DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “current collector” should read as “a current collector” for proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “a carbon coating layer” should read as “the carbon coating layer” for proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 8 and 14 objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “%” should read as “wt%” for language and unit consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-12, 14-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (WO2019/022423 (corresponding US PGPub 2020/0295362 used for citation purposes)).
Considering Claim 1, Lee discloses an electrode for a rechargeable lithium battery (positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery [Abstract, 0011]), comprising
a current collector (positive electrode collector [Abstract]),
a safety functional layer on the current collector (first positive electrode active material layer formed on the positive electrode collector [Abstract] which acts as a stabilizing insulating layer [0018]), and
an active material layer on the safety functional layer (second positive electrode active material layer formed on the first positive electrode active material layer [Abstract]),
wherein the safety functional layer includes a heat-expandable polymer (first positive electrode active material layer includes a volume expansion resin in which volume expansion occurs at a high temperature [Abstract]) and an active material having a particle diameter of less than or equal to 2 µm (first positive electrode active material layer includes a first positive electrode active material [Abstract], the first positive electrode active material is in particle form [0044], the first positive electrode active material layer preferably has a thickness of 1 µm to 10 µm for the purposes of optimizing electrode volume and energy density [0047], the particle diameter must be less than or equal to the total thickness of the whole positive electrode active material layer, so choosing a layer thickness of 1 to 2 µm to ensure the predictable results of optimizing electrode volume and energy density and thus ensuring an active material particle diameter of less than or equal to 2 µm would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art).
Considering Claim 2, Lee discloses that the safety functional layer includes the heat-expandable polymer and the active material having the particle diameter of less than or equal to 2 µm in a weight ratio of 1:9 to 9:1 (the first positive electrode active material may be included in an amount of 9.9 wt% to 89.9 wt% based on a total weight of the first positive electrode active material layer [0036], the volume expansion resin may be included in an amount of 10 wt% to 90 wt% based on the total weight of the first positive electrode active material layer [0040], which reads on the full claimed range of their ratios when put into ratio form).
Considering Claim 3, Lee discloses that the active material having the particle diameter of less than or equal to 2 µm includes a compound capable of reversibly intercalating and deintercalating lithium, and the compound capable of reversibly intercalating and deintercalating lithium is lithium iron phosphate, lithium nickel transition metal composite oxide (opposing side negative electrode active material is capable of reversibly intercalating and deintercalating lithium [0064] for lithium secondary battery [0011], positive electrode active material contains same material of LiFePO4 [0033, 0080] or lithium nickel transition metal composite oxide [0049]).
Considering Claim 4, Lee discloses that the compound capable of reversibly intercalating and deintercalating lithium is LiFePO4 (LiFePO4 [0080]) or LiNixM1yM2zO2 (LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2, LiNi0.5Co0.2Mn0.3O2, LiNi0.5Co0.3Mn0.2O2, LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 [0051]).
Considering Claim 5, Lee discloses that the active material having the particle diameter of less than or equal to 2 µm includes a compound capable of reversibly intercalating and deintercalating lithium (opposing side negative electrode active material is capable of reversibly intercalating and deintercalating lithium [0064] for lithium secondary battery [0011], positive electrode active material contains same material of LiFePO4 [0033, 0080] or lithium nickel transition metal composite oxide [0049]) and a carbon coating layer on the surface thereof (conductive agent is coated on a surface of the first positive electrode active material [0041] and may include graphite, carbon black, acetylene blac, Ketjen black, channel black, furnace black, lamp black, thermal black, and carbon fibers [0042]).
Considering Claim 6, Lee discloses that the carbon coating layer is included in an amount of 1 wt% to 20 wt% based on 100 wt% of the active material having the particle diameter of less than or equal to 2 µm (conductive agent coating [0041], conductive agent preferably included in 5 wt% to 20 wt% based on the total weight of the first positive electrode active material layer [0043]).
Considering Claim 7, Lee discloses that the first positive electrode active material is in particle form [0044]. The first positive electrode active material layer preferably has a thickness of 1 µm to 10 µm for the purposes of optimizing electrode volume and energy density [0047], the particle diameter must be less than or equal to the total thickness of the whole positive electrode active material layer, so choosing a layer thickness of 1 to ensure the predictable results of optimizing electrode volume and energy density and routinely experimenting with and coming up with a particle diameter of 50 nm to 1 µm would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Considering Claim 8, Lee discloses that the active material having the particle diameter of less than or equal to 2 µm is included in an amount of 5% to 80wt%, based on 100 wt% of the safety functional layer (the first positive electrode active material may be included in an amount of 30 wt% to 70 wt% based on a total weight of the first positive electrode active material layer [0036]).
Considering Claim 9, Lee discloses that the heat-expandable polymer is a polymer that expands at 70 °C to 200 °C (volume expansion resin may have onset point of 70°C and may include polypropylene [0037, claim 7]).
Considering Claim 10, Lee discloses that the heat-expandable polymer is a heat-expandable polymer that melts at 100 °C to 200 °C (volume expansion resin has a melting point of 80 to 180 °C and may include polypropylene [0037, claim 7]).
Considering Claims 11 and 12, Lee discloses that the heat-expandable polymer includes polyolefin, wherein the polyolefin includes polypropylene (volume expansion resin may include polypropylene [0037, claim 7]).
Considering Claim 14, Lee discloses that the heat-expandable polymer is included in an amount of 10 wt% to 90 wt% based on 100 wt% of the safety functional layer (the volume expansion resin may be included in an amount of 10 wt% to 90 wt% based on the total weight of the first positive electrode active material layer [0040]).
Considering Claim 15, Lee discloses that the safety functional layer further includes a conductive material (conductive agent included in first positive electrode active material layer [0043]), and
the conductive material is included in an amount of 1 wt% to 30 wt% based on 100 wt% of the safety functional layer (conductive agent preferably included in 5 wt% to 20 wt% based on the total weight of the first positive electrode active material layer [0043]).
Considering Claim 16, Lee discloses that the safety functional layer further includes a binder (first positive electrode active material layer may or may not have a separate binder [0044], Lee notes that a separate binder of 1 wt% to 30 wt% can help with adhesion between the first active material layer and the second active material layer [0057], so a known incorporation of this binder in the first active material layer to achieve the predicted results of stronger adhesion between the first active material layer and the second active material layer would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art).
Considering Claim 17, Lee discloses that the thickness of the safety functional layer is 0.5 µm to 10 µm (preferably the first active material layer has thickness of 1 µm to 10 µm [0047]).
Considering Claim 19, Lee discloses that the electrode for the rechargeable lithium battery is a positive electrode (positive electrode [Abstract]).
Considering Claim 20, Lee discloses a rechargeable lithium battery (lithium secondary battery [0011]), comprising the electrode for the rechargeable lithium battery according to claim 1 (see claim 1),
a separator (separator [0017]), and
an electrolyte (electrolyte [0060]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (WO2019/022423 (corresponding US PGPub 2020/0295362 used for citation purposes)) and further in view of Tang et al. (PGPub 2023/0307656).
Considering Claim 13, Lee discloses that the first positive electrode active material is in particle form [0044]. The first positive electrode active material layer preferably has a thickness of 1 µm to 10 µm for the purposes of optimizing electrode volume and energy density [0047], the particle diameter must be less than or equal to the total thickness of the whole positive electrode active material layer, so choosing a layer thickness of 1 to 2 µm to ensure the predictable results of optimizing electrode volume and energy density and thus ensuring an active material particle diameter of less than or equal to 2 µm would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
However, Lee is silent to a heat-expandable particle diameter of 50 nm to 10 µm.
Tang discloses a secondary battery comprising a functional layer disposed on a current collector, with an active material layer covering the functional layer and current collector [Abstract]. Polymer material of the functional layer [Abstract] is in the form of particles and has a median particle size of 0.1 µm (100 nm) to 2 µm so as to not isolate the current collector from the active material layer [0013].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the battery of Lee with the polymer particle size of Tang in order to ensure that the current collector is not isolated from the active material layer [0013].
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (WO2019/022423 (corresponding US PGPub 2020/0295362 used for citation purposes)) and further in view of Kim et al. (PGPub 2023/0275223).
Considering Claim 18, Lee discloses that the first positive electrode active material and second positive electrode active material are in particle form [0044, 0057].
However, Lee is silent to the active layer active material particles having a particle diameter of 10 µm to 30 µm.
Kim discloses an active cathode material for a lithium-ion cell including a mixture of particles having particle sizes distributed according to a bimodal particle size distribution, where the first modal value is greater than the second modal value [Abstract]. The first modal value is in a range between 7 and 14 µm and the second modal value is in a range between 2 and 4 µm [0053]. This provides a higher cathode density [0004] while providing mechanical strength for particles such that the smaller particles are not crushed by a manufacturing calendar roll [0012, 0021].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the battery of Lee with the bimodal cathode particles of Kim in order to provide a higher cathode density [0004] while providing mechanical strength for particles such that the smaller particles are not crushed by a manufacturing calendar roll [0012, 0021].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P DOMONE whose telephone number is (571)270-7582. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30 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, Basia Ridley can be reached at (571)272-1453. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P DOMONE/Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1725