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 .
Claim Status
Claims 5 and 14 have been amended with narrowing amendments.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 13, and 15-17 have been cancelled.
Claims 2, 5, 7-12, 14, and 18-29 are currently pending and have been examined on the merits in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/21/2026 have been fully considered as the rejection of record has been updated taking into account the amendments to the claims. Applicant argues that Miki fails to cure the deficiencies of Han and is found to be persuasive in view of the amended claims and thus the rejection has been updated. This argument is noted and the Miki reference has been removed and the rejection has been updated rendering moot applicant’s arguments. Applicant further argues limitation not claimed which are not found to be persuasive. Applicant further argues that there is no rationale in Barker to modify claim 29, this is found to be not persuasive as Barker discloses an increase in electroconductivity for the battery and thus is beneficial to add to the battery. The rejection has been updated rendering the arguments moot.
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 2, 5, 9-11, 14, 19-20, 23-24, and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (CN 110729451 A1) in view of Uchiyama (US 2015/0024280 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Han discloses a lithium ion battery comprising a positive electrode comprising ([45] positive electrode; [2-4] lithium ion battery):
A positive electrode lithium supplementing material layer and a core of the positive electrode, wherein the positive electrode lithium supplementing material layer is provided on an external surface of the positive electrode and is configured to be in between the core of the positive electrode and a liquid of gel electrolyte of the lithium ion battery ([6-10] lithium supplement layer can be applied on the current collector core in between the material layer and the current collector or on the material layer that is between the separator and the positive electrode; [103] separator between the positive electrode and negative electrode; [74] non-aqueous electrolyte and a diaphragm are provided in the lithium ion battery),
Wherein the positive electrode lithium supplementing material layer comprising a positive electrode lithium supplementing material, wherein the positive electrode lithium supplementing material comprises Li2MoO3、Li2MnO3、LiMnO2、Li2MnSiO4、 Li2CoSiO4、LiFeBO3、Li2FeSiO4、Li5FeO4、Li6CoO4、Li6MnO4、Li2NiO2And Li2CuO2 ([6-10, 41] lithium supplement layer comprises a lithium supplement material and a binder wherein the supplement material comprises a core and a coating layer that contains a lithium ion compound listed above an a carbon and metal carbide).
Han’s material for the lithium supplement layer in view of the amendments to the claims is silent with respect to a material according to the compounds claimed.
Uchiyama discloses a positive electrode active material and electrode for a battery and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery cells. Uchiyama discloses wherein the positive electrode can have a suppressing layer that is between the active material and the electrolyte and made of Li2ZrO3 ([0042]) for suppressing a reaction with the solid electrolyte ([0013]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to substitute and use the Li2ZrO3 material taught by Uchiyama as the lithium supplementing material within Han’s cathode as a simple substitute and of an equivalent material as taught by Uchiyama in order to suppress the reaction of the solid electrolyte and the cathode by providing the suppressing layer. The resulting modification would render obvious all the claim limitations of claims 5 and 14. 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 simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding claim 2, modified Han discloses all the claim limitation of claim 5. Han further discloses wherein a first delithiation capacity of the positive electrode lithium supplementing material is greater than or equal to 300 mAh/g ([40-41, 78-84], Example 1 Li5FeO4 was selected as the lithium supplementing material and is taught to have a removal capacity of 500 mAh/g). Han further discloses wherein a higher removal lithiation capacity than a lithium insertion capacity for the supplement layer is beneficial to create an optimal lithium supplement material effect. While Han is silent with the specific Li2MoO3 nor Uchiyama disclosing the material of Li2ZrO3 , of the combination, having the lithium removal capacity, the Li2MoO3 material is within the list of material taught by Han as a supplementing material and through the combination the Li2ZrO3 is an equivalent material that is also used by applicant within the scope of claims 5 and 2. Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan that the Li2ZrO3 material would have a similar removal capacity as the other materials disclosed by Han and thus be inherently above 300 mAh/g as Han’s teaching of the lithium removal capacity being 150 mAh/g more than the lithium insertion capacity and the examples 1-2 being other materials that can be used for the supplementing material having a capacity of more than 500 mAh/g. Thus the disclosure of Han would inherently render obvious the Li2ZrO3 material having a delithiation capacity of 300 mAh/g.
While the prior art does not explicitly teach the delithiation capacity of the Li2ZrO3 material, these properties are considered inherent in the prior art barring any differences shown by objective evidence between lithium supplementing material disclosed in the prior art and the applicant. As lithium supplementing material taught by the prior art and the applicant are identical within the scope of claim 2, Han inherently teaches that the Li2ZrO3 material has a delithiation capacity of 300 mAh/g. Examiner further notes that the delithiation capacity of Li2ZrO3 is larger than 300 mAh/g. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 9, modified Han discloses all the claim limitations of claim 5. Han further discloses comprising a positive electrode active material layer, wherein the positive electrode lithium supplementing material layer is arranged on a current collector, and the positive electrode active material layer is arranged on the positive electrode lithium supplementing material layer ([6] a lithium supplement layer positioned between the positive current collector and the positive material layer).
Regarding claim 10, modified Han discloses all the claim limitations of claim 9. Han further discloses comprising wherein the positive electrode active material layer comprises a positive electrode active material, a binder, and a conductive agent ([60] positive electrode material layer generally contains at least one active material, one conductive agent, and at least one binder),
wherein the positive electrode active material comprises at least one of lithium cobalt oxide, lithium iron phosphate, lithium iron manganese phosphate, lithium vanadium phosphate, lithium vanadyl phosphate, lithium vanadate, lithium manganate, lithium nickelate, lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide, lithium-rich manganese-based material, or lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide ([18] positive electrode active materials that contains material as claimed),
the binder comprises at least one of fluorine-containing resin, polypropylene resin, fiber-type binder, rubber-type binder, or polyimide-type binder ([65] binder materials that contains materials as claimed), and
the conductive agent comprises at least one of conductive carbon black, carbon fiber, acetylene black, Ketjen black, graphene, or a carbon nanotube ([63] conductive materials as claimed).
Regarding claim 11, modified Han discloses all the claim limitations of claim 10. Han further discloses comprising wherein based on a total weight of the positive electrode active material layer, a weight percentage of the positive electrode active material is 80 wt% to 98 wt%, a weight percentage of the binder is 0.5wt% to 10wt% (Han [64], and a weight percentage of the conductive agent is 0.5 wt% to 10 wt% (Han [64] mass ratio of the active material to conductive agent to binder is 95-99.8: 0.6-2:0.6-3). This claimed mass ratio renders obvious the claimed ranges as the mass ratios are within or slightly above the claimed ranges. 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).
Regarding claims 19-20 and 26-27, modified Han discloses all the claim limitations of claims 5 and 14. Han further discloses wherein the thickness of the positive electrode lithium supplementing material layer is 1-5 micrometers ([56] lithium supplement layer is between 2-4 micrometers and if the supplement layer is less than 2 micrometers the layer provides limited active lithium and cannot completely supplement lithium consumed by the electrode, however, is also less than 4 micrometers so that the lithium supplement layer does not affect volumetric energy density of the battery). 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).
Regarding claim 23, Han discloses all the claim limitations of claim 14. Han further discloses comprising a positive electrode active material layer, wherein the positive electrode lithium supplementing material layer is arranged on a current collector, and the positive electrode active material layer is arranged on the positive electrode lithium supplementing material layer ([6] a lithium supplement layer positioned between the positive current collector and the positive material layer),
wherein the positive electrode active material layer comprises a positive electrode active material, a binder, and a conductive agent ([60] positive electrode material layer generally contains at least one active material, one conductive agent, and at least one binder),
wherein the positive electrode active material comprises at least one of lithium cobalt oxide, lithium iron phosphate, lithium iron manganese phosphate, lithium vanadium phosphate, lithium vanadyl phosphate, lithium vanadate, lithium manganate, lithium nickelate, lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide, lithium-rich manganese-based material, or lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide ([18] positive electrode active materials that contains material as claimed),
the binder comprises at least one of fluorine-containing resin, polypropylene resin, fiber-type binder, rubber-type binder, or polyimide-type binder ([65] binder materials that contains materials as claimed), and
the conductive agent comprises at least one of conductive carbon black, carbon fiber, acetylene black, Ketjen black, graphene, or a carbon nanotube ([63] conductive materials as claimed).
Regarding claim 24, modified Han discloses all the claim limitations of claim 23. Han further discloses comprising wherein based on a total weight of the positive electrode active material layer, a weight percentage of the positive electrode active material is 80 wt% to 98 wt%, a weight percentage of the binder is 0.5wt% to 10wt% (Han [64], and a weight percentage of the conductive agent is 0.5 wt% to10 wt% (Han [64] mass ratio of the active material to conductive agent to binder is 95-99.8: 0.6-2:0.6-3). This claimed mass ratio renders obvious the claimed ranges as the mass ratios are within or slightly above the claimed ranges. 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).
Claims 18, 25, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (CN 110729451 A1) in view of Uchiyama (US 2015/0024280 A1) and further evidenced by Yuge (US 2016/0181613 A1).
Regarding claims 18, 25, and 28, modified Han discloses all the claim limitations of claims 5 and 14. Han further disclose a thickness of the positive electrode lithium supplementing material layer being less than or equal to 10 micrometers ([56] lithium supplement layer is between 2-4 micrometers and if the supplement layer is less than 2 micrometers the layer provides limited active lithium and cannot completely supplement lithium consumed by the electrode, however, is also less than 4 micrometers so that the lithium supplement layer does not affect volumetric energy density of the battery).
Han discloses a median particle diameter of the positive electrode lithium supplementing material is less than or equal to 1.5 micrometers, 0.5-1.5 micrometers and/or 0.5 -1.2 micrometers (Han [11] lithium ion compound has an average particle size of 50 nm to 5 micrometers). Han discloses the average particle diameter instead of the median particle diameter, however, it is the examiner’s opinion that it would have been expected that the median particle diameter and the average particle diameter would be similar to each other considering the range taught by Han of 50 nanometers to 5 micrometers. A skilled artisan would have found it obvious given an average particle diameter lower limit being 50 nanometers and an upper limit of 5 micrometers that the median particle diameter would be within the same general area of 50 nm to 5 micrometers. Thus the range disclosed by Han would render obvious the claim limitation of the median particle diameter of 0.5- to 1.5 micrometers (claim 18), 0.5-1.2 micrometers (claim 25), and less than or equal to 1.5 micrometers (claim 28). 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).
Examiner notes the breadth of the claim and the range disclosed by the prior art. The range disclosed by the prior art would render obvious a median particle size around the average particle size taught by Han. Yuge is cited as to further enhance that the median particle size and average particle size can be the same if not similar in scope as Yuge discloses a teaching wherein the lithium complex oxide used as the positive electrode active material can have an average particle diameter of 0.1-50 micrometers and that the average particle diameter means a median particle diameter ([0059]). Thus it is determined that the range of Han of 50 nanometers to 5 micrometers would also teach a similar if not the same range for the median particle diameter and thus claims 18 ,25 and 28 are considered to be rendered obvious by the disclosure of Han absent evidentiary data of criticality between the claimed ranges.
Claims 7-8, 12, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (CN 110729451 A1) in view of Uchiyama (US 2015/0024280 A1) as applied to claims 5, 10 and 14 above, and further in view of He (CN 105702913 A).
Regarding claim 7-8 and 21-22, modified Han discloses all the claim limitations of claim 5 and 14. Han discloses wherein the positive electrode lithium supplementing layer comprises a conductive agent and a binder ([42-48] coating layer on the surface of the lithium ion compound is added to improve conductivity of the material, the material containing carbon and metallic carbide on the surface; [66-70]),
wherein the binder comprises at least one of polypropylene, polyethylene, polyvinylidene fluoride, or polytetrafluoroethylene ([17] binder materials), and wherein the mass ratio of lithium supplement material to the first binder is (85-97): (3-15) (Han [17]).
Han further discloses wherein the active material contains a conductive carbon such as carbon black, carbon fiber, acetylene black, Ketjen black, graphene or a carbon nanotube, however, is silent with respect to the lithium supplementing layer further comprising a conductive agent such as at least one of carbon black, carbon fiber, acetylene black, Ketjen black, graphene or a carbon nanotube at a weight of 5-10 wt% of the lithium supplementing material.
He discloses a positive electrode containing a lithium supplementing layer in which the lithium supplementing layer is arranged between the conductive substate and the active material layer. He is analogous with the instant invention as being directed towards a positive electrode having a lithium supplementing layer. He discloses wherein the lithium supplementing layer is made of a lithium containing compound, at least one conductive agent and at least one binder ([32], [76]) wherein the conductive agent can be one or more of acetylene black, conductive carbon black, carbon fibers, carbon nanotubes, graphene, conductive graphite and provided within the range of 5-50 wt% ([20], [54], [68]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to incorporate at least one conductive agent of He (such as one of conductive carbon black, carbon fiber, acetylene black, graphene, or carbon nanotubes) into the lithium supplement layer at a weight between 5-50 wt% in order to improve the conductivity of the supplement layer. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the conductivity of the supplement layer because the layer would further enhance the carbon/carbide coating that is applied to the lithium containing compound of the lithium supplement layer to improve conductivity and also to provide the positive electrode with corrosion resistance as described by Han [27]. The resulting modification would disclose all the limitations of claims 7-8 and 21-22 of the positive electrode lithium supplementing material layer having a binder having a weight percentage between 3-15 and conductive material between 5-50 that overlap the claimed ranges. Thus a skilled artisan could have realized that the percentages taught can yield a ratio in which the conductive material is 5-10 wt%, the binder is 5-10 wt% and thus the supplementing material is 80-90 wt%, as taught through the modification as a skilled artisan can select the amount of materials based on the claimed ranges absent evidentiary data that yields criticality. 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).
Regarding claim 12, modified Han discloses all the claim limitations of claim 10. Han discloses two separate layers in which the active material layer and the lithium supplement layer are stacked upon each other. Han is silent with respect to the mass percentage of the lithium supplementing material layer in comparison to the active material layer. Examiner notes the interpretation of claim 12 to be that the weight of the supplementing material is 1-10 wt% when compared to the weight of the active material.
He discloses a positive electrode containing a lithium supplementing layer in which the lithium supplementing layer is arranged between the conductive substate and the active material layer. He is analogous with the instant invention as being directed towards a positive electrode having a lithium supplementing layer. He discloses in example 1 wherein the lithium supplementing layer is applied to the collector in an amount of 0.5 g while the active material layer is provided in an amount of 12 g( [93-98] lithium supplementing layer is provided at a 4.1667 wt% compared to the active material).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to adjust the mass of the supplement layer compared to the amount of the active material layer to a value of 4.1667 wt% as disclosed by He as a simple modification of the mass percentages. Examiner further notes that Han discloses a thickness of the supplement layer to be between 2-4 micrometers to allow for sufficient active lithium ions to be consumed by the electrode while also limiting the volumetric density of the battery ([56]). This teaching of Han along with the disclosure of He would lead a skilled artisan to adjust the weights of the active material and supplement layers.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (CN 110729451 A1) in view of Uchiyama (US 2015/0024280 A1) as applied to claim 5, and further in view of Barker et al. (US 2003/0073003 A1).
Regarding claim 29, modified Han discloses all the claim limitations of claim 5. Han discloses a list of materials that can be used for the lithium supplementing material, however, is silent with respect to wherein the supplementing material can contain the specific compounds according to claim 29.
Barker discloses a cathode based active material and additives for the cathode and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of cathodes for battery cells. Barker discloses a molybdenum oxide that can be added to the positive electrode active material to provide electrodes for batteries having the formula LixMoO2 wherein x can be 0.1-2 and wherein the resulting electrode having an enhanced conductivity of the electrode (abstract, [0006, 0008, 0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to add in the LixMoO2 taught by Barker into the lithium supplementing material of modified Han in order to enhance the conductivity of the lithium supplementing layer and resulting electrode as taught by Barker. Han discloses wherein a plurality of materials can be used and thus it would have been obvious in view of the teaching of Barker to add the LixMoO2 material into the supplementing material to increase the conductivity of the electrode and thus all the claim limitations of claim 29 are rendered obvious through the combination.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al. (US 9,735,426 B2)-discloses a cathode active material for a battery having a coating layer applied to the active material layer that is analogous in scope with the instant invention.
Yashiro et al. (US 2019/0260065 A1)- discloses an all solid state secondary battery having a supplementing coating material that overlaps with that of the claimed invention.
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 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
Prosecution Insights