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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 07/10/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Examiner notes the following amendments made to the claims:
Claim 1 amended to further limit the Id/Ig ratio of the carbon nanotubes
Claims 2 and 3 cancelled
Claim 16 amended to match the amendment to claim 1
New claim 17 added
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 06/08/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 4-16 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, by amending claim 1 to further limit the ID/IG ratio of the carbon nanotubes to be outside of the range taught in the prior art, the previous rejection is overcome. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Mun (US 20130337326 A1), which teaches all of the limitations of amended claim 1. Specifically, Mun teaches a carbon nanotube with an ID/IG ratio that overlaps with the range of amended claim 1. Since no other arguments are provided regarding the rejections of dependent claims 4-5, 7-16 other than their dependency on claim 1, the rejections remain in place and unchanged, other than now being in view of Mun. Regarding claim 6, the arguments provided, in combination with the amendment to claim 1, are persuasive. Specifically, examiner acknowledges that the cited references fail to teach the D50 of the larger portion of the bimodal distribution. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Wi (US 20200006758 A1) which teaches a LiCoO2 containing positive active material which comes in a bimodal particle size distribution meeting the limitations of claim 6, when combined with Mun. If applicant were to further amend the Ig/Id ratio to be above 0.03 and below, perhaps, 0.05 (or something considered to be clearly outside of the “about 0.1” range of Mun,), and showed unexpected/significant results coming from using this range (and perhaps included an additional limitation from a dependent claim that contributes to the unexpected result), then it is likely that the current rejection would be overcome and further search and consideration would be required.
Regarding new claim 17, this claim is rejected in view of Jin, Mun and Wi, as it does not contain any limitations not present in currently amended claim 1 and claim 6.
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, 2, 4, 5, 7, 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin (US 20220140320 A1) in view of Mun (US 20130337326 A1):
Regarding claim 1, Jin teaches:
a positive electrode for lithium secondary battery (“One aspect of the present invention provides a positive electrode which includes: a positive electrode active material layer formed on a surface of a positive electrode current collector and including two types of positive electrode active materials with different average particle diameters (D.sub.50),” Jin [0013])
A current collector (“One aspect of the present invention provides a positive electrode which includes: a positive electrode active material layer formed on a surface of a positive electrode current collector and including two types of positive electrode active materials with different average particle diameters (D.sub.50),” Jin [0013])
A positive electrode active material layer including a positive electrode active material (“One aspect of the present invention provides a positive electrode which includes: a positive electrode active material layer formed on a surface of a positive electrode current collector and including two types of positive electrode active materials with different average particle diameters (D.sub.50),” Jin [0013])
And carbon nanotubes (“a positive electrode active material layer formed on a surface of a positive electrode current collector and including two types of positive electrode active materials with different average particle diameters (D.sub.50), a conductive material, and a binder; and a carbon nanotube coating layer formed on a surface of the positive electrode active material layer and including carbon nanotubes and a binder,” Jin [0013])
Placed on the current collector (“a positive electrode active material layer formed on a surface of a positive electrode current collector and including two types of positive electrode active materials with different average particle diameters (D.sub.50), a conductive material, and a binder; and a carbon nanotube coating layer formed on a surface of the positive electrode active material layer and including carbon nanotubes and a binder,” Jin [0013])
wherein the positive electrode active material has a bimodal particle size distribution. (“The two types of positive electrode active materials with different average particle diameters (D.sub.50) according to the present invention may have a bimodal particle diameter distribution,” Jin [0042])
Jin is silent on the following limitations of claim 1:
Wherein the carbon nanotubes have ID/IG of 0.10 or less, Id/Ig being a ratio of a peak intensity of a D band divided by a peak intensity of a G band in a Raman spectrum
However, Mun teaches all of the elements of claim 1 that are not found in Jin. Specifically, Mun teaches:
Wherein the carbon nanotubes have ID/IG of 0.03 or more and 0.10 or less, Id/Ig being a ratio of a peak intensity of a D band divided by a peak intensity of a G band in a Raman spectrum (“The CNTs may be single-walled CNTs, multi-walled CNTs, or a combination thereof … A ID/IG ratio of the multi-walled CNTs, when determined by Raman spectroscopy using a laser at a wavelength of 514.5 nm, may be from about 0.1 to about 1.0,” Mun [0013-0015])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of about 0.1 to about 1 for the ID/IG ratio of the carbon nanotubes overlaps the claimed range of 0.03-0.10 for the same parameter. Specifically, an ID/IG ratio of 0.1, or slightly less given that Mun uses the term “about”, would fall within the claimed range and thus anticipate the claimed limitation. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Mun and Jin are considered to be analogous because they are both within the same field of lithium secondary batteries containing carbon nanotubes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive electrode active material containing carbon nanotubes of Jin to include the carbon nanotubes of Mun having the specific D/G ratio, as this would only require the simple substitution of one carbon nanotube for use as a conductive material in an electrode for another, which one skilled in the art would be capable of performing. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. (see MPEP § 2143, B.). Additionally, Mun teaches that its conductive material can improve various properties of the active material (“The positive active material includes CNTs on the surface of the lithium transition metal oxide. While not wanting to be bound by theory, it is understood that the electrical conductivity of the positive active material may be improved by the CNTs, and further the charge/discharge rate capability and lifespan of the lithium battery may be improved.” Mun [0061])
By modifying Jin with Mun to meet the limitations of claim 1, no further modification or motivation would be needed to meet the additional limitations of claims 4-5, 7, 14, and 16.
Regarding claim 4, Jin teaches all of the following elements:
The positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery of claim 1 wherein D150/D250 is 0.15 to 0.35, the D150/D250 being a ratio of D150 which is an average particle diameter of a first distribution as a small particle size distribution divided by D250 which is an average particle diameter of a second distribution as a large particle size distribution in the bimodal particle size distribution. (“For example, the two types of positive electrode active materials with different average particle diameters (D.sub.50) may have a bimodal particle diameter distribution, in which the first positive electrode active material has an average particle diameter (D.sub.50) of 8 μm to 20 μm… and the second positive electrode active material has an average particle diameter (D.sub.50) of 1 μm or more and less than 8 μm,” Jin [0043]. In this case, the ratio of the first and second particles of Jin, from the bottom to the top of the taught range, would be 1/8 (0.125) to 8/20 (0.4), which encompasses the claimed range of 0.15-0.35)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.125-0.4 of the ratio between the d50 of the first and second positive electrode active material particle encompasses the claimed range of 0.15-0.35. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Examiner also notes that the “first” and “second” particles of Jin would be switched in order to match up with the claim limitations/nomenclature, given that in the instant application the smaller particle is the first distribution, and the larger is the second, whereas in Jin the first particle is larger and the second particle is smaller. This continues to be the case for claim 5.
Regarding claim 5, Jin teaches all of the following elements:
The positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery of claim 4, wherein a mass ratio of the positive electrode active material belonging to the first distribution to the positive electrode active material belonging to the second distribution is 1:2 to 5. (“Meanwhile, when the first positive electrode active material and the second positive electrode active material are included in a weight ratio of 9:1 to 6:4, and preferably, 8:2 to 7:3” Jin [0055]. In this case, as described in claim 4, the nomenclature of Jin is switched to meet that of the instant application. Therefore, Jin would have a mass ratio of 4:6 to 1:9, more preferably 3:7 to 2:8, of smaller particles to larger particles. In this case, the mass ratio ranges would overlap with the claimed ranges, as 3:7-2:8 are all less than 1:5)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 3:7-2:8 (1:2.33-1:4) of the mass ratio between the first and second positive electrode active material particles anticipates the claimed range of 1:2-1:5. The broader range given by Jin, 4:6-1:9 (1:1.5-1:9) encompassed the claimed range of 1:2-1:5. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 7, Jin teaches all of the following elements:
The positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein at least, the positive electrode active material belonging to the second distribution as a large particle size distribution in the bimodal particle size distribution comprises secondary particles. (“the large-particle-diameter first positive electrode active material having a relatively large average particle diameter (D50) is in the form of a secondary particle formed by agglomerating at least several tens of primary particles.” Jin [0048] An important clarification is that in Jin, the “first” material is the same as the “second” material in the instant application, in that they refer to the larger of the two particle sizes in a bimodal distribution, as stated above for claims 4 and 5)
Regarding claim 14, Jin teaches all of the following elements:
A lithium secondary battery comprising: the positive electrode of claim 1. (“Another aspect of the present invention provides a lithium secondary battery including the positive electrode.” Jin [0014])
Regarding claim 16, modified Jin teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Jin is silent on the following elements:
The positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the ID/IG of the carbon nanotubes is ID/IG in a state in which the carbon nanotubes are included in the positive electrode active material layer.
However, Mun teaches all of the elements of claim 16 that are not found in Jin. Specifically, Mun teaches:
The positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the ID/IG of the carbon nanotubes is ID/IG in a state in which the carbon nanotubes are included in the positive electrode active material layer. (“The positive electrode 114 includes a current collector and a positive active material layer disposed on the current collector.” Mun [0111]. Given that the CNTs of Mun are included in a positive electrode active material layer, it is implied that the ID/IG of the nanotubes is in relation to when they are included in the positive electrode active material layer. It would not make any sense to provide an ID/IG value that is unrelated to the use of the CNTs in the invention, and thus it is assumed that this limitation is met.)
Claim(s) 6 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin (US 20170309948 A1) in view of Mun (US 20130337326 A1) and further in view of Wi (US 20200006758 A1)
Regarding claim 6, modified Jin teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Jin is silent on the following:
The positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery of claim 1 wherein a long axis length of the carbon nanotubes is 0.5D250 to 5D250, based on D250 which is the average particle diameter of the second distribution as a large particle size distribution in the bimodal particle size distribution.
However, the combined teachings of Mun and Wi would meet all of the limitations of claim 6 that are not found in Jin. Specifically, by substituting the CNTs of Jin with that of Mun and substituting the bimodal active material of Jin with that of Wi, all of the limitations of claim 6 would be met.
Mun teaches a long axis length of a carbon nanotube that is 25 um (“A positive active material including multi-walled CNTs coated on lithium transition metal oxide was obtained in the same manner as in Example 1, … and 2 parts by weight of multi-walled CNTs … with a purity of 95% or greater, an average diameter of 20 nm, and an average length of 25 um” Mun [0146]).
Wi teaches a bimodal positive electrode active material that comprises LiCoO2 and a Mn based olivine structure, where the average particle diameter of the larger particles is between 16-25 um. (“The cathode active material includes a mixture of layered LiCoO.sub.2 large particles and manganese-based olivine structural small particles. The manganese-based olivine structural small particles may be represented by chemical formula LiCo.sub.xMn.sub.yFe.sub.zPO.sub.4 (0≤x≤1, 0<y≤1, 0≤z≤1, x+y+z=1). An average particle diameter of the large particles may be 16 to 25 μm, and an average particle diameter of the small particles may be 1 to 3 μm.” Wi abstract.)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 1 (when both the CNT length and D250 are 25 um) -1.56 (When CNT length is 25 um and D250 is 16um) for the ratio of the long axis length to the D250 would anticipate the claimed range for this parameter, and thus the combination of the carbon nanotubes of Mun with the bimodal active material of Wi would meet all of the limitations of claim 16.
The motivation for substituting the carbon nanotubes of Jin for those of Mun is described above for claim 1. The same would apply for claim 6.
Jin and Wi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of positive electrodes for lithium secondary batteries. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the bimodal positive electrode material of Jin to substitute with a bimodal positive electrode material of Wi as this would only require the simple substitution of one cathode active material for another, and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. (see MPEP § 2143, B.). Additionally, Wi teaches that its active material is able to achieve high energy density and stability, giving more reason for one of ordinary skill to substitute a cathode active material with that of Wi (“Particularly, the disclosure relates to a bimodal-type cathode active material having high energy density and high voltage stability by using a mixture of layered LiCoO.sub.2 large particles and manganese-based olivine structural LiCo.sub.xMn.sub.yFe.sub.zPO.sub.4 small particles.” Wi [0002])
By modifying Jin with the bimodal active material of Wi to meet the limitations of claim 6, all of the limitations of claim 17 would be met as well without requiring any further modification or motivation.
Regarding claim 17, Jin teaches the following elements:
A positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery comprising: (“One aspect of the present invention provides a positive electrode which includes: a positive electrode active material layer formed on a surface of a positive electrode current collector and including two types of positive electrode active materials with different average particle diameters (D.sub.50),” Jin [0013])
a current collector; and (“One aspect of the present invention provides a positive electrode which includes: a positive electrode active material layer formed on a surface of a positive electrode current collector and including two types of positive electrode active materials with different average particle diameters (D.sub.50),” Jin [0013])
a positive electrode active material layer including a positive electrode active material and carbon nanotubes placed on the current collector, (“a positive electrode active material layer formed on a surface of a positive electrode current collector and including two types of positive electrode active materials with different average particle diameters (D.sub.50), a conductive material, and a binder; and a carbon nanotube coating layer formed on a surface of the positive electrode active material layer and including carbon nanotubes and a binder,” Jin [0013])
wherein the positive electrode active material has a bimodal particle size distribution, . (“The two types of positive electrode active materials with different average particle diameters (D.sub.50) according to the present invention may have a bimodal particle diameter distribution,” Jin [0042])
Jin is silent on the following elements of claim 17:
wherein the carbon nanotubes have ID/IG of 0.10 or less, the ID/IG being a ratio of a peak intensity of a D band divided by a peak intensity of a G band in a Raman spectrum,
and wherein a long axis length of the carbon nanotubes is 0.5D250 to 5D250, based on D250 which is the average particle diameter of the second distribution as a large particle size distribution in the bimodal particle size distribution.
Mun teaches the following elements of claim 17 that are not found in Jin:
wherein the carbon nanotubes have ID/IG of 0.10 or less, the ID/IG being a ratio of a peak intensity of a D band divided by a peak intensity of a G band in a Raman spectrum, (“The CNTs may be single-walled CNTs, multi-walled CNTs, or a combination thereof … A ID/IG ratio of the multi-walled CNTs, when determined by Raman spectroscopy using a laser at a wavelength of 514.5 nm, may be from about 0.1 to about 1.0,” Mun [0013-0015])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of about 0.1 to about 1 for the ID/IG ratio of the carbon nanotubes overlaps the claimed range of 0.03-0.10 for the same parameter. Specifically, an ID/IG ratio of 0.1, or slightly less given that Mun uses the term “about”, would fall within the claimed range and thus anticipate the claimed limitation. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Jin and Mun are silent on the following limitations of claim 17:
And wherein a long axis length of the carbon nanotubes is 0.5D250 to 5D250, based on D250 which is the average particle diameter of the second distribution as a large particle size distribution in the bimodal particle size distribution.
However, by further modifying Jin with Wi, as described above for claim 6, all of the additional limitations of claim 17 would be met. Specifically, by substituting the CNTs of Jin with that of Mun and substituting the bimodal active material of Jin with that of Wi, all of the limitations of claim 6 would be met.
and wherein a long axis length of the carbon nanotubes is 0.5D250 to 5D250, based on D250 which is the average particle diameter of the second distribution as a large particle size distribution in the bimodal particle size distribution.
Specifically, by substituting the CNTs of Jin with that of Mun and substituting the bimodal active material of Jin with that of Wi, all of the limitations of claim 17 would be met.
Mun teaches a long axis length of a carbon nanotube that is 25 um (“A positive active material including multi-walled CNTs coated on lithium transition metal oxide was obtained in the same manner as in Example 1, … and 2 parts by weight of multi-walled CNTs … with a purity of 95% or greater, an average diameter of 20 nm, and an average length of 25 um” Mun [0146]).
Wi teaches a bimodal positive electrode active material that comprises LiCoO2 and a Mn based olivine structure, where the average particle diameter of the larger particles is between 16-25 um. (“The cathode active material includes a mixture of layered LiCoO.sub.2 large particles and manganese-based olivine structural small particles. The manganese-based olivine structural small particles may be represented by chemical formula LiCo.sub.xMn.sub.yFe.sub.zPO.sub.4 (0≤x≤1, 0<y≤1, 0≤z≤1, x+y+z=1). An average particle diameter of the large particles may be 16 to 25 μm, and an average particle diameter of the small particles may be 1 to 3 μm.” Wi abstract.)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 1 (when both the CNT length and D250 are 25 um) -1.56 (When CNT length is 25 um and D250 is 16um) for the ratio of the long axis length to the D250 would anticipate the claimed range for this parameter, and thus the combination of the carbon nanotubes of Mun with the bimodal active material of Wi would meet all of the limitations of claim 16.
As described above regarding claim 1 and 6, the substitutions of the carbon nanotubes and bimodal cathode active material of Jin would both require only simple substitutions, and thus would be within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention.
Claim(s) 8-11, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Jin in view of Kim (US 2023/0104184 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Modified Jin teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above. However, Modified Jin fails to teach the following:
The positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the positive electrode layer further includes a point type carbon-based conductive material.
However, Kim teaches all of the elements of claim 8 that are not found in Modified Jin. Kim teaches
The positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the positive electrode layer further includes a point type carbon-based conductive material. (“the conductive agent included in the second positive electrode active material layer may include a point-type conductive agent,” (Kim 0055).)
Modified Jin and Kim are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of positive electrodes for lithium secondary batteries. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified Jin to incorporate the teachings of Kim in order to decrease the number of effective voids and provide a stable current migration path in the positive electrode active material layer. This would be accomplished by introducing an effective particulate conductive material to the positive electrode active material. Specifically, carbon black, and more specifically, any of acetylene black, Ketjen black, channel black, furnace black, lamp black, and thermal black. It would also have been obvious to include this at a weight percent of 2% or less, as this is standard in the art and provides enough conductive material to effectively suppress the resistance increase rate. No further modifications would be needed to meet claims 9-11, and therefore no further motivation is needed either.
Regarding claim 9, Modified Jin teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above. However, Modified Jin fails to teach the following:
The positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery of claim 8, wherein the point type carbon-based conductive material includes carbon black
However, Kim teaches all of the elements of claim 9 that are not found in Modified Jin. Kim teaches:
The positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery of claim 8, wherein the point type carbon-based conductive material includes carbon black (“the point-type conductive agent may include at least one selected from the group consisting of carbon black having an average particle diameter D.sub.50 of 5 nm to 50 nm, acetylene black, Ketjen black, channel black, furnace black, lamp black, and thermal black.” (Kim 0055))
Regarding claim 10, Modified Jin teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above. However, Modified Jin fails to teach the following:
The positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery of claim 9, wherein the carbon black is one or more selected from acetylene black, Ketjen black, channel black, furnace black, lamp black, and thermal black.
However, Kim teaches all of the elements of claim 10 that are not found in Modified Jin. Kim teaches
The positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery of claim 9, wherein the carbon black is one or more selected from acetylene black, Ketjen black, channel black, furnace black, lamp black, and thermal black. (“the point-type conductive agent may include at least one selected from the group consisting of carbon black having an average particle diameter D50 of 5 nm to 50 nm, acetylene black, Ketjen black, channel black, furnace black, lamp black, and thermal black.” (Kim 0055))
Regarding claim 11, Modified Jin teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above. However, Modified Jin fails to teach the following:
The positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery of claim 8, wherein the positive electrode active material layer includes 2 parts by weight or less of a conductive component including a linear conductive material including the carbon nanotubes and the point type carbon-based conductive material, based on 100 parts by weight of the positive electrode active material.
However, Kim teaches all of the elements of claim 11 that are not found in Modified Jin. Kim teaches
The positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery of claim 8, wherein the positive electrode active material layer includes 2 parts by weight or less of a conductive component including a linear conductive material including the carbon nanotubes and the point type carbon-based conductive material, based on 100 parts by weight of the positive electrode active material. (“the point-type conductive agent may be included in amount of 1.0 wt. % to 3.0 wt. % based on a total weight of the second positive electrode active material layer. (Kim 0056) This would meet the limitation of claim 11 because 1% weight is less than 2 parts per 100, as specified in the claim.)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art ranges of 1-3% by weight of point-type conductive agent overlaps the claimed range of 2 parts per weight of less out of 100 (i.e., 2% or less). Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 13, Jin and modified Kim teach all of the elements of claim 9, as shown above. Modified Jin and modified Kim teach all of the additional limitations of claim 13 due to inherency:
The positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery of claim 9, wherein the positive electrode satisfies the following Equation 1: (Equation 1) RB/RB(ref) ≤ 0.2 wherein RB is bulk resistance of the positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery, and RB(ref) is bulk resistance of a reference positive electrode which has the same composition as the positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery, but has ID/IG in a Raman spectrum of the carbon nanotubes included of 1.0 or more.
Given that the limitations of claim 13 provide no further structural limitations of the electrode, but rather recite a property of it in comparison to a control electrode, the structure of claim 13 is exactly that of claim 9, and therefore the rejection of claim 9 stands to reject claim 13 as well, barring the inclusion of any data or information that would show otherwise. See MPEP 2112 sections III-V regarding inherency and how this would apply to the electrode of claim 9 meeting the limitations of claim 13 despite not explicitly stating the inherent characteristic of having a ratio in relation to a control/reference electrode. Due to the prior art positive electrode of claim 9 being substantially the same to the instantly claimed positive electrode, they would inherently have the same properties.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Jin and Kim (US 20230104184 A1) as applied to claims 8-11 above, and further in view of Cheng (US 20210226207 A1).
Regarding claim 12, all of the limitations of claim 9 are taught by Modified Jin and Kim, as shown above. However, Modified Jin and Kim fail to teach the following:
The positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery of claim 9, wherein a mass ratio of the carbon nanotubes to the point type carbon-based conductive material included in the positive electrode active material layer is 1:0.2 to 3.
However, Cheng teaches all of the elements of claim 12 that are not found in Modified Jin or Kim. Specifically, Cheng teaches
The positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery of claim 9, wherein a mass ratio of the carbon nanotubes to the point type carbon-based conductive material included in the positive electrode active material layer is 1:0.2 to 3. (“A slurry containing NCM111, PVdF, carbon black and carbon nanotube (simply referred to as CNT, average diameter: 10 nm, specific surface area: 200 m2/g, length: 500 nm) in a mass ratio of 86:4:7:3 was prepared and applied to an Al foil of 15 μm in thickness so as to be a mass load of 123.6 g/m2, to obtain a positive electrode.” (Cheng 0074) Cheng uses a ratio of 7:3 of carbon black to nanotube, which would be a 3:7 ratio of nanotube to carbon black, which could also be written as 1:2.33. This would meet the limitation of claim 12, which requires a ratio 1:0.2-3 of carbon nanotubes to carbon black.)
Jin, Kim, and Cheng are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of positive electrodes for lithium secondary batteries. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the carbon nanotubes and point-type carbon-based conductive material of Jin and Kim to incorporate the teachings of Cheng in order to have a mass ratio in which the carbon black and carbon nanotubes are stably fixed and bound to the surface of the active material, as the specific ratio used by Cheng was shown to improve charge-rate characteristics (Cheng [0088]). This would be accomplished by using a mass ratio of 1:0.2 to 3 of carbon nanotubes to the point type carbon-based conductive material.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Modified Jin (US 20170309948 A1) in view of Azami (US 20170309948 A1), and further in view of Saida (JP 6848172 B2)
Regarding claim 15, modified Jin teaches all of the limitations of claim 14 as shown above. Jin is silent on the following:
The lithium secondary battery of claim 14, wherein a capacity retention rate of the lithium secondary battery based on 1000 charge and discharge cycles at room temperature is 88% or more.”
However, Azami and Saida teach all of the limitations of claim 15 that are not found in Jin. Azami teaches the usage of capacity retention rate with 1000 charge-discharge cycles at a different temperature to demonstrate the performance of their battery “1000 times of charge-discharge cycle test were performed in a thermostatic oven at 45° C. to measure the capacity retention ratio and to evaluate the lifetime.” (Azami 0141) While this doesn’t show the specific values at room temperature, it would be obvious to optimize the capacity retention rate in order to improve overall performance, as taught by Saida “optimization of the capacity retention rate of the lithium ion secondary battery.” (Saida evaluation example 2, paragraph 4)
Modified Jin, Azami, and Saida are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of lithium secondary batteries. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified Jin to incorporate the teachings of Azami and Saida in order to optimize the capacity retention rate at room temperature, given the near-identical composition of the instant electrode to the one taught by Modified Jin. This would be accomplished by making a lithium secondary battery which a capacity retention rate based on 1000 charge and discharge at room temperature of 88% or more.
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 BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET whose telephone number is (571)272-0156. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-6pm except for the first Friday of bi-week.
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, NICHOLAS SMITH can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/OLATUNJI A GODO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights