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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 12/04/2025 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 maintained.
In view of the cancellation of claim 9 the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 9 has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive..
Applicant argues there is a missing element of the “primer layer” and the HBNR was calculated using an active material layer rather than an identified primer layer. While there is a difference in the language used by applicant and Kim there appear to be no meaningful differences in the composition of applicant’s primer layer and Kim’s active material layer. Both layers contain lithium iron phosphate, an HNBR dispersant and conductive material and a binder. In fact, applicant’s own specification points out those with ordinary skill in the art would recognize lithium iron phosphate as an active material(¶[0009]) as recited by Kim. Furthermore, Zaghib describes a multi-layer electrode with a layer contain lithium iron phosphate in the same position as applicants primer layer as described in the non-final rejection dated 09/04/2025.
Applicant also argues Zaghib fails to teach the two layers must be different in thickness, however Zaghib provides examples 2 and 3 where the layers are different in thickness, with the first/primer layer being thinner than the second layer and more specifically example 3 where the layers are 10 µm and 50 µm with 95% consistency which are within the claimed ranges of newly amended claim 1.
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 and 5-6, and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaghib et. al. (US20090301866, as cited in the previous office action) and further in view of Kim (US20180175370A1).
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). Also see example 3 where layer 1(primer layer) has a nominal thickness of 10 ↨0m with 95% consistency leading to a layer less than 10 µm and layer 2(active material layer) is 50 microns.
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 and Zaghib additionally discloses the primer coating layer has a thickness of 1 to 5 μm, in this case 1-200 µm (¶[0097] see first layer).
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 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, as cited in the previous office action) and further in view of Kim (US20180175370A1) 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, as cited in the previous office action) and further in view of Kim (US20180175370A1) 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
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 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