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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 9/29/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, the method of preparing a positive electrode slurry, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/29/2025.
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1,2,4,5,6,7,9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the machine translation of Kim (KR 20190124038 A) and further in view of Ahn (US 20200295347 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a positive electrode slurry for a lithium secondary battery (Example 1 [para. 0063-0067])(para. 0065, [the positive electrode slurry was applied to a thin film of aluminum]), comprising a mixture of:
a first liquid (para. 0065, [N-methyl-2-pi]) that comprises
a second positive electrode active material (para. 0065, [LiCoO2]),
a positive electrode additive (para. 0065, [additive Li6CoO4]) represented by Chemical Formula 1 below,
[Chemical Formula 1] LipCo(1-q)M1qO4 wherein in Chemical Formula 1, M1 denotes one or more elements selected from the group consisting of W, Cu, Fe, V, Cr, Ti, Zr, Zn, Al, In, Ta, Y, La, Sr, Ga, Sc, Gd, Sm, Ca, Ce, Nb, Mg, B, and Mo, and p and q are 5 <p< 7 and 0<q<0.5, respectively.
a conductive material (para. 0065, [carbon black as conductive material]) and
a binder (para. 0065, [PVdF as binder]),
a second liquid (para. 0065, [slurry was prepared by adding to Rollidone (NMP)]).
Kim does not teach that the binder and the second positive electrode active material are contained in the second liquid, however Kim does teach that the binder and the second positive electrode are contained in the first liquid (para. 0065).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the binder and second positive electrode active material into either the first liquid or the second liquid. There are only a finite number of combinations to add the components, and these combinations are well within scope of one of ordinary skill. Since the two liquids are intermediates, the mixture of these intermediates will render the same final product. Since the claim is directed to the product, the method by which the components are mixed is not given patentable weight, as the same final product will be derived when mixed.
Kim does not teach a first positive electrode active material in Example 1 (para. 0064-0067).
However, in para. 0043, Kim teaches that the positive electrode active material used in the lithium secondary battery is not particularly limited and the positive electrode active materials usually used in the lithium secondary battery can be appropriately used (para. 0043 lists examples that may be selected from the group).
Ahn, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches that a first positive electrode active material (Ahn, para. 0045, [lithium iron phosphate-based positive electrode active material]) may be mixed with a second positive electrode (Ahn, para. 0045, [lithium composite transition metal oxide]) active material mixture (Ahn, para. 0045, [in preparing the slurry for a positive electrode, a positive electrode active material … may be further mixed in addition to the … positive electrode active material included in the positive electrode material pre-dispersion]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have added a first positive electrode material to add to Kim’s mixture, as taught by Ahn, in order to alter the viscosity of the slurry and to improve flowability and processability of the positive electrode slurry, as taught by Ahn, (Ahn, para. 0049, [the viscosity of the slurry for a positive electrode is reduced and flowability is improved to improve processability]).
Modified Kim does not teach
that the first liquid has a viscosity of 5,000 cps or more and less than 8,000 cps at 25±1°C
wherein; the positive electrode slurry has a viscosity of 8,000 cps or more and less than 10,000 cps at 25±1°C
However, modified Kim teaches that reducing the particle size of the second positive electrode active material (Ahn, para. 0013, lithium iron phosphate-based positive electrode active material) may indirectly decrease the viscosity of the positive electrode slurry – leading to improved processability and flowability (Ahn, para. 0013). Modified Kim further teaches a preferable viscosity of 2,000 cps to 20,000 cps (25°C) (Ahn, claim 12).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have optimized the viscosity of the first liquid and the positive electrode slurry within the taught range of 2,000 cps to 20,000 cps (25°C), in order to improved processability and flowability of the material, as taught by Ahn (para. 0013). It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at a viscosity of 5,000 cps or more and less than 8,000 cps at 25±1°C for the first liquid and a viscosity of 8,000 cps or more and less than 10,000 cps at 25±1°C for the positive electrode slurry without undue experimentation, particularly given that Ahn teaches that the range of 2,000 cps to 20,000 cps (25°C) is desirable (Ahn, claim 12).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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) [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 2, Modified Kim teaches the positive electrode slurry of claim 1, wherein the viscosity of the positive electrode slurry ranges from 8,500 to 9,700 cps at 25±1°C. (Modified Kim, see claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 4, Modified Kim teaches the positive electrode slurry of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the first liquid comprises 0.5 to 40 parts by weight of the positive electrode additive (para. 0065, [3% by weight of the … additive]) and 5 to 50 parts by weight of the conductive material (para. 3% by weight as conductive material]) with respect to 100 parts by weight of a total amount of the first liquid.
Regarding claim 5, Modified Kim teaches the positive electrode slurry of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the second liquid [first liquid as explained in claim 1 above] comprises 1 to 15 parts by weight of the binder (para. 0065, [3% by weight … as binder]) with respect to 100 parts by weight of a total amount of the second [first liquid as explained in claim 1 above] liquid.
Regarding claim 6, Modified Kim teaches the positive electrode slurry of claim 5, wherein the first positive electrode active material (Ahn, para. 0045, [lithium phosphate based positive electrode active material]) is comprised in an amount of 1 to 30 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of a total amount of the first and second positive electrode active materials (Ahn, para. 0047, [the lithium iron phosphate-based positive electrode and the positive electrode active material of the lithium composite transition metal oxide may be mixed in a weight ratio of 1:99 to 40:60, more preferably 2:98 to 30:70 , and most preferably 5:95 to 15:85).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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) [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 7, Modified Kim teaches the positive electrode slurry of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the second positive electrode active material ([para. 0065, [LiCoO2]) is a lithium metal composite oxide represented by Chemical Formula 2 below:
[Chemical Formula 2] Lix[NiyCozMnwM2v]Ou
wherein in Chemical Formula 2, M2 denotes one or more elements selected from the group consisting of W, Cu, Fe, V, Cr, Ti, Zr, Zn, Al, In, Ta, Y, La, Sr, Ga, Sc, Gd, Sm, Ca, Ce, Nb, Mg, B, and Mo, and x, y, z, w, v, and u are 1.0<x<1.30,0<y<0.95, 0<z<0.5, 0<w<0.5,0<v<0.2, and 1.5<u<4.5, respectively.
Modified Kim does not teach a first positive electrode active material represented by Chemical Formula 2.
However, Kim teaches that the positive electrode active material usable is not particularly limited, and the positive electrode active material usually used may be lithium-containing transition metal oxides represented by Chemical Formula 2 (para. 0043).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included an additional lithium-containing transition metal oxide in modified Kim’s positive electrode slurry, as taught by Kim (para. 0043), as Kim’s invention is not limited to the type of positive electrode active materials used, as taught by Kim (para. 0043).
Regarding claim 9, Modified Kim teaches the positive electrode slurry of claim 1, wherein the conductive material comprises one or more materials selected from the group consisting of natural graphite, artificial graphite, carbon black, acetylene black, Ketjen black, and carbon fibers (para. 0034).
Regarding claim 10, Modified Kim teaches the positive electrode slurry of claim 1, wherein each of the first liquid (para. 0065, [N-methyl-2-pi] - NMP) and the second liquid (para. 0065, Rollidone (NMP)) comprises one or more polar aprotic solvents of N-methyl- 2pyrrolidone (NMP).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the machine translation of Kim (KR 20190124038 A) and further in view of Ahn (US 20200295347 A1) with evidence by The Materials Project (Materials Data on Li6CoO4 by Materials Project. United States. doi:https://doi.org/10.17188/1193662).
Regarding claim 3, Modified Kim teaches the positive electrode slurry of claim 1, wherein the positive electrode additive has a tetragonal structure with a space group of P42/nmc (Materials Project, [Li6CoO4 crystallizes in the tetragonal P42/nmc space group).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the machine translation of Kim (KR 20190124038 A) and further in view of Ahn (US 20200295347 A1) and Wang (Ming Wang et al 2019 J. Electrochem. Soc. 166 A2151).
Regarding claim 8, Modified Kim teaches the positive electrode slurry of claim 1.
Modified Kim does not teach wherein the binder has a weight-average molecular weight (Mw) of 10,000 to 1,000,000.
Wang, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches wherein the binder has a weight-average molecular weight (Mw) of 10,000 to 1,000,000 (Wang, Table 1, PVDF – HSV 900, molecular weight 92,840 (kDa)).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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) [MPEP 2144.05].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used a high-molecular weight PVdF binder in Kim’s positive electrode slurry, as taught by Wang (Wang, Table 1, PVDF – HSV 900, molecular weight 92,840 (kDa)), in order to have a binder that retains its spherical shape due to its high molecular weight (Wang, pg. A2153, second column, first full paragraph).
Wang further teaches that a high molecular weight PVDF binder is used to prevent agglomeration or sedimentation during slurry casting and drying processes (Wang, pg. A2151, second column, full first paragraph) and to improve the high-rate capacity without decreasing binding strength and long-term cycling performance of the electrode (Wang, intro paragraph, [the microstructure and porosity of the PVDF layer depend strongly on the molecular weight of the PVDFs. With increasing molecular weight, the PVDF layer becomes more porous, improving the high-rate capacity without decreasing binding strength and long-term cycling performance of the electrodes]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERITA E GRANNUM whose telephone number is (571)270-1150. The examiner can normally be reached 10-5 EST / 7-2 PST.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/V.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721