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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/13/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 05/13/2026 is acknowledged but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The rejection of claims 1-8 and 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive..
Applicant argues the calculations of the HNBR weight percent are based on the total electrode composition and not weight of the active material, however the rejection compares the HNBR to the active material content in that the electrode total electrode composition contains 70-99.5% active material and the HNBR is present in the dispersion liquid in the electrode layer at 1 to 50 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the carbon nanotubes which are present in 1-33 wt.% of the dispersion liquid. Since the dispersion liquid is present at 1-50% of the total electrode composition this leads to overlapping ranges of the HNBR to active material.
Applicant also argues a POSITA would have not have applied the teaching of Kim to the primer layer and not the second active material layer, however Kim only embodies a single layer electrode and that layer is most directly comparable to the first layer of Zaghib since both layers directly contacts the current collector. Furthermore, even if the disperse liquid of Kim were applied to both layers of Zaghib this is not excluded by the limitations presented in the current claims.
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 8 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 8 recites the broad recitation a thickness of 1 to 5 µm, and claim 1 (upon which 8 depends) also recites a thickness of 1 to less than 5 µm. 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.
Claims 1, 5-6, 8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaghib et. al. (US20090301866, as cited in the previous office action) in view of Kim (US20180175370A1) and Zhu et al.( US20220407081A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zaghib discloses a positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery comprising (¶[0286]):
a positive electrode current collector ( Fig. 1, 1);
a primer coating layer disposed on the positive electrode current collector (Fig. 1, A or A’); and
a positive electrode active material layer disposed on the primer coating layer (Fig. 1, B or B’),
wherein the primer coating layer contains lithium iron phosphate (¶[0025], Fig. 1, see layer A of cathode configuration) and a binder (¶[0018])
but does not disclose wherein the primer coating layer comprises a conductive material and a dispersant.
Kim, related to positive electrode layers, teaches coating layer comprising an active material, a binder, a conductive material and a dispersant (¶[0115]), wherein the dispersant is hydrogenated nitrile butadiene rubber (HNBR) wherein an amount of a residual double bond (RDB) present in the HNBR is 1-15% (¶[0082]) and may also be wholly hydrogenated which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize to be 0%(¶[0079]) and the HNBR is present in 1 to 50 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the carbon nanotubes(¶[0092]), which are present in 1-33 wt.% of the dispersion liquid(¶[0092]) which is 1-50% of the total electrode composition(¶[0118], which contains 70-99.5% active material leading to an overlapping range with the claimed 0.4-2.0 wt.% of HNBR to active material (i.e. lithium iron phosphate)(¶[0128]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the dispersant and conductive material of Kim would improve uniformity and reduce cracking of the primer coating layer of Zaghib (¶[0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided dispersant and conductive material of Kim as part of the primer coating layer in the positive electrode of Zaghib to improve layer uniformity and reduce cracking.
Zaghib additionally discloses wherein the primer coating layer and the positive active material layer has a thickness of 1-200 µm (¶[0049] see first and second layer, but does not specifically direct toward a thickness of 1 to less than 5 µm.
Zhu, related to battery electrodes, teaches an electrode plate 10 with a first coating layer 102 and a second coating layer 103 and the first coating layer thickness may be in the range of greater than 0.5 and less than 8 µm (also see example 1, ¶[0040] where the first coating layer is 2 µm) and this provides improved safety performance and energy density(¶[0019]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized using the first coating layer thickness taught by Zhu would have provided safety performance and improved energy density.
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). MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding claim 5, modified Zaghib discloses a positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1 and Kim additionally teaches a content of acrylonitrile (AN) in the HNBR is 10-70 wt. % (¶[0082]).
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). MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, modified Zaghib discloses a positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1 and Kim additionally teaches the HNBR has a weight average molecular weight (Mw) of 10,000 to 250,000, in this case 10,000 to 700,000 (¶[0089]).
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). MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding claim 8, modified Zaghib discloses a positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1 which includes the limitations of the primer coating thickness of 1 to less than 5 µm.
Regarding claim 10, modified Zaghib discloses a positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1 and Zaghib additionally discloses the positive electrode active material layer comprises a lithium transition metal oxide as a positive electrode active material (Fig. 1, layer B cathode configuration).
Regarding claim 11, modified Zaghib discloses a positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 10 and Zaghib additionally discloses the lithium transition metal oxide comprises at least one transition metal selected from the group consisting of Ni, Mn, and Co (Fig. 1, layer B cathode configuration).
Regarding claim 12, modified Zaghib discloses a positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1 and Zaghib additionally discloses a lithium secondary battery comprising the positive electrode (¶[0286]).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaghib et. al. (US20090301866) and further in view of Kim (US20180175370A1) and Zhu et al.( US20220407081A1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Ahn (US20200044238, as cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 2, modified Zaghib discloses a positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein: the lithium iron phosphate is composed of primary particles, or is a mixture of primary particles and secondary particles, wherein secondary particles are aggregates of the primary particles.
Ahn, related to positive electrode materials, teaches the lithium iron phosphate based active material which is composed of primary particles (¶0025]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize replacing the lithium iron phosphate active material of Zaghib with the active material particles of Ahn would provide improved electrical and ionic conductivity.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the lithium iron phosphate particles of Ahn to replace the lithium iron phosphate active material of Zaghib to improve electrical and ionic conductivity.
Regarding claim 3, modified Zaghib discloses a positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 2 but does not disclose wherein: the primary particles of the lithium iron phosphate have an average diameter (D50) of 0.2 to 3.0 µm, and the secondary particles have an average diameter (D50) of 7 to 25 µm. Ahn additionally teaches the primary particles of the lithium iron phosphate have an average diameter (D50) of 1.2 μm (¶0066]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Zaghib discloses a positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 2 but does not disclose wherein: the primary particles, or the primary and the secondary particles of the mixture are carbon-coated. Ahn additionally teaches the primary particles carbon-coated (¶[0024]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaghib et. al. (US20090301866) and further in view of Kim (US20180175370A1) and Zhu et al.( US20220407081A1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Tokuji (JP2012028225).
Regarding claim 7, modified Zaghib discloses a positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, and Zaghib further discloses the binder may be polyvinylidene fluoride (PVdF) (¶[0030]), but does not disclose the molecular weight of the PVdF binder.
Tokuji, related to a positive electrode layer, teaches a PVdF binder with an average molecular weight of 280,000 or more (¶[0042]).
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). MPEP §2144.05.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the molecular weight of Tokuji would provide sufficient interparticle binding as a binder and therefore be an obvious substitution. 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. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN J. ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (703)756-1243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am-6 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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/K.J.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1726 /RYAN S CANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights