Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 3/6/2026. Claims 4 and 11 are canceled. Claims 1-3, 9, 10, 12-16 are pending. Applicant’s arguments have been considered. Claims 1-3, 9, 10, 12-16 are non-finally rejected for reasons below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 13, the recitation 0<a+b<0.77 is not supported by the disclosure as originally filed. Referring to [0139], the formula requires that a = 0.7. However, claim 13 recites that a is less than 0.7.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 12, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Umeyama (US 2015/0333323) in view of Dai (US 2018/0083278), Hashima (JP 2008-153017), and Choy (US 2010/0233540).
Regarding claim 1, Umeyama discloses a secondary battery and a preparation method of a secondary battery, comprising a positive electrode plate, wherein the positive electrode plate comprises a positive electrode current collector and a positive electrode film layer that is disposed on the positive electrode current collector and that comprises a positive electrode active material, wherein
the positive electrode active material comprises a first material and a second material, the first material contains lithium transition metal oxide, the second material contains lithium transition metal phosphate with a carbon coating layer on a surface of the lithium transition metal phosphate [0056, 0059], the lithium transition metal phosphate is selected from LiFePO4.
Regarding claim 1, “the second material has a lower discharge platform voltage than the first material with respect to a same type of counter electrode”, both Umeyama and the Applicants disclose LiFePO4 the second active material. Refer to [0056] of Umeyama and [0139, 0140] of the instant Application. It has been held by the courts that if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F2d. 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 1, the formula having Li1+xNiaCobM1-a-bO2Ay, 0<a+b<1, Umeyama discloses a lithium nickel composite oxide [0062], for example, LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 [0063], in which a+b = 0.95.
Regarding claims 1, 4, a ratio W of a discharge platform capacity of the second material to a total discharge capacity of the positive electrode active material in a discharge curve of the positive electrode plate at the discharge rate of 0.33C with respect to a graphite counter electrode satisfies 5 < W < 30%, Umeyama discloses the lithium iron phosphate is smaller in capacity per volume than lithium-nickel composite oxide [0016]. Further, the ratio of lithium iron phosphate to the total mass of lithium iron phosphate and lithium-nickel composite oxide is restricted to 5% by mass or more and 20% by mass or less. Both when the ratio is less than 5% by mass and when the ratio exceeds 20% by mass, an amount of generated gas required for a large battery cannot be ensured. Furthermore, when the ratio exceeds 20% by mass, a reduction in capacity occurs. However, when the ratio is 5% by mass or more and 20% by mass or less, a sufficient amount of generated gas can be ensured at the time of overcharge. Not only that, but the output property at low SOC is enhanced by lithium iron phosphate, and thus, the reduction in capacity can be compensated for [0017].
Since the amount of lithium iron phosphate is between 5% and 20%, it is noted that W the capacity of the second material to the total capacity of the positive electrode active material of Umeyama is less than 20%.
Regarding claim 3, the first material has a discharge platform voltage ranging from 3.5 V to 4.2 V in a discharge curve at a discharge rate of 0.33C with respect to graphite; or the second material has a discharge platform voltage ranging from 3.0 V to 4.0 V in a discharge curve at a discharge rate of 0.33C with respect to graphite, both Umeyama and the Applicants disclose LiFePO4 second active material. Refer to [0022] of Umeyama and [0140] of the instant Application. It has been held by the courts that if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F2d 705,709, 15 USPQ2d 1655 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 9, a median particle size by volume Dv50 of the first material ranges from 0.5 um to 20 um [0065].
Regarding claim 12, a pH value of the first material ranges from 9 to 13, it is noted that this is inherent to the property of the lithium transition metal compound. Umeyama’s LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 [0063] is the same compound as Applicant’s NCA-1 [00139], and hence meets the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 1, the first material includes both single particles and secondary particles of the first material, and a number percentage of the single particles in the first material ranges from 90% to 97%, Dai teaches lithium mixed metal oxide cathode active materials have improved particle morphologies that are substantially free of voids and pores. These morphologies have higher particulate densities and lower particulate surface areas when compared to conventional cathode active materials. Moreover, the cathode active materials may include a high proportion (i.e., >50% by frequency) of primary particles. Owing to at least these characteristics, the cathode active materials allow lithium batteries of higher volumetric energy density, lower gassing propensity, and enhanced safety [0062]. In some instances, the primary particles are greater in number than 95% of the particles [0126]. The mean particle size is between 10 um and 20 um [0128].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to form the first material particles in the form of primary particles, as taught by Dai, for the benefit of avoiding voids that causes capacity reduction.
Regarding claim 1, wherein 4 < Dv99/Dv10 <5, Hashimoto teaches a lithium metal composite oxide having an average particle size D50 of 3 to 15 um, and D10/D90 in the range of 0.30 to 0.70. When there is non-uniformity of particles, the charge/discharge load varies from particle to particle, and in the case of high output characteristics, the durability of the particles varies, resulting in overall deterioration. From this point of view, it is desirable that the particle sizes be more uniform in the art sizes distribution curve. Page 9 of translation.
It is noted that D90/D10 of Hashimoto is 1.43-3.33. Considering the close proximity of D90 and D99, whether mass-based or volume-based, the Examiner notes that Hashimoto’s D90/D10 is similar to Applicant’s Dv99/Dv10, absent persuasive
Regarding claim 10, a particle size by number Dn10 of the first material ranges from 0.2 um to 5 um, the minimum particle size is 0.5 or more. Page 9 of translation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the particle size and the particle size distribution of the lithium metal composite oxide particles of Umeyama, as taught by Hashimoto, for the benefit of optimizing the charge/discharge load of the active material particles.
MPEP states:
2144.01 Implicit Disclosure [R-10.2019]
"[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) (underline added)
Further, MPEP states:
2144.02 Reliance on Scientific Theory [R-08.2012]
The rationale to support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 may rely on logic and sound scientific principle. In re Soli, 317 F.2d 941, 137 USPQ 797 (CCPA 1963).
The Examiner notes that although Hashimoto teaches the ratio D10/D90, and not Dv99/Dv10, an ordinary artisan would glean from the teaching of Hashimoto that one would not desire an extremely high D90 or D99, and an extremely low D10, whether mass-based or volume-based. Either extremities would cause extreme load variations between particles, and hence, non-uniform output. Hashimoto suggests that it would be workable to form a D10/D90 ratio that minimizes fluctuating charge/discharge characteristics from particle to particle. Hence, an ordinary skilled artisan would be motivated to try forming a D10/D90 outside of 0.3 to 0.7 depending on the charge/discharge characteristics of the active material.
Further, the instant Specification states
[0074] In some embodiments, median particle sizes by volume Dy99 and Dv10 of the first material satisfy 1 < <Dv99/Dv10 < 10, for example, 3 < Dv99/Dv10 <7, 4 < Dv99/Dv10 < 8, or 5 < Dv99/Dv10 < 7. The particle size distribution of the first material satisfies the foregoing relationship, and particles of the positive electrode material have good lamination performance, so that particles of the first material and the second material have higher ion and electron migration performance, the positive electrode film layer has higher compacted density, a smoother electrolyte infiltration channel is formed, thereby further increasing the direct current internal resistance of the battery and increasing the energy density of the battery. In addition, the first material includes a smaller amount of small particles, which helps reduce gassing volume in the battery, to obtain lower cycling swelling rate and good storage performance. (emphasis added)
The instant Specification does not show as to the criticality of the narrow claimed range of 4 < Dv99/Dv10 <5, and hence would have been obvious in light of Hashimoto’s D90/D10 of 1.43-3.33.
Regarding claim 1, the lithium transition metal phosphate comprises 100% secondary particles formed by agglomeration of primary particles. Choy teaches lithium iron phosphate having an olivine structure and a method for preparing the same. More specifically, the present invention relates to an olivine-type lithium iron phosphate composed of secondary particles having a mean particle diameter (D50) of 5 to 100 um, formed by aggregation of primary particles having a mean particle diameter (D50) of 50 to 550 nm, wherein the primary and secondary particles have a composition represented by Formula I below and the secondary particles have a porosity of 15 to 40% [0001]. As a result of a variety of extensive and intensive studies and experiments to solve the problems as described above, the inventors of the present invention have discovered that lithium iron phosphate composed of secondary particles with a predetermined porosity, formed by aggregation of primary particles having a small diameter, can satisfy superior electrical conductivity, stable crystal structure and high density, which are advantages of smaller primary particles, as well as high process efficiency, which is an advantage of secondary particles, thus ultimately maximizing capacity and energy density of electrodes and batteries [0017].
Regarding claim 1, a second material median particle size by volume Dv50 of the secondary particles ranges from 4 um to 10 um, Choy teaches it is preferred that the secondary particles have a mean particle diameter (D50) of 5 to 40 um in view of slurry mixing and smoothness of electrode surfaces. It is not preferable that the mean particle diameter (D50) is higher than 40 um, since precipitation occurs upon slurry mixing [0043].
Regarding claim 2, for the second material: a particle size of the primary particles ranges from 30 nm to 800 nm, Choy teaches the primary particles preferably have a mean particle diameter (D50) of 50 to 550 nm, more preferably 100 to 300 nm, when taking into consideration the facts that when the mean particle diameter of the primary particles is excessively large, ionic conductivity cannot be improved to a desired level and that particles having an excessively small diameter are difficult to prepare [0042].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to form the lithium iron phosphate particles of Umeyama, as taught by Choy, for the benefit of having good stable crystal structure and high conductivity.
Regarding claim 1, the second material comprises a composite material of the lithium transition metal phosphate and carbon, and a mass ratio of carbon in the composite material ranges from 1.47% to 2.0%, Umeyama discloses the lithium transition metal phosphate and carbon. The carbon forms a conductive layer and improves the reaction efficiency at the time of overcharge. The amount of the lithium transition metal phosphate to the carbon is 98:2 to 99:1 [0059]. MPEP states that prior art which teaches a range overlapping or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with “sufficient specificity.” See 2131.03.
Umeyama modified by Dai, Hashimoto, and Choy teaches:
Regarding claim 14, a battery module, comprising the secondary battery according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, a battery pack, comprising the battery module according to claim 14.
Regarding claim 16, an apparatus, comprising the battery pack according to claim 15, wherein the battery pack is configured to provide power for the apparatus or used as an energy storage unit of the apparatus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to use the battery pack of Umeyama modified by Dai, Hashimoto, and Choy in a power apparatus for the benefit of providing power.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Umeyama (US 2015/0333323) in view of Kim (US 2015/0162598), Dai (US 2018/0083278), Hashima (JP 2008-153017), and Choy (US 2010/0233540).
Regarding claim 13, Umeyama discloses a secondary battery and a preparation method of a secondary battery, comprising a positive electrode plate, wherein the positive electrode plate comprises a positive electrode current collector and a positive electrode film layer that is disposed on the positive electrode current collector and that comprises a positive electrode active material, wherein
the positive electrode active material comprises a first material and a second material, the first material contains lithium transition metal oxide, the second material contains lithium transition metal phosphate with a carbon coating layer on a surface of the lithium transition metal phosphate [0056, 0059], the lithium transition metal phosphate is selected from LiFePO4.
Regarding claim 13 “the second material has a lower discharge platform voltage than the first material with respect to a same type of counter electrode”, both Umeyama and the Applicants disclose LiFePO4 the second active material. Refer to [0056] of Umeyama and [0139, 0140] of the instant Application. It has been held by the courts that if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F2d. 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 13, the formula having Li1+xNiaCobM1-a-bO2Ay, 0<a+b<0.77, Kim teaches a lithium nickel-based oxide having Li1+xNiaMnbCo(1-(a+b)O2 [0033]. The amount of cobalt, namely, (1-(a+b)), may be, for example, 0.1 to 0. When the amount of cobalt is excessively high, namely, (1-(a+b)>0.3), raw material costs are entirely increased and reversible capacity is slightly reduced. On the other hand, when the amount of cobalt is excessively low, namely, (1-(a+b)<0.1), it is difficult to obtain sufficient rate characteristics and electrical conductivity effects [0036].
In addition, the amount of nickel (Ni), namely, (a), may be relatively high when compared to manganese and cobalt, and may be particularly 0.5 to 0.6. When the amount of nickel is less than 0.5, it is difficult to anticipate high capacity. On the other hand, when the amount of nickel exceeds 0.6, stability is reduced, and side reaction is increased during high-temperature storage and thereby high-temperature swelling may occur [0037].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to form the lithium nickel composite oxide of Umeyama with a nickel and cobalt content at the maximum of 0.7, as taught by Kim, for the benefit of having good stability and good reversible capacity.
Regarding claim 13, a ratio W of a discharge platform capacity of the second material to a total discharge capacity of the positive electrode active material in a discharge curve of the positive electrode plate at the discharge rate of 0.33C with respect to a graphite counter electrode satisfies 5 < W < 30%, Umeyama discloses the lithium iron phosphate is smaller in capacity per volume than lithium-nickel composite oxide [0016]. Further, the ratio of lithium iron phosphate to the total mass of lithium iron phosphate and lithium-nickel composite oxide is restricted to 5% by mass or more and 20% by mass or less. Both when the ratio is less than 5% by mass and when the ratio exceeds 20% by mass, an amount of generated gas required for a large battery cannot be ensured. Furthermore, when the ratio exceeds 20% by mass, a reduction in capacity occurs. However, when the ratio is 5% by mass or more and 20% by mass or less, a sufficient amount of generated gas can be ensured at the time of overcharge. Not only that, but the output property at low SOC is enhanced by lithium iron phosphate, and thus, the reduction in capacity can be compensated for [0017].
Since the amount of lithium iron phosphate is between 5% and 20%, it is noted that W the capacity of the second material to the total capacity of the positive electrode active material of Umeyama is less than 20%.
Regarding claim 13, the first material includes both single particles and secondary particles of the first material, and a number percentage of the single particles in the first material ranges from 90% to 97%, Dai teaches lithium mixed metal oxide cathode active materials have improved particle morphologies that are substantially free of voids and pores. These morphologies have higher particulate densities and lower particulate surface areas when compared to conventional cathode active materials. Moreover, the cathode active materials may include a high proportion (i.e., >50% by frequency) of primary particles. Owing to at least these characteristics, the cathode active materials allow lithium batteries of higher volumetric energy density, lower gassing propensity, and enhanced safety [0062]. In some instances, the primary particles are greater in number than 95% of the particles [0126]. The mean particle size is between 10 um and 20 um [0128].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to form the first material particles in the form of primary particles, as taught by Dai, for the benefit of avoiding voids that causes capacity reduction.
Regarding claim 13, wherein 4 < Dv99/Dv10 <5, Hashimoto teaches a lithium metal composite oxide having an average particle size D50 of 3 to 15 um, and D10/D90 in the range of 0.30 to 0.70. When there is non-uniformity of particles, the charge/discharge load varies from particle to particle, and in the case of high output characteristics, the durability of the particles varies, resulting in overall deterioration. From this point of view, it is desirable that the particle sizes be more uniform in the art sizes distribution curve. Page 9 of translation.
It is noted that D90/D10 of Hashimoto is 1.43-3.33. Considering the close proximity of D90 and D99, whether mass-based or volume-based, the Examiner notes that Hashimoto’s D90/D10 is similar to Applicant’s Dv99/Dv10, absent persuasive
Regarding claim 10, a particle size by number Dn10 of the first material ranges from 0.2 um to 5 um, the minimum particle size is 0.5 or more. Page 9 of translation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the particle size and the particle size distribution of the lithium metal composite oxide particles of Umeyama, as taught by Hashimoto, for the benefit of optimizing the charge/discharge load of the active material particles.
MPEP states:
2144.01 Implicit Disclosure [R-10.2019]
"[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) (underline added)
Further, MPEP states:
2144.02 Reliance on Scientific Theory [R-08.2012]
The rationale to support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 may rely on logic and sound scientific principle. In re Soli, 317 F.2d 941, 137 USPQ 797 (CCPA 1963).
The Examiner notes that although Hashimoto teaches the ratio D10/D90, and not Dv99/Dv10, an ordinary artisan would glean from the teaching of Hashimoto that one would not desire an extremely high D90 or D99, and an extremely low D10, whether mass-based or volume-based. Either extremities would cause extreme load variations between particles, and hence, non-uniform output. Hashimoto suggests that it would be workable to form a D10/D90 ratio that minimizes fluctuating charge/discharge characteristics from particle to particle. Hence, an ordinary skilled artisan would be motivated to try forming a D10/D90 outside of 0.3 to 0.7 depending on the charge/discharge characteristics of the active material.
Further, the instant Specification states
[0074] In some embodiments, median particle sizes by volume Dy99 and Dv10 of the first material satisfy 1 < <Dv99/Dv10 < 10, for example, 3 < Dv99/Dv10 <7, 4 < Dv99/Dv10 < 8, or 5 < Dv99/Dv10 < 7. The particle size distribution of the first material satisfies the foregoing relationship, and particles of the positive electrode material have good lamination performance, so that particles of the first material and the second material have higher ion and electron migration performance, the positive electrode film layer has higher compacted density, a smoother electrolyte infiltration channel is formed, thereby further increasing the direct current internal resistance of the battery and increasing the energy density of the battery. In addition, the first material includes a smaller amount of small particles, which helps reduce gassing volume in the battery, to obtain lower cycling swelling rate and good storage performance. (emphasis added)
The instant Specification does not show as to the criticality of the narrow claimed range of 4 < Dv99/Dv10 <5, and hence would have been obvious in light of Hashimoto’s D90/D10 of 1.43-3.33.
Regarding claim 13, the lithium transition metal phosphate comprises 100% secondary particles formed by agglomeration of primary particles. Choy teaches lithium iron phosphate having an olivine structure and a method for preparing the same. More specifically, the present invention relates to an olivine-type lithium iron phosphate composed of secondary particles having a mean particle diameter (D50) of 5 to 100 um, formed by aggregation of primary particles having a mean particle diameter (D50) of 50 to 550 nm, wherein the primary and secondary particles have a composition represented by Formula I below and the secondary particles have a porosity of 15 to 40% [0001]. As a result of a variety of extensive and intensive studies and experiments to solve the problems as described above, the inventors of the present invention have discovered that lithium iron phosphate composed of secondary particles with a predetermined porosity, formed by aggregation of primary particles having a small diameter, can satisfy superior electrical conductivity, stable crystal structure and high density, which are advantages of smaller primary particles, as well as high process efficiency, which is an advantage of secondary particles, thus ultimately maximizing capacity and energy density of electrodes and batteries [0017].
Regarding claim 13, a second material median particle size by volume Dv50 of the secondary particles ranges from 4 um to 10 um, Choy teaches it is preferred that the secondary particles have a mean particle diameter (D50) of 5 to 40 um in view of slurry mixing and smoothness of electrode surfaces. It is not preferable that the mean particle diameter (D50) is higher than 40 um, since precipitation occurs upon slurry mixing [0043].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to form the lithium iron phosphate particles of Umeyama, as taught by Choy, for the benefit of having good stable crystal structure and high conductivity.
Regarding claim 13, the second material comprises a composite material of the lithium transition metal phosphate and carbon, and a mass ratio of carbon in the composite material ranges from 1.47% to 2.0%, Umeyama discloses the lithium transition metal phosphate and carbon. The carbon forms a conductive layer and improves the reaction efficiency at the time of overcharge. The amount of the lithium transition metal phosphate to the carbon is 98:2 to 99:1 [0059]. MPEP states that prior art which teaches a range overlapping or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with “sufficient specificity.” See 2131.03.
Response to Arguments
Arguments dated 3/6/2026 are addressed below:
Regarding claims 1, 13, wherein 4 < Dv99/Dv10 <5, Hashimoto teaches a lithium metal composite oxide having an average particle size D50 of 3 to 15 um, and D10/D90 in the range of 0.30 to 0.70. When there is non-uniformity of particles, the charge/discharge load varies from particle to particle, and in the case of high output characteristics, the durability of the particles varies, resulting in overall deterioration. From this point of view, it is desirable that the particle sizes be more uniform in the art sizes distribution curve. Page 9 of translation.
It is noted that D90/D10 of Hashimoto is 1.43-3.33. Considering the close proximity of D90 and D99, whether mass-based or volume-based, the Examiner notes that Hashimoto’s D90/D10 is similar to Applicant’s Dv99/Dv10, absent persuasive evidence of the contrary.
Regarding claim 10, a particle size by number Dn10 of the first material ranges from 0.2 um to 5 um, the minimum particle size is 0.5 or more. Page 9 of translation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the particle size and the particle size distribution of the lithium metal composite oxide particles of Umeyama, as taught by Hashimoto, for the benefit of optimizing the charge/discharge load of the active material particles.
MPEP states:
2144.01 Implicit Disclosure [R-10.2019]
"[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) (underline added)
Further, MPEP states:
2144.02 Reliance on Scientific Theory [R-08.2012]
The rationale to support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 may rely on logic and sound scientific principle. In re Soli, 317 F.2d 941, 137 USPQ 797 (CCPA 1963).
The Examiner notes that although Hashimoto teaches the ratio D10/D90, and not Dv99/Dv10, an ordinary artisan would glean from the teaching of Hashimoto that one would not desire an extremely high D90 or D99, and an extremely low D10, whether mass-based or volume-based. Either extremities would cause extreme load variations between particles, and hence, non-uniform output. Hashimoto suggests that it would be workable to form a D10/D90 ratio that minimizes fluctuating charge/discharge characteristics from particle to particle. Hence, an ordinary skilled artisan would be motivated to try forming a D10/D90 outside of 0.3 to 0.7 depending on the charge/discharge characteristics of the active material.
Further, the instant Specification states
[0074] In some embodiments, median particle sizes by volume Dy99 and Dv10 of the first material satisfy 1 < <Dv99/Dv10 < 10, for example, 3 < Dv99/Dv10 <7, 4 < Dv99/Dv10 < 8, or 5 < Dv99/Dv10 < 7. The particle size distribution of the first material satisfies the foregoing relationship, and particles of the positive electrode material have good lamination performance, so that particles of the first material and the second material have higher ion and electron migration performance, the positive electrode film layer has higher compacted density, a smoother electrolyte infiltration channel is formed, thereby further increasing the direct current internal resistance of the battery and increasing the energy density of the battery. In addition, the first material includes a smaller amount of small particles, which helps reduce gassing volume in the battery, to obtain lower cycling swelling rate and good storage performance. (emphasis added)
The instant Specification does not show as to the criticality of the narrowly claimed range of 4 < Dv99/Dv10 <5, and hence would have been obvious in light of Hashimoto’s D90/D10 of 1.43-3.33.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CYNTHIA KYUNG SOO WALLS whose telephone number is (571)272-8699. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F until 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CYNTHIA K WALLS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights