DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the March 26th, 2026 arguments and remarks (“Remarks”). The
text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior
Office 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/06/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendments received on March 26th, 2026:
Claims 1-26 are pending in the current application. No amendments are presented.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as described below:
Claims 1, 3, 11, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210344033 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2020075990 A1) in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200243853 A1) and Tsuji et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210083325 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2019044238 A1) as further evidenced by Takamori et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20220190333 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2020208872 A1). The rejections are maintained.
Claims 2 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210344033 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2020075990 A1) in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200243853 A1) and Tsuji et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210083325 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2019044238 A1) as further evidenced by Takamori et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20220190333 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2020208872 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Watanabe (U.S. Pat. No. 20200303776 A1). The rejections are maintained.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210344033 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2020075990 A1) in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200243853 A1) and Tsuji et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210083325 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2019044238 A1) as further evidenced by Takamori et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20220190333 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2020208872 A1) and Kim et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20140127563 A1). The rejection is maintained.
Claims 5 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210344033 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2020075990 A1) in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200243853 A1) and Tsuji et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210083325 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2019044238 A1) as further evidenced by Takamori et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20220190333 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2020208872 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Mok et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180337408 A1). The rejections are maintained.
Claims 6-7, 10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210344033 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2020075990 A1) in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200243853 A1) and Tsuji et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210083325 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2019044238 A1) as further evidenced by Takamori et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20220190333 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2020208872 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Mitsumoto et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210159496 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2019044734 A1). The rejections are maintained.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210344033 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2020075990 A1) in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200243853 A1) and Tsuji et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210083325 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2019044238 A1) as further evidenced by Takamori et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20220190333 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2020208872 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Arimura et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200303734 A1). The rejections are maintained.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210344033 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2020075990 A1) in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200243853 A1) and Tsuji et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210083325 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2019044238 A1) as further evidenced by Takamori et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20220190333 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2020208872 A1), and further in view of Nakamura (U.S. Pat. No. 20200091503 A1). The rejections are maintained.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210344033 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2020075990 A1) in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200243853 A1) and Tsuji et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210083325 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2019044238 A1) as further evidenced by Takamori et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20220190333 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2020208872 A1), as applied to Claims 1 and 18, respectively, and further in view of Lambert (LAMBERT, Fred. Tesla unveils new 4680 battery cell: bigger, 6x power, and 5x energy. Electrek [online]. Sept. 22 2020 [retrieved 2025-12-19] Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: https://electrek.co/2020/09/22/tesla-4680-battery-cell-bigger-power-energy/> (Year: 2020)). The rejections are maintained.
Claims 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210344033 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2020075990 A1) in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200243853 A1) and Tsuji et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210083325 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2019044238 A1) as further evidenced by Takamori et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20220190333 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2020208872 A1), and further in view of Umehara (U.S. Pat. No. 20200136133 A1). The rejection is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed March 26th, 2026 have been fully considered as further described below:
Regarding Claim 1, applicant argues that the claimed features are not taught by the applied prior art (see pg. 3 of the “Remarks”); applicant does not include specific citations from the prior art nor provide any detailed comparisons between the claimed invention and the prior art to show the distinguishing features. Applicant argues that reference Lee teaches a flaky graphite for a negative electrode active material (no citations of Lee provided) (see pg. 4 of the “Remarks”); however, as noted in the rejection below, Lee. teaches a positive electrode active material comprising natural graphite (para. 70) in which exists as a flaky (scaly) shape as further evident by Takamori et al. (para. 133). Further, applicant appears to attack references Park and Tsuji, but does not provide support or evidence of deficiencies in the references or rejections made.
“Obviousness can be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006)” (emphasis in original) (see MPEP 2143.01).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning (see pg. 4, para. 2 of the “Remarks”), it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In this case, Park et al. teaches the claimed features of the lithium secondary battery (para. 3, 30 34-36); Lee is relied upon to teach a positive electrode active material comprising scaly graphite with a motivation to provide a suitable conductive material for use in a positive electrode active material in which has conductivity without causing chemical changes within the battery (para. 70); and Tsuji et al. is relied upon to teach a combination of single particles or quasi-single particles to suppress the capacity deterioration rate (para. 30, 67). Therefore, all limitations of the claim are taught by the prior art with a reasonable motivation to perform the combination.
Further, applicant’s arguments regarding unexpected results (see pg. 4-5 of the “Remarks”) are unpersuasive:
“Objective evidence which must be factually supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration to be of probative value includes evidence of unexpected results … See, for example, In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984)” (see MPEP 716.01(c)).
“An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979)” (see MPEP 716.02(e)).
Evidence of unexpected results must be factually supported by an affidavit or declaration to be of probative value; further, the evidence of unexpected results must include a comparison with the closest prior art, and must be in commensurate with the scope of the claims. Additionally, applicant’s arguments regarding the advantages of the claimed invention not being disclosed by the prior art, "the fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious." Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) (see MPEP 2145(II)).
Therefore, applicant’s arguments are deemed unpersuasive. The previous grounds of rejection are maintained.
Cited Prior Art
Previously Cited Park et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210344033 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2020075990 A1) (“Park et al.”)
Previously Cited Lee et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200243853 A1) (“Lee et al.”)
Previously Cited Tsuji et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210083325 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2019044238 A1) (“Tsuji et al.”)
Previously Cited Takamori et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20220190333 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2020208872 A1) (“Takamori et al.”)
Previously Cited Watanabe (U.S. Pat. No. 20200303776 A1) (“Watanabe”)
Previously Cited Kim et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20140127563 A1) (“Kim et al.”)
Previously Cited Mok et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180337408 A1) (“Mok et al. (”)
Previously Cited Mitsumoto et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210159496 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2019044734 A1) (“Mitsumoto et al. (”)
Previously Cited Arimura et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200303734 A1) (“Arimura et al.”)
Previously Cited Nakamura (U.S. Pat. No. 20200091503 A1) (“Nakamura”)
Previously Cited Lambert (LAMBERT, Fred. Tesla unveils new 4680 battery cell: bigger, 6x power, and 5x energy. Electrek [online]. Sept. 22 2020 [retrieved 2025-12-19] Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: https://electrek.co/2020/09/22/tesla-4680-battery-cell-bigger-power-energy/> (Year: 2020)) (“Lambert”)
Previously Cited Umehara (U.S. Pat. No. 20200136133 A1) (“Umehara”)
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.
Claims 1, 3, 11, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210344033 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2020075990 A1) in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200243853 A1) and Tsuji et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210083325 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2019044238 A1) as further evidenced by Takamori et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20220190333 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2020208872 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Park et al. teaches a lithium secondary battery (secondary battery, movement of lithium ions, para. 3, 34) comprising an electrode assembly in which a positive electrode plate, a negative electrode plate, and a separator interposed between the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate are wound in one direction (jelly roll type) (para. 3);
a battery can in which the electrode assembly is accommodated (para. 3);
and a sealing body (cap assembly) which seals an open end of the battery can (para. 35-36),
wherein the positive electrode plate comprises a positive electrode active material layer (coating) (para. 30),
Park et al. does not teach the positive electrode active material layer comprising scaly graphite.
Lee et al. teaches a positive electrode active material comprising natural graphite (para. 70) in which exists as a flaky (scaly) shape as further evident by Takamori et al.; specifically, Takamori et al. teaches a carbon material having a flaky shape such as natural graphite (para. 133).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the positive electrode active material layer of Park et al. to include scaly graphite as taught by Lee et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide a suitable conductive material for use in a positive electrode active material in which has conductivity without causing chemical changes within the battery (para. 70).
Park et al. does not teach the positive electrode active material comprising single particles, quasi-single particles, or a combination thereof.
Tsuji et al. teaches a positive electrode active material comprising primary particles completely separated into individual primary particles (single particles) or existing in a state of 2 to 5 agglomerate primary particles (quasi-single) (para. 67) to suppress the capacity deterioration rate (para. 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the positive electrode active material of Park et al. to include a combination of single particles or quasi-single particles as taught by Tsuji et al. to suppress the capacity deterioration rate.
Regarding Claim 3, Park et al. is modified by Lee et al. and Tsuji et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above.
Park et al. does not teach that the scaly graphite is present in an amount of 0.05 wt.% to 5 wt.% in the positive electrode active material layer.
Lee et al. teaches a positive electrode active material comprising natural graphite (para. 70) in which exists as a flaky (scaly) shape as further evident by Takamori et al. in which describes natural graphite as a carbon material having a flaky shape (para. 133). Lee et al. teaches the conductive material (such as natural graphite) present in an amount of 1 wt.% to 20 wt.% of the positive electrode slurry (active material layer) (para. 70).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the positive electrode active material layer of Park et al. by Lee et al. to include scaly graphite present in an amount of 1 wt.% to 20 wt.%, within and overlapping the claimed range of 0.05 wt.% to 5 wt.%, in the positive electrode active material 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. See 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). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide a suitable amount of a conductive material for use in a positive electrode active material in which has conductivity without causing chemical changes within the battery (para. 70).
Regarding Claim 11, Park et al. is modified by Lee et al. and Tsuji et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above.
Park et al. does not teach that the single particles, quasi-single particles, or the combination thereof is present in an amount of 95 wt.% to 100 wt.% on a basis of a total weight of the positive electrode active material present in the positive electrode plate.
Tsuji et al. teaches a positive electrode active material comprising primary particles completely separated into individual primary particles (single particles) or existing in a state of 2 to 5 agglomerate primary particles (quasi-single) (para. 67) to suppress the capacity deterioration rate (para. 30). As Tsuji et al. describes the active material as completely separated into single particles or quasi-single particles, one of ordinary skill in the art would imply 100 wt.% of single/quasi-single particles on a basis of a total weight of the positive electrode active material. "[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968) (see MPEP 2144.01).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the positive electrode active material of Park et al. to include a combination of single particles or quasi-single particles in an amount of 100 wt.%, within the claim range of 95 wt.% to 100 wt.%, on a basis of a total weight of the positive electrode active material present in the positive electrode plate as explicitly or implicitly disclosed by Tsuji et al. to suppress the capacity deterioration rate.
Regarding Claim 20, Park et al. is modified by Lee et al. and Tsuji et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Park et al. teaches each of the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate comprises an uncoated portion (non-coated part) in which an active material layer is not formed, wherein at least a portion of the uncoated portion of the positive electrode plate or the negative electrode plate defines an electrode tab (electrode tab is provided by forming a notch at a non-coated part of an electrode plate) (para. 7, 62).
Regarding Claim 21, Park et al. is modified by Lee et al. and Tsuji et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 20 above. Park et al. teaches a positive electrode plate-uncoated portion and the negative electrode plate-uncoated portion (non-coated parts) wherein a current collecting plate is coupled to each of the positive electrode plate-uncoated portion and the negative electrode plate-uncoated portion (para. 3), and the current collecting plate is connected to an electrode terminal (lead) (para. 40). Park et al. teaches the uncoated portions formed at an end of one side of the positive electrode plate and an end of one side of the negative electrode plate, respectively, along a direction in which the electrode assembly is wound (corresponding to an upper end and lower end of the positive/negative electrode plate in the direction of a vertically arranged cylindrical battery can) (para. 30-31).
Regarding Claim 22, Park et al. is modified by Lee et al. and Tsuji et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 21 above. Park et al. teaches that each of the positive electrode plate-uncoated portion and the negative electrode plate-uncoated portion is processed in a form of a plurality of segments (isosceles trapezoidal electrode tabs) that are independently bendable and bent toward a winding center (axis) of the electrode assembly (para. 6-7).
Regarding Claim 23, Park et al. is modified by Lee et al. and Tsuji et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 22 above. Park et al. teaches that a plurality of bent segments are overlapped (in a non-randomized manner) on an upper end and a lower end of the electrode assembly, and the current collecting plate is coupled to the plurality of overlapped segments (electrode tabs) (para. 7, 60).
Claims 2 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210344033 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2020075990 A1) in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200243853 A1) and Tsuji et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210083325 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2019044238 A1) as further evidenced by Takamori et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20220190333 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2020208872 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Watanabe (U.S. Pat. No. 20200303776 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Park et al. is modified by Lee et al. and Tsuji et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above.
Park et al. does not teach the positive electrode active material layer having a porosity of 15% to 23%.
Watanabe teaches a lithium secondary battery (para. 2) wherein the positive electrode active material layer has a porosity of preferably 20% or lower and 15% or higher to achieve high electrode density (para. 55). Watanabe teaches that a porosity above said range can be accompanied by higher contact resistance and charge transfer resistance, while excessively low porosity provides low contact resistance but leads to increased charge transfer resistance and degradation of the rate characteristics (para. 55). Therefore, it is desirable to maintain the porosity within said range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the positive electrode active material layer of Park et al. by Watanabe to include a porosity of 15% to 20%, within the claimed range of 15% to 23%, to provide improved rate characteristics and minimal charge transfer resistance (see MPEP § 2144.05, I).
Regarding Claim 12, Park et al. is modified by Lee et al. and Tsuji et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above.
Park et al. does not teach that the positive electrode active material comprises a lithium nickel-containing oxide that comprises 80 mol% or more of Ni on a basis of a total number of moles of transition metal in the lithium nickel-containing oxide.
Watanabe teaches a positive electrode active material comprising a lithium nickel-containing oxide that comprises 80 mol% of Ni on a basis of a total number of moles of transition metal in the lithium nickel-containing oxide (para. 130, Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the positive electrode active material of Park et al. to include a lithium nickel-containing oxide that comprises 80 mol% (meeting the limitations of 80 mol% or more) of Ni on a basis of a total number of moles of transition metal in the lithium nickel-containing oxide as taught by Watanabe to provide high energy density (para. 31).
Regarding Claim 13, Park et al. is modified by Lee et al. and Tsuji et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above.
Park et al. does not teach the lithium nickel-containing oxide represented by Chemical Formula 1: LiaNibCocM1dM2eO2where, in Chemical Formula 1, M1 is Mn, Al, or a combination thereof, M2 is Zr, W, Ti, Mg, Ca, Sr, and Ba, 0.8≤a≤1.2, 0.83≤b<1, 0<c<0.17, 0<d<0.17, and 0≤e≤0.1.
Watanabe teaches the positive electrode active material comprising a lithium nickel-containing oxide represented by LiNixCoyMnzO2, provided that 0.7≤x≤0.9, 0.05≤y≤0.2, 0.05≤z≤0.15 (Abstract) (meeting the limitations of claimed Chemical Formula 1 in which M1 is Mn, a is 1 (within the range of 0.8 to 1.2), limits of subscripts b, c, and d lie within or overlap the limits of subscripts x, y, and, z, respectively, and e is 0).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the positive electrode active material of Park et al. by Watanabe to include a nickel-containing oxide represented by LiNixCoyMnzO2, provided that 0.7≤x≤0.9, 0.05≤y≤0.2, 0.05≤z≤0.15 (meeting the limitations of claimed Chemical Formula 1 in which M1 is Mn, a is 1 (within the range of 0.8 to 1.2), limits of subscripts b, c, and d lie within or overlap the limits of subscripts x, y, and, z, respectively, and e is 0) (see MPEP § 2144.05, I). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification to provide a lithium containing composite oxide for use as a positive electrode active material in which is capable of intercalation/deintercalation of lithium ions and provides high energy density (para. 3).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210344033 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2020075990 A1) in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200243853 A1) and Tsuji et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210083325 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2019044238 A1) as further evidenced by Takamori et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20220190333 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2020208872 A1) and Kim et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20140127563 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Park et al. is modified by Lee et al. and Tsuji et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above.
Park et al. doesn’t teach that the positive electrode active material layer further comprises carbon nanotubes.
Lee et al. teaches a positive electrode active material comprising carbon nanotubes as the conductive material (para. 70).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the positive electrode active material of Park et al. to include carbon nanotubes as taught by Lee et al. to provide a suitable conductive material for use in a positive electrode active material in which has conductivity without causing chemical changes within the battery (para. 70).
Claims 5 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210344033 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2020075990 A1) in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200243853 A1) and Tsuji et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210083325 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2019044238 A1) as further evidenced by Takamori et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20220190333 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2020208872 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Mok et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180337408 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Park et al. is modified by Lee et al. and Tsuji et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above.
Park et al. does not teach a loading amount of the positive electrode active material layer is 570 mg/25 cm2 or more.
Mok et al. teaches a positive electrode active material layer containing a lithium transition metal oxide comprising a loading amount of up to 700 mg/25 cm2 (para. 88).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the positive electrode active material of Park et al. to include a loading amount of up to 700 mg/25 cm2 within the claimed range of 570 mg/25 cm2 or more (see MPEP § 2144.05, I), as taught by Mok et al. to provide a high loading electrode having improved energy density (para. 9).
Regarding Claim 25, Park et al. is modified by Lee et al. and Tsuji et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above.
Park et al. does not teach the lithium secondary battery provided present in the form of a battery pack.
Mok et al. teaches a lithium-ion secondary battery preferably used in a battery pack to provide a power surface for middle-or larger sized devices such as electric vehicles (automobiles) (para. 98-99).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the lithium secondary battery of Park et al. to include a battery comprising said lithium secondary battery as described by Mok et al. to provide a power surface for middle or larger sized devices such as automobiles.
Regarding Claim 26, Park et al. is modified by Lee et al., Tsuji et al. and Mok et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 25 above. As applied to Claim 25, Park et al. is modified by Mok et al. to include a battery pack comprising a lithium ion secondary battery for use in an automobile. Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Claims 6-7, 10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210344033 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2020075990 A1) in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200243853 A1) and Tsuji et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210083325 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2019044238 A1) as further evidenced by Takamori et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20220190333 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2020208872 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Mitsumoto et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210159496 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2019044734 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Park et al. is modified by Lee et al. and Tsuji et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above.
Park et al. does not teach that the positive electrode active material powder has Dmin of 1.0 μm or more.
Mitsumoto et al. teaches a positive electrode active material powder having a Dmin of 0.1 to 6.0 μm to suppress side reactions (para. 92-93).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the positive electrode active material powder of Park et al. by Mitsumoto et al. to include a Dmin of 0.1 to 6.0 μm, overlapping and within the claimed range of 1.0 μm or more (see MPEP § 2144.05, I), to suppress side reactions as described above.
Regarding Claim 7, Park et al. is modified by Lee et al. and Tsuji et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above.
Park et al. does not teach the positive electrode active material powder having a D50 of 5 μm or less.
Mitsumoto et al. teaches a positive electrode active material powder having a -D-50 of 0.5 to 11 μm to enhance the dispersibility of the primary particles and provide a sharp particle size distribution close to the normal distribution; said distribution can allow improved discharging-end characteristics, rate characteristics, and cycle characteristics (para. 368).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the positive electrode active material powder of Mitsumoto et al. to include a -D-50 of 0.5 to 11 μm, within and overlapping the claimed range of 5 μm or less (see MPEP § 2144.05, I). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification to provide improved discharging-end characteristics, rate characteristics, and the cycle characteristics as described above.
Regarding Claim 10, Park et al. is modified by Lee et al. and Tsuji et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above.
Park et al. does not teach the positive electrode active material powder having a unimodal particle size distribution that exhibits a single peak in a volume accumulated particle size distribution graph.
[AltContent: textbox (Fig. 1 (Mitsumoto et al.))]
PNG
media_image1.png
342
552
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Mitsumoto et al. teaches the positive electrode active material powder having a unimodal (normal) particle size distribution that exhibits a single peak in a volume accumulated particle size distribution graph (para. 79, Fig. 1). Mitsumoto et al. teaches that a sharp particle size distribution close to the normal distribution allows improved discharging-end characteristics, rate characteristics, and the cycle characteristics (para. 368).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the positive electrode active material powder of Park et al. to include a unimodal particle size distribution that exhibits a single peak in a volume accumulated particle size distribution graph as taught by Mitsumoto et al. to provide improved discharging-end characteristics, rate characteristics, and the cycle characteristics as described above.
Regarding Claim 14, Park et al. is modified by Lee et al. and Tsuji et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above.
Park et al. does not teach the positive electrode active material having an average primary particle diameter of 0.5 μm to 5 μm.
Mitsumoto et al. teaches a positive electrode active material with a preferable average primary particle diameter of 0.1 to 5.0 μm providing improved rate and cycle characteristics (para. 97-98).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the positive electrode active material of Park et al.to include an average primary particle diameter of 0.1 to 5.0 μm as taught by Mitsumoto et al., overlapping and within the claimed range of 0.5 μm to 5 μm. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification to provide improved rate and cycle characteristics as described above.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210344033 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2020075990 A1) in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200243853 A1) and Tsuji et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210083325 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2019044238 A1) as further evidenced by Takamori et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20220190333 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2020208872 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Arimura et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200303734 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Park et al. is modified by Lee et al. and Tsuji et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above.
Park et al. does not teach the positive electrode active material powder has Dmax of 12 μm to 17 μm.
Arimura et al. teaches a positive electrode active material powder having a Dmax of 11.6 μm (Example 8) to provide excellent discharge rate characteristics (para. 386).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the positive electrode active material powder of Park et al. to include a Dmax of 11.6 μm as taught by Arimura et al., close to the lower limit of the claimed range of 12 μm to 17 μm. “A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).” One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification to provide excellent discharge rate characteristics as described above.
Regarding Claim 9, Park et al. is modified by Lee et al. and Tsuji et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above.
Park et al. does not teach that a particle size distribution (PSD) of the positive electrode active material is represented by Equation 1 below and has a value of 3 or less: Particle size distribution (PSD)=(Dmax–Dmin)/D50 [Equation 1].
Arimura et al. teaches that a particle size distribution (PSD) of the positive electrode active material is represented by Dmax - Dmin= D50 x 2/3 or more (equivalent to (Dmax - Dmin)/D50 = 2/3 or more) to enhance processability during the production of a positive electrode (para. 101).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the positive electrode active material of Park et al. to include a particle size distribution (PSD) represented by (Dmax - Dmin)/D50 = 2/3 or more as taught by Arimura et al., within and overlapping the claimed range of 3 or less (see MPEP § 2144.05, I). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification to provide enhanced processability during the production of a positive electrode as described above.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210344033 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2020075990 A1) in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200243853 A1) and Tsuji et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210083325 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2019044238 A1) as further evidenced by Takamori et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20220190333 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2020208872 A1), and further in view of Nakamura (U.S. Pat. No. 20200091503 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Park et al. is modified by Lee et al. and Tsuji et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above.
Park et al. does not teach that the negative electrode plate comprises a silicon-containing negative electrode active material.
Nakamura teaches a negative electrode plate comprising a silicon-containing negative electrode active material to obtain a secondary battery indicating favorable charge and discharge cycle characteristics (para. 59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the negative electrode plate of Park et al. to include a silicon-containing negative electrode active material as taught by Nakamura. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification to obtain a secondary battery indicating favorable charge and discharge cycle characteristics as described above.
Regarding Claim 16, Park et al. is modified by Lee et al. and Tsuji et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above.
Park et al. does not teach that the negative electrode plate comprises a silicon-containing negative electrode active material and a carbon-containing negative electrode active material.
Nakamura teaches a negative electrode plate comprising a silicon-containing negative electrode active material and a carbon-containing negative electrode active material to obtain a secondary battery indicating favorable charge and discharge cycle characteristics (para. 59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the negative electrode plate of Park et al. to include a silicon-containing negative electrode active material and a carbon-containing negative electrode active material as taught by Nakamura. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification to obtain a secondary battery indicating favorable charge and discharge cycle characteristics (para. 59).
Regarding Claim 17, Park et al. is modified by Lee et al., Tsuji et al., and Nakamura teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 16 above.
Park et al. does not teach the silicon-containing negative electrode active material and the carbon-containing negative electrode active material are present in a weight ratio of 1:99 to 20:80.
Nakamura teaches the silicon-containing negative electrode active material and the carbon-containing negative electrode active material present in a weight ratio of 0:100 to 10:90 (90:10 to 0:100 carbon-silicon ratio) to provide an improved silicon-carbon mixing ratio to obtain favorable charge and discharge cycle characteristics (para. 59, 61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the lithium secondary battery of Park et al. to include the silicon-containing negative electrode active material and the carbon-containing negative electrode active material present in a weight ratio of 0:100 to 10:90 as taught by Nakamura, within and overlapping the claimed ratio of 1:99 to 20:80 (see MPEP § 2144.05, I). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification to provide an improved silicon-carbon mixing ratio to obtain favorable charge and discharge cycle characteristics as described above.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210344033 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2020075990 A1) in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200243853 A1) and Tsuji et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210083325 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2019044238 A1) as further evidenced by Takamori et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20220190333 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2020208872 A1), as applied to Claims 1 and 18, respectively, and further in view of Lambert (LAMBERT, Fred. Tesla unveils new 4680 battery cell: bigger, 6x power, and 5x energy. Electrek [online]. Sept. 22 2020 [retrieved 2025-12-19] Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: https://electrek.co/2020/09/22/tesla-4680-battery-cell-bigger-power-energy/> (Year: 2020)).
Regarding Claim 18, Park et al. is modified by Lee et al. and Tsuji et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Park et al. teaches the lithium secondary battery as a cylindrical battery (para. 35).
Park et al. does not teach the cylindrical battery having a ratio of form factor of 0.4 or more, wherein the ratio of form factor is a value obtained by dividing a diameter of the cylindrical battery by a height of the cylindrical battery.
Lambert teaches Tesla’s unveiling of the new 4680 cell cylindrical battery (46 mm diameter by 80 mm height) having a new form factor (0.575) resulting in a five times increase in energy and six times increase in power capacity (para. 5-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the cylindrical battery of Park et al. by Lambert to include a ratio of form factor of 0.575, within the claimed range of 0.4 or more (see MPEP § 2144.05, I), as disclosed by Tesla (determined by dividing a diameter of the cylindrical battery by a height of the cylindrical battery). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification to provide substantial improvement in energy and power capacity as described above.
Regarding Claim 19, Park et al. is modified by Lee et al., Tsuji et al., and Lambert teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 18 above.
Park et al. does not teach the cylindrical battery comprising a 46110 cell, a 4875 cell, a 48110 cell, a 4880 cell, or a 4680 cell.
As applied to Claim 18, Lambert teaches Tesla’s unveiling of the new 4680 cell cylindrical battery (46 mm diameter by 80 mm height) having a new form factor (0.575) resulting in a five times increase in energy and six times increase in power capacity (para. 5-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the cylindrical battery of Park et al. by Lambert to include a 4680 cell. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification to provide substantial improvement in energy and power capacity. Additionally, the size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, l 05 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04). It is within the level of ordinary skill in the art to explore alternative dimensions of the cylindrical battery cell to observe the effects on energy and power capacity based on Tesla’s discovery as disclosed by Lambert.
Claims 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210344033 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2020075990 A1) in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200243853 A1) and Tsuji et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210083325 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2019044238 A1) as further evidenced by Takamori et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20220190333 A1 equivalent to W.O. Pat. No. 2020208872 A1), and further in view of Umehara (U.S. Pat. No. 20200136133 A1).
Regarding Claim 24, Park et al. is modified by Lee et al. and Tsuji et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 20 above. Park et al. teaches the positive electrode plate comprising an insulating layer in which covers a portion of the uncoated portion along a direction parallel to the winding direction.
Park et al. does not teach the insulation layer covering a portion of the positive electrode active material layer in a direction parallel to the winding direction.
Umehara teaches an insulation layer covering a portion of a positive electrode active material layer in a direction parallel to the winding direction (longitudinal direction) (para. 9, 15, 134). The configurations allows a slanted active material layer to be appropriately covered to reduce a risk of a conductive foreign substance being caught in between a gap formed by the active material layer and insulation layer (para. 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the positive electrode plate of Park et al. to include an insulation layer covering a portion of the positive electrode active material layer in a direction parallel to the winding direction as taught by Umehara to reduce a risk of a conductive foreign substance being caught in between a gap formed by the active material layer and insulation layer as described above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTINA RENEE DAULTON whose telephone number is (703)756-5413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, ULA RUDDOCK can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/C.R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights