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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-12 are currently pending.
Claim 12 has been added.
Status of Amendment
The amendment filed on July 27th, 2026 has been fully considered, but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
Status of Objections and Rejections Pending since the Office Action of 07/23/2025
The double patenting rejections of claims 1, 2, 8, 9, and 10 are withdrawn. The co-pending application 18/696,472 has been amended such that the double patenting rejections are no longer proper.
The 103 rejections of claims 1-11 over Du in view of Suhara and Min are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s arguments and submitted evidence.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 21st, 2026 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final rejection on March 25th, 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 27th have been fully considered and are persuasive. The research by Han and Omirkhan establish on the record that Min’s failure to consider aspects of NCM particles such as their particle structure or internal porosity precludes Min’s analysis from being applied to Du and Suhara. Therefore, the 103 rejections of the claims over Du in view of Suhara and Min are withdrawn.
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.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du (US 2020/0006767 A1) and in further view of Suhara (US 7,381,498 B2).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 11, and 12, Du teaches a positive electrode comprising a positive current collector and a positive electrode mixture layer that contains two layers of positive electrode active material disposed on the positive current collector (abstract).
Du teaches a second sub-layer (corresponding with the applicant’s claimed sub-region) that is between the first sublayer/region and the positive current collector (abstract, [0033]). Du is silent on a second positive active material having a compressive strength of 250 MPa or less. Suhara is analogous art to Du because both teach lithium-nickel-cobalt-manganese composite materials. Suhara teaches a cathode material of a granular lithium composite powder whose stoichiometric composition (Suhara, abstract) aligns with the stoichiometric requirements taught by Du (Du, [0026] – [0031]). An example would be LiNi0.5Co0.2Mn0.3O2, also known as NCM622 (Suhara, abstract; Du, [0031]). Suhara continues to teach that their positive active material will have a large volume capacity density (col 4, lines 18-37). This material has a net compressive strength of less than 250 MPa (col 9, lines 22-39), which overlaps with the compressive strength required by the applicant’s second positive active material. 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). See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use the positive active material taught by Suhara in the second layer of Du’s composite positive active material to achieve a large energy density and improve the battery’s function.
Du teaches crystalline positive active materials that correspond with the claimed first positive active material having a “high mechanical strength” [0018] that can provide a “protective effect” [0018] to a layer underneath it, including LiNi0.85Co0.15Al0.05O2 [0017], a lithium-nickel-cobalt-aluminum composite oxide (as required by claim 12). However, Du is silent on the material’s compressive strength. Du teaches that the first positive active material (the first sub-layer that is on the side of the second sub-layer opposite to the current collector) has “high mechanical strength” [0009] and a “protective effect” on the structural stability of the second sub-layer [0010]. In order for this to be true, this first positive active material must have a compressive strength greater than that of the second positive active material. Suhara’s material has a theoretical max compressive strength of 300 MPa (Suhara; col 5, lines 40 – 48), so Du’s first positive active material must have a compressive strength of 300 MPa or more, overlapping with the claimed range of 400 MPa or more. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use a positive active material with a compressive strength of 300 MPa or more as the first positive active material in Du’s disclosure to ensure that Suhara’s material in the second positive active material layer is protected.
Du continues to teach a method of preparing a positive electrode plate that involves applying the slurries for positive electrodes in sequence to create different regions/sublayers [0046]. When the electrode is prepared in this manner, the regions that are created are primarily comprised of a single active material. Du continues to teach that the ratio of the thickness of the first region to the thickness of the entire positive active material layer is preferably “in a range of 0.15 to 0.5” [0035]. If that ratio’s value is 0.5, then the thicknesses of the both regions will be equal. Therefore, Du’s positive electrode plate reads on the claimed limitations of claims 1 and 11 of “when the positive electrode mixture layer is divided into a first region and a second region having the same thickness, the first positive electrode active material is contained more in the first region than in the second region, and the second positive electrode active material is contained more in the second region than in the first region.”
The limitation of “the compressive strength is calculated, using a micro-compression tester, from a formula ST = 2.8P / πd2, as an averaged value of St for at least 20 particles of the first or the second positive electrode material, where d represents a particle diameter and P represents a load applied to each particle” is a property measurement method. Suhara mentions this method of calculating compressive strength (col 6, lines 5-8). One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to create a positive active material and confirm that the compressive strength of the positive active materials is within the parameters taught by the combination of Du and Suhara.
Regarding claim 2, Du teaches that the first positive electrode material is contained in an outer-most layer and the second positive electrode material is “disposed between the positive electrode current collector” and the first layer (abstract).
Regarding claim 4, Du teaches that the particle diameter of the non-aggregated particles is greater than 1 µm [0018], which overlaps with the claimed range of “5 µm or less.” 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). See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 5, Suhara’s positive active electrode material is “a granular powder formed by agglomeration of many fine particles” (col 5, lines 26-28).
Regarding claim 6, the average particle diameter of Suhara’s primary particles ranges from 0.5 µm to 7 µm (col 5, line 31), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.2 µm to 1.2 µm. 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). See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 7, Suhara’s aggregated particles have an average diameter between 5 µm and 12 µm (col 5, lines 34-35) which overlaps with the claimed range of 5 µm to 20 µm. 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). See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 8, Du teaches that their first positive electrode active material slurry is 98% active material by mass [0046] which will result in the first region having a positive active material content that is greater than 30% by mass.
Regarding claim 9, Suhara teaches a positive electrode active material slurry that contains 88% of positive electrode active material by mass (Example 1, col 9, lines 45-47).
Regarding claim 10, Du teaches a secondary battery comprising a multi-layered positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a separator interposed between them, and an electrolyte solution ([0045] – [0054]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN K BLACKWELL-RUDASILL whose telephone number is (571)270-0563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
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.
/R.B.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
