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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/12/2025 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, and 10-12 have been amended; support for claims 1 and 11 are found in original claims 7 and 9 and page 18-19 of the instant specification. The amendments to claims 2, 4-6, 8, 10, and 12 were minor editorial amendments.
Claims 3, 7, and 9 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, and 10-12 are currently pending and have been examined on the merits in this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 20140070259A) in view of Nagano (JP 2017157529A-cited in the IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a lithium secondary battery comprising positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a separator interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode ([0003] secondary battery may be a lithium ion secondary battery; [0051] separator interposed between the positive and negative electrode),
wherein the positive electrode comprises:
a current collector ([0012] positive electrode current collector);
a first positive electrode active material layer disposed on at least one surface of the current collector, and comprising Lix(NiaCobMnc)O2 as a first positive electrode active material ([0012-0014] first positive electrode active material provided on the current collector comprising formula 1 which is LixNiaMnbCocO2 -yDy wherein 1.0 ≦ x ≦ 1.2, 0.5 ≦ a ≦ 1, 0 ≦ b ≦ 0.5, 0 ≦ c ≦ 0.5, 0 ≦ y ≦ 0.1, here y=0 and wherein a+b+c can =0); and
a second positive electrode active material layer disposed on the first positive electrode active material layer, and comprising LiCoO2 or LiFePO4, ([0012-0016] second active material layer consists of LiCoO2 or can be LiFePO4 according to Formula 2). The selection of a known material from a list, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07),
wherein the first positive electrode active material layer has a thickness equal to or larger than a thickness of the second positive electrode active material layer ([0034] the ratio of the thickness of the first active material layer to the second active material layer is 2:1 to 4:1),
wherein the separator comprises a porous polymer substrate ([0054] separator may be a conventional porous polymer film).
The examiner notes that the specific stoichiometry used in the claimed invention and the prior art may differ as the prior art discloses different ranges than the instant invention, however, a skilled artisan can optimize the stoichiometry of each element in the composition to meet charge neutrality constraints as a skilled artisan would want to form a neutrally charged compound for stability purposes.
Modified Park is silent with respect to the second positive electrode active material layer containing an oxide based solid electrolyte.
Nagano discloses an electrode composite having multiple active material layers formed on a current collector and is analogous with the instant invention as being related to cathodes having multiple active material layers. Nagano discloses a cathode has a first active material and a second active material that is applied to the first active material layer. Nagano further discloses wherein a sufficient amount of solid electrolyte may fill in voids produced in the second active material layer in order to achieve a high output and a large capacity when used in lithium batteries ([0010-0016]). Nagano further discloses wherein the solid electrolyte is any one of a polymeric solid electrolyte, a sulfide based, solid electrolyte or an oxide based solid electrolyte or a mixture thereof ([0085-0086] the solid electrolyte being oxide based, sulfide based material as well as other materials).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a skilled artisan to modify the second active material layer of Park to include the solid electrolyte taught by Nagano such that the second active material layer contains solid electrolyte in order to achieve a high output and large capacity battery. Additionally, it would have been obvious for a skilled artisan to select an oxide based solid electrolyte from the list provided by Nagano. 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. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07). The resulting modification would teach all the claim limitations of claim 1 as both the first and second positive electrode active material layers would be disclosed through the modification.
Regarding claim 2, modified Park discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Nagano further discloses wherein the second positive electrode active material is coated or doped with the solid electrolyte ([0010-0016] solid electrolyte fills in the gaps of the second active material layer).
Regarding claim 8, modified Park discloses all the claim limitations of claim 7. Nagano further discloses wherein the solid electrolyte is an oxide based solid electrolyte comprising one of LLTO (Li0.35La0.55TiO3), LATP (Li1.3Ti1.7Al0.3PO4), LLZO (Li7La3Zr2O12) and the like as well as many other compounds ([0085-0086]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Park discloses a lithium second battery according to claim 1. Park further discloses that the lithium secondary battery is one of a lithium ion secondary battery, a lithium polymer secondary battery, or a lithium ion polymer secondary battery ([0003] secondary battery may be a lithium ion battery).
Regarding claim 11, Park discloses a method for manufacturing a lithium secondary battery comprising the steps of:
S1) preparing a positive electrode comprising:
Preparing a current collector ([0012] positive electrode current collector) on which a first positive electrode active material layer comprising Lix(NiaCobMnc)O2 as a first positive electrode active material is coated and dried ([0012-0014] first positive electrode active material provided on the current collector comprising formula 1 which is LixNiaMnbCocO2 -yDy wherein 1.0 ≦ x ≦ 1.2, 0.5 ≦ a ≦ 1, 0 ≦ b ≦ 0.5, 0 ≦ c ≦ 0.5, 0 ≦ y ≦ 0.1, here y=0 and wherein a+b+c can =0; [0017] active material is coated and dried); and
Coating a slurry comprising a second positive electrode active material layer disposed on the first positive electrode active material layer, and comprising LiCoO2 or LiFePO4, onto a surface of the first positive electrode active material layer followed by drying to form a second positive active material layer ([0012-0017] coating a second active material layer consists of LiCoO2 or can be LiFePO4 according to Formula 2; coating and drying). The selection of a known material from a list, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07),
where in the first positive electrode active material layer has a thickness equal to or larger than a thickness of the second positive electrode active material layer ([0034] the ratio of the thickness of the first active material layer to the second active material layer is 2:1 to 4:1), and
S2) assembling the positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a separator interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode ([0051] separator interposed between the positive and negative electrode),
Wherein the separator comprises a porous polymer substrate ([0054] separator may be a conventional porous polymer film).
The examiner notes that the specific stoichiometry used in the claimed invention and the prior art may differ as the prior art discloses different ranges than the instant invention, however, a skilled artisan can optimize the stoichiometry of each element in the composition to meet charge neutrality constraints as a skilled artisan would want to form a neutrally charged compound for stability purposes.
Modified Park is silent with respect to the second positive electrode active material layer containing a solid electrolyte.
Nagano discloses an electrode composite having multiple active material layers formed on a current collector and is analogous with the instant invention as being related to cathodes having multiple active material layers. Nagano discloses a cathode has a first active material and a second active material that is applied to the first active material layer. Nagano further discloses wherein a sufficient amount of solid electrolyte may fill in voids produced in the second active material layer in order to achieve a high output and a large capacity when used in lithium batteries ([0010-0016]). Nagano further discloses wherein the solid electrolyte is any one of a polymeric solid electrolyte, a sulfide based, solid electrolyte or an oxide based solid electrolyte or a mixture thereof ([0085-0086] the solid electrolyte being oxide based, sulfide based material as well as other materials).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a skilled artisan to modify the second active material layer of Park to include the solid electrolyte taught by Nagano such that the second active material layer contains solid electrolyte in order to achieve a high output and large capacity battery. Additionally, it would have been obvious for a skilled artisan to select an oxide based solid electrolyte from the list provided by Nagano. 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. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07). A skilled artisan can use the disclosures of Park and Nagano to provide the solid electrolyte material in the process steps of Park such that the solid electrolyte material can be provided in the slurry of the second active material and then applied to the first active material and dried to produce a second active material layer on a surface of the first active material layer. The resulting modification would teach all the claim limitations of claim 11 as both the first and second positive electrode active material layers would be disclosed through the modification.
Regarding claim 12, modified Park discloses all the claim limitations of claim 11. Nagano further discloses wherein the second positive electrode active material is coated or doped with the solid electrolyte ([0010-0016] solid electrolyte fills in the gaps of the second active material layer).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 20140070259A) in view of Nagano (JP 2017157529A-cited in the IDS) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (KR 20150060376 A-equivalent KR101792750 B1 cited in the IDS).
Regarding claims 4-5, modified Park discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Park discloses a thickness of the positive electrode active material layers, however, discloses wherein thicknesses of the first layer can be 70-200 micrometers while the thickness of the second positive electrode layer can be 30-90 micrometers ([0034]). Thus Park discloses thickness that are slightly larger than that of the claimed invention and thus is silent with respect to the active material being between 20-60 micrometers and 10-30 micrometers.
Kim discloses a cathode material having a double layer of cathode active material and is analogous with the claimed invention. Kim discloses a similar thickness range to the claimed invention wherein the first active material can have a thickness of 30-300 micrometers and the second positive electrode active material having a thickness between 1-300 micrometers ([0028-0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to modify the thicknesses of the active materials of Park to be between the ranges taught by Kim as a simple change in size of the active material layers. Kim’s ranges for the active material overlap the ranges taught by Park, thus a skilled artisan would have found it obvious that the active material layer can be coated onto the current collector with varying degrees of thicknesses that overlap the claimed invention as the ranges of Kim overlap the claimed invention. Thus through the modification of Park and Kim, the first positive electrode active material can still have the thickness ratio of 2:1 in which the thickness of the first active material layer is thicker than the second active material layer while encompassing the claimed range as taught by Kim. The size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 20140070259A) in view of Nagano (JP 2017157529A-cited in the IDS) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Onodera et al. (US 2016/0233510 A1).
Regarding claim 6, modified Park discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Modified Park discloses wherein the solid electrolyte is provided in the second positive electrode active material layer in a sufficient amount (Nagano [0011]), however, is silent with respect to the weight percentage of the solid electrolyte in the positive electrode active material.
Onodera discloses a secondary battery and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor. Onodera discloses that is it desirable for the content of a solid electrolyte to be provided in an active material layer between a mass percentage of 5-50 mass % ([0026]. Onodera discloses that if the content of the solid electrolyte is between the range then the solid electrolyte can sufficiently fill in gaps of the active material to increase ionic and electronic conductivity, lower internal resistance, produce a higher discharge capacity, and obtain a preferable energy density ([0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to provide the solid electrolyte of Nagano between 5-50 mass% of the total mass of the second active material layer of Park in order to increase ionic and electronic conductivity, lower internal resistance, produce a higher discharge capacity and obtain a preferable energy density for the battery as taught by Onodera. The resulting modification would overlap with the claimed range and thus would be rendered obvious in view of the combination. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amended claims overcome the rejection of record and argues that the combination of Park and Nagano would teach a battery without a separator. This argument is not persuasive as Park discloses the use of a separator between the negative and positive electrodes, while Nagano is used in the rejection to disclose wherein a solid electrolyte can be impregnated into the surfaces of the active material and electrode layers. Thus through the combination, a solid electrolyte can be impregnated into the active material and electrode layers while also having a separator to separate the negative and positive electrodes. Applicant is arguing the references separately and not the combination used in the rejection. In response to applicant's arguments against the references 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). Thus the arguments are not persuasive and examiner notes that the rejection has been updated taking into account the amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yao (US 2019/0296335 A1)-discloses electrochemical cells having a multilayered electrodes with a plurality of active material layers and active material particles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam J Francis whose telephone number is (571)272-1021. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7 am-4 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571)270-7871. 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.
/ADAM J FRANCIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728