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
Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed 07/15/2026 have been fully considered. Claim(s) 11, 17, 21 are amended. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth in the Office action mailed 09/25/2025 has/have been withdrawn. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 11,13,17-18,20-21,23,27-28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki et al. (WO-2019171942-A1; US-20210020918-A1 cited as English equivalent) in view of Keitaro et al. (US-20170263907-A1):
Regarding claims 11, 21, Aoki discloses an electronic device (“electric vehicle”, [0155]), reading on claim 21, comprising an electrochemical device (“lithium-ion secondary battery”), comprising a positive electrode plate (“positive electrode”), a negative electrode plate (“negative electrode”), a separator, and an electrolytic solution (“non-aqueous electrolyte liquid”) ([0012]) which reads on claims 11 and 21;
wherein the separator is disposed between the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate ([0019]);
the positive electrode plate comprises a positive active material, and an experimental embodiment of the positive active material comprises lithium transition metal oxide particles with the formula LiCo 0.9795 Mg0.011 Zr0.0005 Al0.009 O2 (Example 1, material a1; [0166]), represented in the formula of claims 11, 21 as:
LiaCoxM1yM2zO2 wherein:
0.95≤a≤1.05, 0.05<x<1, 0≤y≤0.9, 0<z≤0.2, (a=1, x=0.9795, y=0, z=0.0205; [0166])
M1 is not positively recited where y=0;
M2 is at least one consisting of Mg, Al, Ti, La, Y, Zr (M2 is Mg, Zr, and Al; [0166]);
wherein an oxide of M2 (“Al-containing oxide film”) is disposed on a surface of the lithium transition metal oxide particles ([0167]) and the oxide of M2 is Al2O3 ([0172]) or ZrO2 (“Zr oxide”, [0091]);
the separator comprises a porous substrate (“porous film”) ([0117]) and a polymer adhesive layer (“adhesive layer”), the polymer adhesive layer is disposed between the porous substrate and the positive electrode plate ([0134-0136]), reading on claims 11 and 21.
An adhesive force of the polymer adhesive layer between the positive electrode plate is between 0.2N/20mm to 10N/20mm, equivalent to 10-500 N/m ([0137-0138]). Aoki notes that providing at least some amount of adhesion (e.g., at least 10 N/m) can help restrain the shape change of the electrode body during charge cycling, improving cycle characteristics ([0134]), although an excessively large peel strength (e.g., 500 N/m) can cause the electrodes to peel off of the current collector ([0138]).
As such, in seeking to suitably restrain Aoki’s electrodes during charging without causing the electrodes to peel from the current collector, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the adhesive force of the polymer adhesive layer within a range of 10-500 N/m, overlapping with a portion of the claimed range of 3-100 N/m in claims 11, 21 between 10-100 N/m such that a skilled artisan would have selected within the overlap through routine optimization under Aoki’s disclosure with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Aoki’s polymer adhesive layer may be formed comprising a plurality of discontinuous, circle-shaped domains of the polymer adhesive (“adhesive resin”) ([0146]), in other words, as a layer of polymer particles as claimed in claims 11 and 21. Specific named polymers are polyacrylate, ethylene-methyl acrylate copolymer (EMA), ethylene-ethyl acrylate copolymer (EEA), ethylene-butyl acrylate copolymer (EBA), which comprise polyacrylate as claimed in claim 11/21, as well as low density polyethylene (LDPE), poly-α-olefin (polypropylene (PP) and polybutene-1, and etc.), ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA), ethylene-methyl methacrylate copolymer (EMMA), and ionomer resin ([0143]).
It would therefore be obvious to select at least one of the polymers comprising polyacrylate for the polymer particles as claimed in claims 11 and 21, since a skilled artisan must select an identity of polymer to successfully form Aoki’s polymer particles and the polyacrylate-comprising polymers are identified, predictably successful solutions in Aoki’s disclosure available to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 I. E).
Aoki notes that adhesive resin should be prevented from blocking pores of the separator and interrupting ion flow in the battery ([0148]), where one of ordinary skill in the art must implicitly select some average particle diameter of the polymer particles as a material property; however, Aoki fails to further specify the particle diameter while claims 11 and 21 recite an average particle diameter range of 1000-2000 nm.
Keitaro (US20170263907A1), analogous as a separator adhered to an electrode using a polymer adhesive layer (“polymer layer”) of polymer particles (“particulate thermoplastic polymer”) ([0062-0064]), teaches using an average particle diameter of at least 10 nm to prevent the polymer particles from entering pores of the separator, improving adhesion ([0079]), and preventing permeability loss associated with polymer particles entering the pores ([0216]). Diameters of 2000 nm or less are also desirable to avoid unnecessary amounts of polymer while providing the adhesive effects ([0079]).
Thus, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize modified Aoki’s average particle diameter of the polymer particles within a range of 10-2000 nm and utilize at least a portion of claim 11 and 21’s encompassed ranges of 1000 nm to 2000 nm in balancing considerations of preventing the polymer particles from entering pores of the separator and improving the adhesion without using unnecessary quantities of polymer as taught by Keitaro (MPEP 2144.05 II), with a reasonable expectation of success since Aoki shares concerns of preventing separator pore blockage (Aoki [0148]), and because an artisan must select a measure of particle diameter to produce Aoki’s polymer particles.
Regarding claims 13, 23, modified Aoki discloses the electronic device and electrochemical device according to claims 11, 21 wherein an experimental example of the positive active material comprises the formula LiCo 0.9795 Mg0.011 Zr0.0005 Al0.009 O2, (Aoki [0166]), a molar mass of this composition being 97.279 g/mol where a mass content of M2 (Mg0.011 Zr0.0005 Al0.009) is 0.556 g/mol. Based on a total weight of the positive active material (97.279 g/mol), a content of M2 (0.556 g/mol) is about 5,700 PPM, which falls within the range claimed in claims 13 and 23 where M2 is 1,000-20,000 PPM
Regarding claims 17, 27, modified Aoki discloses the electronic device and electrochemical device according to claims 11, 21, comprising characteristic (a), the polymer particles are core-shell structures (Aoki [0144]),
Regarding claims 18, 28, modified Aoki discloses the electronic device and electrochemical device according to claims 11, 21, wherein an areal percentage of an orthographic projection of the polymer adhesive layer on a surface of the porous substrate is at least 10% to provide a sufficient peel strength of the adhesive layer, and 60% or less to avoid excessively increasing the peel strength (Aoki [0147]), where the peel strength is itself optimized to restrain electrode shape change without peeling the electrodes off of the current collectors ([0134-0138]; see discussion of claims 11, 21).
As such, in seeking to optimize the peel strength of modified Aoki’s polymer adhesive layer according to the above considerations, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize an areal percentage of the polymer adhesive layer within a range of 10-60% according to Aoki’s disclosure, overlapping with a portion of the range of 15-85% claimed in claims 18 and 28 between 15-60% such that a skilled artisan would have selected within the overlap through routine optimization with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Regarding claims 20, 30, modified Aoki discloses the electronic device and electrochemical device according to claims 11, 21, wherein the porous substrate (I, “porous film”) of the separator is laminated with an inorganic compound layer (“porous layer (II)”) (Aoki [0120]) comprising inorganic particles and a binder (“organic binder”) ([0125], [0127], [0178]), reading on portions of claims 20 and 30.
When the separator includes the inorganic compound layer (“porous layer (II)”), the polymer adhesive layer may be applied on one or both surfaces of the porous substrate (“porous film (I)”) or the inorganic compound layer (II) of the separator ([0149]), where a finite number of layer arrangements are thus available to a skilled artisan. Two possible configurations include the inorganic compound layer disposed between the porous substrate and the polymer adhesive layer as claimed in claims 20, 30 when the polymer adhesive layer is applied to only the inorganic compound layer (II) or both the inorganic compound layer (II) and porous substrate (I). Alternately, the structure of claims 20, 30 is absent if the polymer adhesive layer is applied to only the porous substrate (I).
Thus, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to provide modified Aoki’s inorganic compound layer disposed between the porous substrate and the polymer adhesive layer as claimed in claims 20 and 30 through selecting one of the finite possible layer arrangements including this claimed structure since one of the layer arrangements must be selected to produce the separator, and 2 out of the 3 possible separator layer arrangements read on the claimed structure (MPEP 2143 I. E).
Claims 16 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki (WO-2019171942-A1) in view of Keitaro (US-20170263907-A1) as applied to claims 11 and 21, further in view of Kim et al. (US-20200411859-A1):
Regarding claims 16, 26, modified Aoki discloses the electronic device and electrochemical device according to claims 11, 21. Aoki recognizes benefits which coincide with increasing the volume-based particle size distribution (Dv50) in the positive active material, where larger particles have an advantageously reduced specific surface area (Aoki [0099-0100]); but Aoki fails to numerically indicate that the positive active material satisfies the relation 1≤Dv99/Dv50≤2 where Dv99 and Dv50 are the particle diameter of the positive active material measured when a cumulative volume percentage of measured particles reaches 99% and 50% of a total volume in a volume-based particle size distribution respectively.
Kim (US-20200411859-A1), directed to a positive active material having a particular cumulative volumetric particle size distribution (e.g. a Dv50, Dv99) (Kim [0001], [0011]) teaches that increasing the Dv50 (“D50”, volumetric distribution, [0011]) in positive electrodes risks increasing the Dv99 of large particles up to the electrode plate thickness and causing particle breakage, electrode biting, and electrode detachment during calendaring ([0039]). To avoid these effects when increasing Dv50, Kim teaches known methods of minimizing the value of Dv100, Dv99, and Dv99/Dv50 in the positive electrode active material ([0039, 0040]).
An experimental embodiment of Aoki comprises positive electrode active particles having a volume weighted average particle diameter of 25 µm (Aoki [0172]) with a plate thickness of 55 µm ([0173]), which approximate inherent values of Dv50 and Dv99 (the average diameter being related to the 50th percentile Dv50, and Dv99 being, at most, around the plate thickness, Kim [0039]). An estimated upper limit of Dv99/Dv50 is roughly 55µm/25µm or 2.2, and Dv99/Dv50 is also at least 1.0 since Dv99≥Dv50.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would seek to increase an average particle size and Dv50 of modified Aoki’s positive active material to reduce the surface area, and would also seek to reduce the size of large particles (e.g., a Dv99) to avoid damage or detachment of the particles and electrodes according to Kim’s teaching. In doing so, Dv99/Dv50 would be decreased from about 2.2 to approach 1.0, such that it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize at least an upper portion of the range 1≤Dv99/Dv50≤2 claimed in claims 16 and 27 through sufficiently increasing Dv50 and decreasing Dv99 as according to Aoki and Kim’s teaching (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Since Aoki directly addresses the desirability of increased particle size (and thus, Dv50), and Kim teaches applicability of the reduced Dv99 specifically within a positive active material having a large Dv50, i.e., a generally increased particle size, the claimed ratio may be obtained by routine adjustment with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to claims 11, 17, 21, and 27 overcome the objections to claims 11 and 21 due to a lack of antecedent basis in claims.
Applicant’s amendments filed 07/15/2026 necessitate a new ground of rejection of claims 11,13,17-18,20-21,23,27-28 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Aoki et al. (WO-2019171942-A1; US-20210020918-A1 cited as English equivalent) in view of Keitaro et al. (US-20170263907-A1). Since the rejection of record still relies upon Aoki’s disclosure, Applicant’s arguments filed with the amendments are discussed below as relevant to the current rejection of record:
Claims 11, 21 have been amended to recite “the polymer adhesive layer comprises polymer particles, […] an average particle diameter of the polymer particles is 1000 nm to 2000 nm”. Applicant asserts that Aoki’s disclosure is directed to a heat-activated adhesive resin applied as “domains on a separator surface”, not a polymer-particle layer as claimed. Additionally, claims 11 and 21 now recite an average particle diameter of the polymer particles is 1000-2000 nm, which is absent from the prior art (remarks pp. 6-7).
Examiner has considered this argument but respectfully disagrees. Regarding the “domains on a separator surface”, Aoki discloses that the adhesive resin can be formed “in a discontinuous manner in plural existence domains, e.g., when each domain is in a shape of circle in the plan view” (Aoki [0146], emphasis by Examiner), wherein the plurality of discontinuous domains of adhesive resin broadly and reasonably constitute a plurality of polymer particles.
Additionally, Aoki’s plurality of “circle-shaped” domains necessarily includes an average diameter as a geometric property of circles; Aoki taken alone does not specify a value of the diameter, but this consideration is moot in view of newly cited prior art: see discussion of Aoki in view of Keitaro (US20170263907A1) i.e., pp. 5-6 of this Office action.
Applicant asserts that when the average polymer particle diameter falls within the claimed range, the cycle thickness growth rate and hot oven test pass rate unexpectedly improve, citing Embodiments 8 and 11-14 in Tables 1 and 2 of the specification.
While the evidence of unexpected results has been considered, the cited evidence does not currently overcome the conclusion of obviousness of claims 11 and 21 under the newly cited combination of references since the benefits to thickness growth rate and hot oven test past rate appear to be caused by the adhesive force of the polymer adhesive layer, not directly by the average polymer particle diameter.
Applicant’s experimental data shows a moderate degree of correlation between polymer particle size and the hot oven pass rate (see FIG. A below, comparing Embodiments 8, 11-14 where the polymer particle size is adjusted, and comparative examples 1 and 2 having a size of 100 nm)
[Chart]
However, each embodiment has a corresponding amount of adhesive force, with smaller particles generally exhibiting lower adhesive force. A stronger correlation appears when comparing the adhesive force of each of the cited examples with the pass rate, particularly in embodiments 8, 11, 12 (200, 300, 500 nm) which have some variation in pass rate but show a clearer correlation when accounting for the adhesive force (see FIG. B, data points between 4-6 N/m).
[Chart]
This comparison of Applicant’s data suggests that the adhesive force, not the polymer particle size, is a more direct cause of the observed beneficial effects (MPEP 716.01(b))
Moreover, the smaller particles are known in the art to have reduced adhesive force if the particles enter the separator pores (see Keitaro US20170263907A1, [0079]). Thus, the improvements to adhesive strength from using larger polymer particles (i.e., 1000-2000nm) appear expected in view of Keitaro’s disclosure (MPEP 716.02(c) II), and since the adhesive strength appears to be the more direct cause of the beneficial effects, Applicant’s evidence of unexpected improvements from the polymer particle size is not found to rebut the conclusion of prima facie obviousness under Aoki in view of Keitaro.
Applicant contests Examiner’s assertion that it would have been obvious to perform treatment on modified Aoki’s positive active material to reduce Dv99/Dv50 from about 2.2 to 1 based on Kim (US20200411859A1) in claims 16 and 26, since an electrode layer thickness is not a disclosure or inherent property of a Dv99 of the powder. Applicant also asserts that no specific process parameter that controls Dv99/Dv50 is identified in Aoki, or identified in Kim that would lead a skilled artisan to target the claimed ratio (Remarks p. 7).
This argument has been respectfully considered but is not found persuasive. In conventional positive electrode materials, Kim notes that “a large D50 means that large particles (such as particles having the volume corresponding to D99 or D100) may exceed or get close to the thickness of the positive electrode”. Moreover, an active particle with a significantly larger diameter than the electrode does not fit inside the electrode; thus, a maximum active particle diameter cannot exceed the electrode thickness by a meaningful degree. The claimed Dv99 value is also less than this maximum (e.g., a Dv100), should the maximum be exceeding the electrode thickness.
Nonetheless, Examiner notes that the cited Dv99/Dv50 value in Aoki of “about 2.2” is an arbitrary value. Examiner emphasizes the broadness of the claimed range of 1≤Dv99/Dv50≤2, inclusive of Dv99/Dv50=1 where Dv50 and Dv99 are identically sized. Any treatment which decreases the relative Dv99 or increases the Dv50 causes Dv99/Dv50 to asymptotically approach Dv99/Dv50=1. That is, one of ordinary skill in the art may utilize the claimed range not only by identifying and targeting a specific ratio of Dv99/Dv50, but by simply performing the above treatments of Dv99 and/or Dv50 to a sufficient degree. Even if Aoki’s unmodified Dv99/Dv50 is larger than 2.2, one of ordinary skill in the art will still utilize an overlapping portion of the claimed range by sufficiently increasing the Dv50 and decreasing the Dv99.
Aoki does not specifically recognize the ratio of Dv99/Dv50, but at recognizes increasing the size (and thus Dv50) as desirable to reduce the specific surface area (Aoki [0100], “making the positive electrode material have a relatively large particle size […] the specific surface area being small as mentioned above can be obtained easily”, discussing treatments of increasing particle size and providing an oxide coating on the particles as means of decreasing the surface area). Kim also recognizes that the large Dv99 is a problem specific to increasing the Dv50, and teaches reducing Dv99 alone or relative to Dv50 to avoid detrimental effects (Kim [0039], “Applying a positive electrode material with narrow span[…] allows to use powders with a larger D50 and a corresponding smaller D100, D99 or D99/D50, especially when the pressure during electrode calendaring is increased”) using known methods of achieving this particle distribution ([0040]). Since Aoki directly addresses the desirability of increased particle size, and Kim teaches applicability of the reduced Dv99 specifically within a positive active material having a large Dv50, i.e., a generally increased particle size, the claimed ratio may be obtained by routine adjustment with a reasonable expectation of success.
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 EVERETT T CHOI whose telephone number is (703)756-1331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:00-8:00.
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, Jonathan G Leong can be reached on (571) 270 1292. 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.
/E.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1751 /Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights