DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/15/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant submits that amended claim 1 which claims a viscosity at 30 °C of the nonaqueous electrolyte of 1.3 mPa-s or less is a range of criticality which provides a significant improvement in battery characteristics such as 2C discharge capacity as shown in table 1 of the instant specification. In light of the amendment, Tokuda (US-20190288338-A1) is newly applied to modify Kim to teach a nonaqueous electrolyte having low viscosity: Kim does not explicitly disclose a viscosity at 30°C of the nonaqueous electrolyte is 1.3 mPa-s or less. However, Tokuda discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte comprising a compound having a viscosity of 0.6 cP or less, and preferably 0.5 cP or less, which falls within the claimed range of 1.3 mPa-s or less (see e.g., Tokuda; [0041]-[0042], claim 1, [0517], [0535]-[0536], regarding nonaqueous electrolyte 2). Tokuda is further analogous art because Tokuda discloses the nonaqueous electrolyte may be LiPF6 (see e.g., Tokuda; [0520]), which is the same electrolyte material as provided by Kim (see e.g., Kim; page 8). 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 the nonaqueous electrolyte disclosed by Kim have a viscosity of 0.6 cP or less as disclosed by Tokuda. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to produce an electrolyte which has low resistance, attains high ion movability, and has high infiltrating properties.
Regarding applicant’s arguments of the criticality of the D1/D2, example 1 and 3 of the instant specifications are the examples which show significantly improved 2C discharge capacity properties as shown in table 1. Example 1 provides a D1/D2 ratio of 14.1 and example 3 provides a D1/D2 ratio of 3.9. However, Kim discloses 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), and further that the size of the ceramic filler to the active material is 0.1~0.8:10 (see e.g., Kim; page 12), which overlaps with the range of criticality of at least example 1 of the instant specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 2 claims the same limitation as independent claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 9 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 Tokuda (US-20190288338-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), and further that the size of the ceramic filler to the active material is 0.1~0.8:10 (see e.g., Kim; page 12), 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. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided an average particle size of the ceramic filler and the active material of 0.1~0.8:10 as disclosed by Kim which overlaps with the claimed range of D1/D2 of 5 to 30 because if the powder size of the ceramic filler is too large, it cannot penetrate into the pores of the cathode active material and cannot be dispersed evenly, and if it is too small, it may block the fine pores of the cathode active material, preventing lithium ions from escaping from within the cathode active material layer (see e.g., Kim; pages 21-22).
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 1.3 mPa-s or less. However, Tokuda discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte comprising a compound having a viscosity of 0.6 cP or less, and preferably 0.5 cP or less, which falls within the claimed range of 1.3 mPa-s or less (see e.g., Tokuda; [0041]-[0042], claim 1, [0517], [0535]-[0536], regarding nonaqueous electrolyte 2). Tokuda is further analogous art because Tokuda discloses the nonaqueous electrolyte may be LiPF6 (see e.g., Tokuda; [0520]), which is the same electrolyte material as provided by Kim (see e.g., Kim; page 8). 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 the nonaqueous electrolyte disclosed by Kim have a viscosity of 0.6 cP or less as disclosed by Tokuda. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to produce an electrolyte which has low resistance, attains high ion movability, and has high infiltrating properties.
Regarding claim 2, modified Kim teaches the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery of claim 1. Kim does not explicitly disclose a viscosity at 30°C of the nonaqueous electrolyte is 1.3 mPa-s or less. However, Tokuda discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte comprising a compound having a viscosity of 0.6 cP or less, and preferably 0.5 cP or less, which falls within the claimed range of 1.3 mPa-s or less (see e.g., Tokuda; [0041]-[0042], claim 1, [0517], [0535]-[0536], regarding nonaqueous electrolyte 2). Tokuda is further analogous art because Tokuda discloses the nonaqueous electrolyte may be LiPF6 (see e.g., Tokuda; [0520]), which is the same electrolyte material as provided by Kim (see e.g., Kim; page 8). 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 the nonaqueous electrolyte disclosed by Kim have a viscosity of 0.6 cP or less as disclosed by Tokuda. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to produce an electrolyte which has low resistance, attains high ion movability, and has high infiltrating properties.
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).
Regarding claim 9, modified Kim teaches the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1. As above regarding claim 1, Kim provides 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), and further that the size of the ceramic filler to the active material is 0.1~0.8:10 (see e.g., Kim; page 12), which overlaps with the claimed range of wherein a ratio: D1/D2 of the average particle size D1 to the average particle size D2 satisfies 5 to 14.1. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided an average particle size of the ceramic filler and the active material of 0.1~0.8:10 as disclosed by Kim which overlaps with the claimed range of D1/D2 of 5 to 14.1 because if the powder size of the ceramic filler is too large, it cannot penetrate into the pores of the cathode active material and cannot be dispersed evenly, and if it is too small, it may block the fine pores of the cathode active material, preventing lithium ions from escaping from within the cathode active material layer (see e.g., Kim; pages 21-22).
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 Tokuda (US-20190288338-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
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