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 .
Summary
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted November 21, 2025 have been entered into the file. Currently, claims 1, 2, and 8 are amended, resulting in claims 1-17 pending for examination.
It is noted that, on page 7 of the response, applicant states that claims 1, 12, and 14 are amended and claim 11 is canceled. However, claims 12 and 14 are not amended and claim 11 is not canceled in the claim set submitted November 21, 2205.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 13 should be amended to recite “of the first positive electrode active material is equal to or greater than 3 m2/g, and”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 9 is 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 1 requires the elongation rate be 0.6% to 1.5%. However, claim 9 claims a broader range of 0.5% to 2.0%, thus claim 9 does not further limit 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.
Claims 1-12 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong (CN109461882A, US 2020/0144600 A1 used for citations) in view of Kim-2019 (US 2019/0013545 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Embodiment 1 of Zhong ([84-88]) teaches a positive electrode (cathode) for a lithium secondary battery (lithium-ion battery [88]), comprising:
a first positive electrode mixture layer (first cathode active material layer) contacting a positive electrode current collector (aluminum foil);
and at least one second positive electrode mixture layer (second cathode active material layer) arranged on the first positive electrode mixture layer (second cathode active material layer is coated on the first cathode active material layer),
wherein the first positive electrode mixture layer includes a first positive electrode active material (lithium iron phosphate) and a first binder (PVDF),
wherein the second positive electrode mixture layer includes a second positive electrode active material (lithium cobaltate) and a second binder (PVDF), and
wherein an average particle diameter (D50) the first positive electrode active material is smaller than an average particle diameter (D50) of the second positive electrode active material (first positive electrode active material = 3 µm, second positive electrode active material = 13 µm) and is equal to or less than 3 µm (3 µm),
and a specific surface area (BET) of the first positive electrode active material is equal to or greater than 3 m2/g (12 m2/g).
Embodiment 1 of Zhong does not teach the average particle diameter of the first positive electrode active material being 0.1 to 2 µm.
Zhong further teaches the first positive electrode active material (first cathode active material) having an average particle diameter (D50) of 0.2 µm to 15 µm (Zhong [46]).
The average particle diameter range of Zhong substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 1. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Zhong, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Zhong is silent regarding an elongation rate of the positive electrode.
Kim-2019 teaches a positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery (Kim-2019 abstract) comprising a first positive electrode mixture layer including a first positive electrode active material and a first binder and a second positive electrode mixture layer including a second positive electrode active material and a second binder (Kim-2019 [29-35]), wherein the diameter of the first positive electrode active material is smaller than that of the second positive electrode active material (Kim-2019 [26]) and the elongation rate of the positive electrode is less than 1.4% (Kim-2019 [58]). Kim-2019 teaches tuning the elongation rate in order to tune the penetration resistance and safety of the electrode (Kim-2019 [23]).
Since Zhong and Kim-2019 both teach positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery comprising two positive electrode mixture layers, each comprising an active material and a binder, and the diameter of the first positive electrode active material being smaller than that of the second positive electrode active material, Zhong is silent to the elongation rate, and Kim-2019 teaches that it is suitable for the elongation rate to be less than 1.4%, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate a positive electrode according to Zhong wherein the elongation rate is less than 1.4%, as taught by Kim-2018, in order to obtain a positive electrode with safety and performance suitable for a desired battery application.
The elongation rate range of Kim-2019 substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claims 1 and 9. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Kim-2019, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Regarding claim 2, Embodiment 1 of Zhong in view of in view of Kim-2019 teaches all features of claim 1 and further teaches the specific surface area of the first positive electrode active material being 5 to 25 m2/g (12 m2/g).
Regarding claim 6, Embodiment 1 of Zhong in view of Kim-2019 teaches all features of claim 1 and further teaches the first binder and the second binder being binders having a same physical property (both binders are PVDF).
Regarding claim 7, Embodiment 1 of Zhong in view of Kim-2019 teaches all features of claim 1 and further teaches a weight ratio of the first binder based on a total weight of the first positive electrode mixture layer (3.0 wt% PVDF) being greater than a weight ratio of the second binder based on a total weight of the second positive electrode mixture layer (1.6 wt% PVDF).
Regarding claim 8, Embodiment 1 of Zhong in view of Kim-2019 teaches all features of claims 1 and 7 and further teaches the weight ratio of the first binder based on the total weight of the first positive electrode mixture layer being in a range of 0.01 to 0.3 (3.0 wt% PVDF).
Regarding claim 10, Embodiment 1 of Zhong in view of Kim-2019 teaches all features of claim 1 and further teaches A/B ≤ 0.3 (6 µm/54 µm = 0.1) wherein A denotes a thickness of the first positive electrode mixture layer, and B denotes a thickness of the second positive electrode mixture layer.
Regarding claim 11, Embodiment 1 of Zhong in view of Kim-2019 teaches all features of claim 1 and further teaches a thickness of the first positive electrode mixture layer being 1 to 20 µm (6 µm).
Regarding claim 12, Embodiment 1 of Zhong in view of Kim-2019 teaches all features of claim 1 and further teaches the second positive electrode active material including a lithium transition metal oxide represented by chemical formula 1 of instant claim 12 (lithium cobaltate wherein a = 1, x = 1, y = 0, and z = 0).
Regarding claim 14, Embodiment 1 of Zhong in view of Kim-2019 teaches all features of claim 1 and further teaches the first positive electrode mixture layer and the second positive electrode mixture layer further including a conductive material (conductive carbon black [84]).
Regarding claim 15, Zhong in view of Kim-2019 teaches all features of claim 1 and further teaches a lithium secondary battery including the positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery of claim 1 (lithium-ion battery [88]), a separator (polyethylene separator [88]), and a negative electrode (anode [88]).
Regarding claims 3-5 and 16-17, Zhong in view of Kim-2019 teaches all features of claims 1 and 15, as described above. Zhong further teaches that it is desirable to ensure adhesion between the first positive electrode mixture layer and the current collector (Zhong [50]). Zhong further teaches that using a first positive electrode active material with smaller particle size enables increased coverage and adhesion of the first positive electrode mixture layer to the current collector (Zhong [46]) and that the binder content between different positive electrode mixture layers may be tuned to improve the adhesion between the first positive electrode mixture layer and the current collector (Zhong [50]).
Zhong teaches that the adhesion between the first and second positive electrode mixture layers (cathode active material layers) needs to be sufficient to achieve desirable impedance and service life (Zhong [39]) and prevent separation between the first and second positive electrode mixture layers, thus enhancing safety performance of a lithium secondary battery (Zhong [32]).
Zhong teaches the claimed invention but is silent regarding values for the adhesive force between the first positive electrode mixture layer and the current collector (a, as defined by Applicant in claims 3 and 16), the adhesive force between the first and second positive electrode mixture layers (b, as defined by Applicant in claims 3 and 16), and the adhesive force between the second positive electrode mixture layer and the separator (c, as defined by Applicant in claim 16).
It is reasonable to presume that a>b (claim 3), a being 100 to 500 N/m (claim 4), b being 10 to 40 N/m (claim 5), a>b>c (claim 16), and c being 5 to 30 N/m (claim 17) would obviously flow from the positive electrode of Zhong. Support for said presumption is found in that Zhong teaches all features of instant claim 1 and that both Zhong and the instant disclosure use PVDF as binder, wherein the amount of binder in the first positive electrode mixture layer is greater that the amount of binder in the second positive electrode mixture layer, carbon black as a conductive material, and LiFePO4 as the first positive electrode active material (Zhong Embodiment 1, instant specification Examples 1-3). Therefore, the positive electrode of Zhong is expected to have the same properties of the claimed invention.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong in view of Kim-2019, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Kim (US 2013/0209865 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Embodiment 1 of Zhong in view of Kim-2019 teaches all features of claim 1 and further teaches the first positive electrode active material containing lithium iron phosphate represented by chemical formula 2 of instant claim 13 (LiFePO4 wherein a = 0, x = 0, and b = 0). Zhong is silent regarding the crystal structure of lithium iron phosphate used as the first positive electrode active material.
Kim teaches a cathode for a lithium secondary battery comprising a current collector and a layer comprising olivine-type lithium iron phosphate as a positive electrode active material (cathode active material, Kim abstract). Kim further teaches that olivine-type lithium iron phosphate has “a very stable structure” and “is excellent in thermal stability” (Kim [9]).
Since Kim teaches that it is known and suitable to use lithium iron phosphate having an olivine structure as the positive electrode active material in cathodes for lithium secondary batteries, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use lithium iron phosphate having an olivine structure in the positive electrode of Zhong in order to achieve the predictable result of a lithium iron phosphate positive active material having a stable structure and excellent thermal stability.
Claim 3-5 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong in view of Kim-2019, as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, in view of Lee (WO 2019059655 A2, English translation used for citations).
Regarding claims 3-5 and 16-17, Zhong in view of Kim-2019 teaches all features of claims 1 and 15, as described above. Zhong further teaches that it is desirable to ensure adhesion between the first positive electrode mixture layer and the current collector (Zhong [50]). Zhong further teaches that using a first positive electrode active material with smaller particle size enables increased coverage and adhesion of the first positive electrode mixture layer to the current collector (Zhong [46]) and that the binder content between different positive electrode mixture layers may be tuned to improve the adhesion between the first positive electrode mixture layer and the current collector (Zhong [50]).
Zhong teaches that the adhesion between the first and second positive electrode mixture layers (cathode active material layers) needs to be sufficient to achieve desirable impedance and service life (Zhong [39]) and prevent separation between the first and second positive electrode mixture layers, thus enhancing safety performance of a lithium secondary battery (Zhong [32]).
Zhong is silent regarding values for the adhesive force between the first positive electrode mixture layer and the current collector (a, as defined by Applicant in claims 3 and 16), the adhesive force between the first and second positive electrode mixture layers (b, as defined by Applicant in claims 3 and 16), and the adhesive force between the second positive electrode mixture layer and the separator (c, as defined by Applicant in claim 16).
Lee teaches a positive electrode for a secondary battery comprising a first positive electrode mixture layer and a second positive electrode mixture layer formed on a positive electrode current collector (Lee abstract). Lee further teaches that the adhesion of a positive electrode mixture layer to a current collector is affected by the binder content and that the binder content should be tuned to achieve desired performance (Lee pg. 4 paragraph 4). Lee teaches that above a desired range aggregation may occur that results in a non-uniform distribution of binder and below the range the adhesion to the current collector is weak which leads to decreased battery performance (Lee pg. 4 paragraph 4). Lee further teaches that the binder content of the second positive electrode mixture layer should be tuned to ensure that the adhesion between the first and second positive electrode mixture is not deteriorated and prevent decreases in battery performance (Lee pg. 4 last paragraph).
a>b (claim 3):
The positive electrode of Zhong contains more binder (PVDF) in the first positive electrode mixture layer than in the second positive electrode mixture layer. Therefore, the ordinary artisan would recognize that the adhesion between the first positive electrode mixture layer and the current collector (a) is greater than the adhesion between the first and second positive electrode mixture layers (b).
Additionally, since Zhong teaches that the adhesion to the current collector can be tuned by tuning the positive active material particle size and binder content of the first positive electrode mixture layer and Zhong and Lee both teach that the adhesion the first positive electrode mixture layer and the current collector must be sufficient to prevent separation and improve safety performance, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the adhesive force (a) in the positive electrode of Zhong, including values wherein a>b, in order to ensure the first positive electrode material layer is adhered to the current collector to decrease the occurrence of the first positive electrode mixture layer delaminating from the current collector and achieve desired safety and cycling performance.
a being 100 to 500 N/m (claim 4), b being 10 to 40 N/m (claim 5):
It should be noted that the binder content and positive electrode active material particle size are result effective variables. As described above, Zhong teaches that the adhesion of a first positive electrode mixture layer to a current collector can be tuned by tuning the positive electrode active material particle size in the layer. Additionally, as described above, Zhong and Lee both teach that tuning the binder content can lead to improved adhesive properties of electrode mixture layers and that above or below a desired range results in decreased battery performance.
Absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the adhesive forces a and b since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. In the present invention one would have been motivated to optimize the adhesive forces a and b, including values within the claimed ranges of 100 to 500 N/m for a and 10 to 40 N/m for b, in order to obtain a positive electrode with suitable safety and cycling performance for a desired battery application.
a>b>c (claim 16), c being 5 to 30 N/m (claim 17):
As described above for claims 3-5, the binder content of the first and second positive electrode mixture layers impacts the adhesive performance of the layers. Since the separator does not contain binder, the ordinary artisan would recognize that the adhesive force c between the second positive electrode mixture layer and the separator be less than that of the adhesive forces a and b, thus the condition a>b>c and c being 5 to 30 N/m would obviously flow from the positive electrode of Zhong.
Response to Arguments
Response – Specification Objections
The objection to the specification due to improper language in the abstract is overcome by applicant’s amendments to the abstract in the response received on November 21, 2025. The objection to the specification is withdrawn.
Response – Claim Objections
The objections to claims 1 and 8 due to informalities is overcome by applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 8 in the response received on November 21, 2025. The objections to claims 1 and 8 presented in the Non-Final Office Action are withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 necessitated a new objection to claim 1.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 102 and 103
Rejections of claims 1, 6-8, 10-12, and 14-5 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) are withdrawn due to applicant’s amendments to claim 1 in the response filed November 21, 2025.
Applicant’s arguments filed November 21, 2025 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On page 9 of the response, applicant appears to allege that Zhong does not explicitly nor inherently disclose the elongation rate of the cathode and the elongation rate is non-obvious over Zhong. Applicant notes that Zhong enhances safety by using cold pressing.
These arguments are not persuasive. It is noted that even though Zhong does not explicitly disclose or teach the positive electrode having an elongation rate, the positive electrode inherently has an elongation rate.
Additionally, except Zhong being silent to the elongation rate, the structure of Zhong meets the structural limitations of instant claim 1.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20190267621 A1: appears to disclose a positive electrode comprising two positive electrode active material layers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA S CASERTO whose telephone number is (571)272-5114. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5 pm ET.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/J.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789