALD and not ALD where "an amount of atomic layer deposition coating 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 is in a range of 40 weight% to less than 100 weight% and from greater than 100 weight% to 120 weight%".
Applicant's arguments are unpersuasive in light of the claims being directed to a product and not a method of making and further in light of Martin teaching a penetrating ALD coating. Specifically, the claim, as written requires the structure of an ALD coating layer disposed in surfaces and pores of the positive electrode active material and in gaps between the plurality of active materials, and further a structure where the atomic layer deposition coating 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 is in the range of 40 weight% to less than 100 weight% and from greater than 100 weight% to 120 weight%". As such, by teaching a penetrating ALD coating and further by showing Figs. 4a – 4b ([0062];[0081-0083]), Martin appears to render obvious a positive electrode structure where an amount of atomic layer deposition coating of the lowermost positive electrode active material layer is lower an amount of the atomic layer deposition coating layer of the uppermost positive electrode active material layer {i.e. 100 wt% or less} and thus appears to render obvious a positive electrode structure capable of providing a ratio at least overlapping the claimed range. Therefore, based on the above teachings and the claim being directed to a product, the prima facie case for obviousness made in view of Martin, as established previously and further below, appears proper.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and the rejection made in view of Martin and Wang {i.e. applicant argues that Wang teaches away from Martin} have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically, the rejection established by the Examiner below no longer relies on Wang to render obvious selection of an amount of lowermost atomic layer deposition coating to uppermost atomic layer deposition coating within the claimed range.
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 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (US PG Pub. US2016/0172682 A1 – cited in previous Office action mailed 03/28/2025) in view of Kim (US PG Pub. 2015/0162598 A1 – cited in prior Office action mailed 03/28/2025), 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, cited in previous Office action mailed 03/28/2025).
Regarding Claims 1 – 2 and 6 – 7, 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]); 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% and from greater than 100 wt% to 120 wt%; and further the claimed range of 40 wt% to less than 100 wt% and from greater than 100 wt% to 120 wt% (Claim 7).
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]).
Conclusion
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
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 2/3/2026