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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has amended claim 1 from “M includes at least Al” to “M includes at least one selected from the group consisting of Na, Mg, Sc, Y, Mn, Fe, Cu, Zn, Al, Cr, Pb, Sb, and B”. Tan is still used to modify Kim to teach this element of claim 1.
Applicant submits that the instant invention solves the technical problem of increased ion transfer resistance with combining specific particle diameter ratio and low-viscosity nonaqueous electrolyte. Applicant submits that the non-obviousness of the present invention should be judged from the perspective of whether a person skilled in the art has recognized the above problem and had motivation to combine the claimed particle size ratio, nonaqueous electrolyte viscosity, and inactive particles. Applicant further submits that Tan does not describe the technical problem such as the increase in impedance within the electrode and the deterioration of rate characteristics under load conditions. Because of these reasons, applicant argues that there is not motivation for a skilled person to conceive of reducing viscosity of the nonaqueous electrolyte or controlling the particle diameter ratio. Applicant submits that the combination of Wakada with Kim does not complement the technical concept of the present invention.
First, the motivation provided by the references does not need to be the same motivation as provided in the instant specifications. Wakada provides motivation to combine the property of the viscosity of the nonaqueous electrolyte to Kim. In the rejection, Kim discloses the claimed inactive ceramic particles and the claimed D1/D2 ratio (see e.g., Kim; page 8 paragraph 2 regarding the particle size of active and inactive material). Wakada modifies Kim to teach the viscosity of the nonaqueous electrolyte, which may be 0.1-2 cp (see e.g., Wakada; [0218]), and provides an example of 1.1 cp (see e.g., Wakada; [0434]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 1.5 mPa-s or less. Furthermore, there is motivation to combine the nonaqueous electrolyte viscosity range property of Wakada to Kim. Namely, One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have a low viscosity electrolyte to increase the ionic conductivity and so that the occurrence of unevenness in concentration of lithium ions in the organic solvent can be prevented, and the internal resistance of the lithium secondary battery can be reduced (see e.g., Wakada; [0218], [0249]). Additionally, this motivation as disclosed by Wakada directly relates to the instant technical problem of increases in impedance within the electrode and the deterioration of rate characteristics under load condition because impedance is directly related to resistance. Thus, while applicant submits that there is no motivation for a skilled person to conceive of reducing the viscosity of the nonaqueous electrolyte to 1.5 mPa-s or less, it is found that Wakada does complement the technical aspect of impendence and provides additional motivations for the teaching of low viscosity. Moreover, the diameter ratio D1/D2 within a specific range is provided by Kim, and Kim discloses that the resulting battery has improved high-temperature life characteristics and improved high-temperature overcharging characteristics (see e.g., Kim; page 35). Therefore, claim 1 is obvious over the combination of Kim, Wakada, and Tan.
Applicant further cites table 1, fig. 3, and fig. 4 of the instant specifications and submits that the discharge capacity is increased under the claimed D1/D2 ratio and low viscosity nonaqueous electrolyte, demonstrating the significance of the effect of instant claim 1. Applicant’s arguments regarding the data tables and criticality are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. Claim 1 claims that the average particle size D1 to D2 is within the range of 5 to 30. However, table 1 of the instant specifications show the D2 of the alumina ranges from 0.79-2.85, and the D1/D2 ratio of examples 1-2 are 14.1 (given the average particle size D1 of the active material is 11.1 as described in the examples in [0070]) and the D1/D2 ratio of examples 3-4 are 3.9. Therefore, the scope of the results of D1/D2 is 3.9 to 14.1, which is a much narrow range than the claimed 5 to 30. Applicant submits that figs. 3 and 4 show that the 2C discharge capacity provide significant improvements with the described examples. However, the results of figs. 3 and 4 are also not commensurate with the scope of the claim because the results are based on the examples having the D1/D2 ratios of 3.9 and 14.1, which is a different and narrow range compared to the claimed 5 to 30 ratio.
Moreover, corresponding improvements are also shown in Kim and Wakada. Kim discloses in fig. 4B the high battery life characteristics and capacity of the secondary battery (see e.g., Kim; fig. 4B, [0062]). Moreover, Wakada discloses that the capacity of the secondary battery may be similarly improved (see e.g., Wakada; [0201], regarding high initial capacity, cycle property, rate property, table 1, [0435], regarding example 1 which has a nonaqueous electrolyte of low viscosity which shows an “A” rating of corrosion suppression effect, rate property, initial capacity, and high temperature cycle property). In summary, applicant’s arguments regarding the criticality of the data and provided improvements are not commensurate with the scope of the independent claim, and the improvements described and provided in the instant specifications are reflected by the combination of Kim and Wakada.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR-20130107132-A) (see translation) and further in view Tan; “Tan, C., Luo, H., Du, K. et al. Core-shell structured Li[(Ni0.9Co0.05Al0.05)0.6(Ni0.4Co0.2Mn0.4)0.4]O2 cathode material for high-energy lithium ion batteries. Ionics 24, 1293–1304 (2018)” and Wakada (US-20140079995-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising a positive electrode having a positive electrode mixture layer, a negative electrode (see e.g., page 7 paragraph 3, regarding lithium secondary battery), and a nonaqueous electrolyte (see e.g., [0051], regarding nonaqueous electrolyte preferentially used as liquid electrolyte because of reactivity between lithium and moisture), wherein the positive electrode mixture layer includes a positive electrode active material and inactive particles, wherein the inactive particles are ceramics (see e.g., page 7 paragraph 3 to page 8 paragraph 1, regarding ceramic filler disposed in the pores of active material layer), the positive electrode active material includes a lithium-containing composite oxide (see e.g., page 8 paragraph 3, regarding cathode active material composed of composite metal oxide such as LiCoO2, LiMn2O4, LiNiO2, LiNi1-xCoxCoO2, LiNixCoyMnzO2, or LiFePO4), an average particle size D1 of the positive electrode active material of 5 μm to 15 μm (see e.g., see e.g., page 8 paragraph 2) and an average particle size D2 of the inactive particles of 0.1 to 0.8 μm (see e.g., page 8 paragraph 2, regarding ceramic filler powder size) which overlaps with the claimed range of D1> D2, and which overlaps with the claimed range D1/D2 of the average particle size D1 to the average particle size D2 of 5 to 30.
Kim discloses that the cathode material may be composite metal oxides (see e.g., Kim; [0043]). Kim does not explicitly show the claimed formula LiaNi1-x-yCoxMyO2 where 0<a≤1.2, 0≤x≤0.1, 0≤y≤0.1, 0<x+y≤0.1, and M includes at least one selected from the group consisting of Na, Mg, Sc, Y, Mn, Fe, Cu, Zn, Al, Cr, Pb, Sb, and B. This claimed formula includes a range wherein y may be 0, which means that M is not specifically required.
Tan discloses a cathode material for high-energy lithium ion batteries comprising of a material that is LiNi-0.9Co0.05Al0.05O2 (see e.g., Tan; page 2 introduction, regarding “Li(Ni0.9Co0.05Al0.05)O2 was used as a core to maintain enough energy density of the cathode material”). The material as disclosed by Tan provides molar ratios of the metal elements that fall within with the claimed formula. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cathode material of Kim by using the cathode material comprising LiNi-0.9Co0.05Al0.05O2 disclosed by Tan in order to improve energy density (see e.g., Tan; page 2 introduction), and enhance structural stability, inhibit side reaction during cycling, improve cycling performance, improve electrochemical performance, and improve thermal stability (see e.g., Tan; page 10 conclusion). Tan is further analogous art because Tan discloses a similar particle size of the cathode material (see e.g., Tan; fig. 1b-c, wherein the scale of measurement shows 5 μm), and discloses the inclusion of Mn in the material (see e.g., Tan; page 2 introduction regarding shell material, page 10 conclusion).
Kim does not explicitly disclose a viscosity at 30°C of the nonaqueous electrolyte is 1.5 mPa-s or less. However, Wakada teaches that the viscosity of an electrolyte solution is 0.1 cp to 2 cp (see e.g., Wakada; [0218]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 1.5 mPa-s or less, and provides an example wherein the viscosity is 1.1 cp (see e.g., Wakada; [0434]). Wakada is analogous art and combinable because Wakada discloses that a nonaqueous solvent may be used (see e.g., Wakada; [0065]) which overlaps with the solvents used be Kim (see e.g., Kim; [0051]), and also uses similar lithium composite oxides in the positive electrode (see e.g., Wakada; [0049]-[0050]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had an electrolyte disclosed Kim that has a viscosity of 0.1 cp to 2 cp as disclosed by Wakada. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have a low viscosity electrolyte to increase the ionic conductivity and so that the occurrence of unevenness in concentration of lithium ions in the organic solvent can be prevented, and the internal resistance of the lithium secondary battery can be reduced (see e.g., Wakada; [0218], [0249]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Kim teaches the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery of claim 1. Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the viscosity at 30 °C of the nonaqueous electrolyte is 1.3 mPa - s or less. However, Wakada teaches that the viscosity of an electrolyte solution is 0.1 cp to 2 cp (see e.g., Wakada; [0218]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 1.3 mPa-s or less, and further provides an example wherein the viscosity is 1.1 cp (see e.g., Wakada; [0434]). Wakada is analogous art and combinable because Wakada discloses that a nonaqueous solvent may be used (see e.g., Wakada; [0065]) which overlaps with the solvents used be Kim (see e.g., Kim; [0051]), and also uses similar lithium composite oxides in the positive electrode (see e.g., Wakada; [0049]-[0050]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had an electrolyte disclosed Kim that has a viscosity of 0.1 cp to 2 cp as disclosed by Wakada. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have a low viscosity electrolyte to increase the ionic conductivity and so that the occurrence of unevenness in concentration of lithium ions in the organic solvent can be prevented, and the internal resistance of the lithium secondary battery can be reduced (see e.g., Wakada; [0218], [0249]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Kim teaches the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery of claim 1. Kim further discloses the D2 of the inactive particles is 0.1 to 0.8 μm (see e.g., page 8 paragraph 2, regarding ceramic filler powder size), which falls within the claimed range 0.1 μm or more and 10 μm or less.
Regarding claim 5, modified Kim teaches the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1. Kim further discloses wherein the ceramic filler may be included between 0.5 to 3 wt% (see e.g., page 8 paragraph 7, regarding ceramic filler and cathode active material in weight ratio of 0.5 to 3 : 99.5 to 97) which falls within the claimed range of the inactive particles relative to a total of the positive electrode active material and the inactive particles is 0.1 mass% or more and 15 mass% or less.
Regarding claim 7, modified Kim teaches the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1. Kim further discloses wherein the ceramics include at least one selected from the group consisting of silica, alumina, and titania (see e.g., Kim; page 8 paragraph 4).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR-20130107132-A) (see translation), Tan; “Tan, C., Luo, H., Du, K. et al. Core-shell structured Li[(Ni0.9Co0.05Al0.05)0.6(Ni0.4Co0.2Mn0.4)0.4]O2 cathode material for high-energy lithium ion batteries. Ionics 24, 1293–1304 (2018),” and Wakada (US-20140079995-A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Muraoka (JP-2012033381-A) (see translation).
Regarding claim 8, modified Kim teaches the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1. Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein a thickness of the positive electrode mixture layer is 100 μm or more. However, Muraoka discloses a positive electrode mixture layer of 140 to 200 μm (see e.g., Muraoka; [0012]) which overlaps with the claimed range of 100 μm or more. Muraoka is further equivalent analogous art because Muraoka similarly discloses a nonaqueous electrode secondary battery wherein the positive electrode is provided with a binder. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery disclosed by Kim by providing a positive electrode mixture layer thickness of 140 to 200 μm disclosed by Muraoka. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase capacity, prevent breakage of the positive electrode, and prevent decrease in cycle characteristics (see e.g., Muraoka; [0013]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KEVIN SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7337. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 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.
/KEVIN SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights