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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8 April 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending
Claims 1 and 4 are amended
Status of Amendments
The amendment filed 8 April 2026 has been fully considered, but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
Status of Rejections and Objections of the Office Action from 9 January 2026
The 103 rejections over Sikha in view of Kim further in view of Lee are maintained in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sikha et al. (US 20160013480 A1), hereinafter Sikha, in view of Kim et al. (US 9397335 B2), hereinafter Kim, further in view of Lee et al. (US 20200388830 A1), hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Sikha teaches a positive electrode for a high-capacity energy storage device [0002], in this case a lithium-ion battery [0004] comprising a multi-layer cathode structure [0010] (part 103 of FIG. 2C), the positive electrode comprising a positive electrode substrate [0035] (part 113 of FIG. 2C), and a positive electrode active material [0035] (part 202 of FIG. 2C), wherein:
the positive electrode active material layer includes a first layer and a second layer, in this case the first layer of the claimed invention refers to what is considered to be the second layer of Sikha and the second layer of the claimed invention refers to what is considered to be the first layer of Sikha [0053, 0038] (parts 220 and 210 of FIG. 2C);
the second layer is disposed between the positive electrode substrate and the first layer, as shown by the layers being stacked in Sikha [0053] (part 210 of FIG. 2C);
the first layer includes a first positive electrode active material [53] (part 220 of FIG. 2C);
the second layer includes a second positive electrode active material [38] (part 210 of FIG. 2C);
the first positive electrode active material includes first aggregated particles, in this case a uni-modal particle size distribution in the first cathode layer [0065] wherein those particles may include aggregated micro-scale particles [0043].
It would have been obvious to use aggregated micro-scale particles for the particles in the first cathode layer because choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (nano-scale, micro-scale, and aggregated micro-scale particles) would have been obvious to try and supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2143, I, Part E). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415- 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Sikha teaches that layer 210 may be bi-modal [0065] comprising aggregated particles or single particles [0043], but is silent as to the second layer 210 including both second aggregated particles, wherein the second aggregated particles adjacent to each other are in contact with each other, and single particles, present solely instead of forming an aggregate, located in gaps between the second aggregated particles. However, Kim teaches a bimodal type active material (col. 2, line 48) comprising secondary particles, wherein the secondary particles are formed by the agglomeration of second primary particles (col. 4, lines 23-26), the particles adjacent to each other are in contact with each other (Fig. 1), and first primary particles, present solely instead of forming an aggregate (Fig. 1), are located in the gaps between the secondary particles (Fig. 1 and col. 2, lines 64-67). Examiner notes that the wording of claim 1, requiring the single particles to be present solely, does not exclude aggregates on its own because an aggregated particle still exists solely, or independently, as its own particle, despite comprising multiple primary particles.
Sikha and Kim are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of bimodal electrode active materials. Examiner notes that the electrode active material taught in Kim is taught to be an anode active material. However, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bimodal layer of Sikha with the structure of the bimodal layer of Kim and include a combination of aggregated particles and single particles in such a way that the secondary particles adjacent to each other are in contact with each other and first primary particles are located in the gaps between the secondary particles. Doing so would have provided optimum performance in the adhesion and high-rate capability as well as electrode density, which one of ordinary skill in the art would expect to apply to both cathodes and anodes (col. 3, lines 42-46).
Sikha is silent as to how many primary particles make up the aggregated particles. However, Kim teaches secondary particles in which two or more second primary particles are agglomerated (col. 4, lines 23-26). This overlaps with the claimed range of 50 or more primary particles. Sikha teaches that particle size can be adjusted to optimize the packing density of the particles while maintaining a reduced surface area in order to avoid unwanted side reactions which may occur at higher voltages [0043]. Adjusting the size of the aggregated particles, would directly impact the number of primary particles that make up the aggregated secondary particles. It would have been obvious to adjust the number of particles composing the aggregated particles of Sikha because "[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05. Also, 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Sikha is silent as to the single particles having an arithmetic mean diameter within a range of 3.5 to 10 µm as well as to the arithmetic mean diameter of the single particles being larger than an arithmetic mean diameter of the primary particles. However, Lee teaches a bimodal positive electrode active material comprising large particles of a first positive electrode active material and small particles of a second positive electrode active material [0008, 0011], wherein each active material may be a secondary particle which is formed by an agglomeration of primary particles. In this case, the first positive electrode active material may be a secondary particle formed by agglomeration of primary particles, corresponding to the primary particles of the instant, that may have an average particle diameter of 100 nm to 3 µm [0024] and the second electrode active material, corresponding to the single particles of the instant, may have an average particle diameter of 9 µm or less [0021]. 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Sikha, Kim, and Lee are all considered to be equivalent to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of bimodal electrode active materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the size of the single particles of the structure of Kim in the bimodal layer of Sikha with the teachings of Lee to be within a range of 3.5 to 10 µm and to be larger than the primary particles of the aggregated particles. Doing so would have helped to optimize the packing density of the particles while maintaining a reduced surface area in order to avoid unwanted side reactions which may occur at higher voltages [Sikha 0043]. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Further, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use, in this case single particles of a taught size being mixed with agglomerated primary particles of a taught size and used as a positive electrode active material, supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Sikha teaches second aggregated particles with a chemical composition represented by the formula Li1-aNixMe1-xO2, such as LiNiO2 or LiNi0.8Co0.2O2 [0030]. Sikha also teaches that layer 210 is bi-modal [0065], indicating two different sizes of the same particle. Further, Kim teaches the secondary particles being composed of the same compound as the primary particles (col. 6, lines 32-34) and Lee teaches the first and second electrode active materials being lithium composite transition metal oxides having the same composition [0028].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the single particles of Sikha out of the same compound as the second aggregated particles, as taught by Kim and Lee. Doing so would have improved the adhesion to the electrode and the high-rate capability (Kim col. 2, lines 59-60) and allowed for a higher capacity to be secured [Lee 0027].
Regarding claim 2, modified Sikha teaches the electrode according to claim 1. Sikha is silent as to the first and second aggregated particles having a larger arithmetic mean diameter than that of the single particles. However, Lee teaches a positive electrode active material wherein the aggregated particles, in this case the first positive electrode active material, have an average particle diameter that is twice or more the average particle diameter of the single particles, in this case the second positive electrode active material [0014].
It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first and second aggregated particles of Sikha with the teachings of Lee to have an average particle diameter larger than, in this case twice or more, the average particle diameter of the single particles. Doing so would have improved the energy density, stability, capacity characteristics, and high-temperature life characteristics while also reducing an amount of gas generated during high temperature storage [0011].
Regarding claim 3, modified Sikha teaches the electrode according to claim 1. Sikha does not specify the formula 0.2≤T1/(T1+T2)≤0.5 wherein T1 represents the thickness of the first layer and T2 represents the thickness of the second layer. However, Sikha teaches the thickness ratio of the first cathode material layer to the second cathode material layer is between about 5:1 to 1:5 [68]. Converting this to a formula would mean Sikha teaches the formula 0.1667≤T1/(T1+T2)≤0.8333 wherein T1 represents the thickness of the first layer and T2 represents the thickness of the second layer. Therefore, claim 3 is met because 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, modified Sikha teaches the positive electrode and nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claims 1 and 4. Modified Sikha also teaches a particle formed by an agglomeration of 2 or more primary particles (Kim col. 4, lines 23-26). Sikha teaches that particle size can be adjusted to optimize the packing density of the particles while maintaining a reduced surface area in order to avoid unwanted side reactions which may occur at higher voltages [43]. Adjusting the size of the aggregated particles, would directly impact the number of primary particles that make up the aggregated secondary particles. It would have been obvious to adjust the number of particles composing the aggregated particles of Sikha because "[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05. Further, 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claims 7 and 10, modified Sikha teaches the positive electrode and nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claims 1 and 4. Modified Sikha also teaches a single-particle of the single-particles being in contact with the second aggregated particles, which are adjacent to each other and are in contact with each other, as can be seen in Fig. 1 of Kim.
Regarding claims 8 and 11, modified Sikha teaches the positive electrode and nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claims 1 and 4. Modified Sikha also teaches a mixture of the second aggregated particles and the single particles in the second positive electrode active material having a bi-modal particle size distribution [Sikha 0065] (Kim col. 2, line 48) [Lee 0016].
Regarding claims 9 and 12, modified Sikha teaches the positive electrode and nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claims 1 and 4. Sikha also teaches the second layer including a binder [Sikha 0053] and one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the second aggregated particles and the single particles to be connected by the binder. Further, Kim teaches a desire to decrease the amount of binder necessary to maintain adhesion to the electrode (col. 2, lines 19-21 and col. 2, lines 32-33) and draws a connection between the diameters of the particles and how much binder is needed depending on the specific surface area available (col. 3, line 63 - col. 4, line 2 and col. 5 lines 21-26). This indicates that the binder of Kim is also taught to connect the aggregated particles with the single particles. Therefore, modified Sikha is considered to meet the limitation.
Regarding claims 13-20, modified Sikha teaches the positive electrode according to claims 1 and 4. Modified Sikha further teaches the arithmetic mean diameter of the single particles being 9 µm or less [Lee 0021], which overlaps with the claimed range of 3.5 µm to 4.5 µm, as required by claims 14, 16, 18, and 20, and the arithmetic mean diameter of the primary particles being 100 nm to 3 µm [Lee 0024], which overlaps with the claimed ranges of less than 0.5 µm, as required by claims 13 and 17, and 0.05 µm to 0.2 µm, as required by claims 15-16, and 19-20. 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
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). In this case, the present rejection is based on the combination of the positive electrode of Sikha, the bimodal structure of Kim, including small single unaggregated particles in between larger aggregated particles, and the particle size of Lee. Although the smaller secondary electrode active material of Lee may comprise aggregated particles, that does not take away from the taught ideal size ratio for the larger and smaller particles and is not a part of the present combination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUSTIN KENWOOD VAN KIRK whose telephone number is (703)756-4717. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571)272-3433. 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.
/DUSTIN VAN KIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights