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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-20 are pending. The amendment filed 03/27/2026 has been entered but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The Examiner respectfully acknowledges the amendments to the Specification. Accordingly, the previous objections to the informalities in the Specification have been addressed and are withdrawn.
The original prior art rejections have been maintained.
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 1-4, 8, 11-13 are rejected in view of Yamazaki et al (US 20240258497 A1, prior US filing date of May 16, 2022) in view of Chung et al 2014 J. Electrochem. Soc. 161 A422 and Kako et al (US 20210273219 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yamazaki teaches an electrode plate (Fig. 1A, reproduced below), wherein the positive electrode plate comprises a current collector (413) and a positive electrode active layer (414) arranged on the current collector ([0124]), and also discloses the electrode can be used as one or both of a positive electrode and a negative electrode ([0122]).
Fig. 1A of Yamazaki:
PNG
media_image1.png
356
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The taught embodiment in Fig. 1A shows the positive electrode active layer comprises m=2 positive electrode active sub-layers (414a, 414b), and Fig. 1A shows the positive electrode active material in each of the positive electrode active sub-layers comprises particles (411) of a positive electrode material, and Yamazaki teaches the positive electrode material 411b and 411a in sub-layers can be a lithium composite oxide containing the same composition ([0192], [0162]), thereby reading on the main positive electrode material. Yamazaki also teaches the median particle diameter Ra of the main positive electrode active material 411a contained in the first layer 414a is smaller than a median particle diameter Rb of the main positive electrode active material 411b in the second layer 414b ([0125] lines 1-4, 13-16). Yamazaki further discloses the median particle diameter Ra of the main positive electrode active material 411a is preferably greater than or equal to 500 nm and less than or equal to 5 µm, and that the median particle diameter Rb of the main positive electrode material 411b is preferably greater than or equal to 1 µm and less than or equal to 35 µm ([0125]).
The taught ranges of median particle diameter of the main positive electrode active material in each of the two sub-layers, i.e. of Ra and Rb, and their relationship to each other overlaps with the ranges corresponding to the claimed relational expression for D50 of the main positive electrode material in each positive electrode active sub-layer. For example, if the median particle diameter D501 of the main positive electrode active material in the first sub-layer is 1 µm, then according to the claimed relational expression, the claimed range of D502 would be between and including the lower bound of 2.4 µm and the upper bound of 4.8 µm, which overlaps with Yamazaki’s taught range for Rb greater than or equal to 1 µm and less than or equal to 35 µm.
Yamazaki does not claim the recited auxiliary positive electrode material in each of the positive electrode active sub-layers or describe its particle size distribution.
-In the same field of endeavor, Kako teaches an energy storage device including a positive electrode containing first positive active material particles and second positive active material particles, e.g. auxiliary positive electrode material, of lithium transition metal oxides wherein the first positive active material particles are larger in median diameter than that of the second positive active material particles (Abstract, [0025]). Kako further teaches that use of their invention allows capacity of the energy storage device to be increased ([0012] lines 1-7) while reducing disruptions to the current distribution of an energy storage device during charge-discharge, and accordingly, suppressing an increase in resistance in a charge-discharge cycle ([0012], [0011] lines 13-19). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated at the time of filing to modify Yamazaki’s positive electrode plate to use Kako’s invention of the second positive active material, i.e. auxiliary positive electrode material, in each positive electrode sub-layer as well as using the taught lithium transition metal oxide composition for main (first) positive electrode material to increase capacity of the energy storage device while reducing disruptions to the current distribution and suppressing an increase in resistance during charge-discharge. Accordingly, the median particle size of the auxiliary positive electrode material is smaller than a median particle size of the main positive active material in the first positive electrode active sublayer.
In the same field of endeavor, Chung teaches that a narrow monodisperse particle size distribution (standard deviation of the distribution is 0) as compared to a polydisperse distribution, results in a more evenly utilized surface of the active material (Fig. 11 vs Fig. 10; p8 left col para 2 to right col, para 1-2; p9 left col para 1). Therefore, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to use a narrow monodisperse distribution for the main positive electrode material within each positive electrode active sub-layer to maximize utilization of the active material within the sub-layer. The median, D90, and D10 particle sizes of a narrow monodisperse particle size distribution approach the same value.
Additionally, Kako teaches the degree of filling of the positive active material within the positive electrode affects the capacity; that is, a higher degree of filling increases the capacity ([0012]); therefore the efficiency of filling the void spaces within the main positive electrode material is a result-effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have thus been motivated to adjust the particle size of the auxiliary positive electrode material of modified Yamazaki’s positive electrode plate to efficiently fill the void spaces within the larger main positive electrode material in order to optimize the capacity of the device, and would have arrived at the claimed particle size relationship wherein the D90 particle size of the auxiliary positive electrode is smaller than a D10 (about the same as a D50 for a monodisperse narrow size distribution) particle size of the main positive electrode material in the first positive electrode active sub-layer.
Regarding claim 2, the combination above teaches the positive electrode plate of claim 1 and Kako of the combination further teaches that from the viewpoint of ease of production, handleability, and the like, second (i.e. auxiliary) positive active material particles of a median diameter of 0.10 µm (100 nm) or more can be used ([0045]), which overlaps with the claimed range. 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), MPEP 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 3, the combination above teaches the positive electrode plate of claim 1, and as previously pointed out in addressing the limitations of claim 1, Yamazaki teaches the median particle diameter Ra of the main positive electrode active material in the first (n=1) positive electrode active sub-layer is smaller than a median particle diameter Rb of the main positive electrode active material in the second (n=2) positive electrode active sub-layer, wherein m=2 ([0125] lines 1-4, 13-16). As also previously pointed out in addressing the limitations of claim 1, Chung of the combination was relied on to teach a narrow monodisperse particle size distribution for the main positive electrode material within each positive electrode active sub-layer to maximize utilization of the active material within the sub-layer. The median, D90, D10, and mean particle sizes of a narrow monodisperse particle size distribution approach the same value. Therefore, the D90 particle size of the main positive electrode material in the (n-1)th (n=1) positive electrode active sub-layer would correspondingly be smaller than a D10 particle size of the main positive electrode material in the nth (n=2) positive electrode active sub-layer.
Regarding claim 4, the combination above teaches the positive electrode plate of claim 3. As previously pointed out in addressing the limitations of claim 1, Yamazaki teaches that the median particle diameter Rb of the main positive electrode material 411b (D502 of sublayer n=2) is preferably greater than or equal to 1 µm and less than or equal to 35 µm ([0125]), which overlaps with 4.0 µm ≤ D50[m/2]+1 ≤ 8.0 µm, wherein m=2, thereby reading on the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 8, the combination above teaches the positive electrode plate of claim 1, and Kako further teaches the content W2 of the second (auxiliary) positive active material particles in the positive composite, which can be formed of the first positive active material particles and second positive active material particles ([0050]), i.e. a positive electrode active layer, can be 5% to 22% for the advantages of further enhancing the effect of suppressing the resistance increase of the energy storage device ([0048]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious at the time of filing to have modified Yamazaki’s positive electrode plate to use a mass of the auxiliary positive electrode material that accounts for 5% to 22% of a mass of the positive electrode active material in the positive electrode active layer, as taught by Kako, given its advantages of further enhancing the effect of suppressing the resistance increase of the energy storage device. Accordingly, the taught range of 5% to 22% mass of the auxiliary positive electrode material overlaps with the claimed range. 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), MPEP 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 11, the combination above teaches the positive electrode plate of claim 1, and Kako of the combination teaches a suitable option for the main positive electrode material is a NCM (LiNi0.6Mn0.2Co0.2O2) having an α-NaFeO2-type crystal structure including tungsten ([0088]), which is taught as a layered structure ([0034]) and thus the material is a layered positive electrode material. Kako further teaches the secondary (auxiliary) positive electrode material can be a polyanion positive electrode material ([0042]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination above teaches the positive electrode plate of claim 11 and Kako teaches the layered positive electrode material can be a lithium nickel cobalt manganate ([0088]), which is a claimed species. Kako also teaches the polyanion positive electrode material is at least LiFePO4 (lithium iron phosphate), LiMnPO4 (lithium manganese phosphate), Li3V2(PO4)3 (lithium vanadium phosphate), Li2MnSiO4 (lithium manganese silicate) ([0042]), which are claimed species.
Regarding claim 13, the combination above teaches the positive electrode plate of claim 1, and Yamazaki further teaches the electrode can be used for a battery (Abstract).
Claims 5, 14-16, 20 are rejected in view of Yamazaki et al (US 20240258497 A1, prior US filing date of May 16, 2022) in view of Chung et al 2014 J. Electrochem. Soc. 161 A422 and Kako et al (US 20210273219 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Lin et al (US 20150162139 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 14-16, the combination above teaches the positive electrode plate of claims 1- 4 but does not disclose wherein in the positive electrode active layer, a percentage of a surface density of the main positive electrode material in each of the first positive electrode active sub-layer to an mth positive electrode active sub-layer to a surface density of the main positive electrode material in the positive electrode active layer shows a normal distribution.
In the same field of endeavor, Lin teaches a positive electrode with an oxidation-reduction electrode material comprising of a similar lithium transition metal oxide ([0018]-[0021]) that has a multilayer structure with three or more sub-layers and a Gaussian concentration distribution 110 of the oxidation-reduction electrode material ([0009], [0020]; Figs. 1-2, Fig. 1 reproduced below), and discloses that the intermediate layer 106b contains a larger amount of the oxidation-reduction electrode material ([0024]) whereas the concentration of the oxidation-reduction electrode material in the outermost layer 106a contacting the separation membrane 206 and the current collector 212 is the lowest ([0020]).
Fig. 1 of Lin:
PNG
media_image2.png
336
792
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Surface density (units of mass per area) can refer to a mass of material over an area, therefore the taught concentration distribution is expected to correspond to a surface density distribution of the same gradient profile. Lin also teaches that the oxidation-reduction positive electrode materials can be used solely or in combination of two or more kinds, and that the use of such a concentration (and associated surface density) gradient increases compatibility between the outer layer 106a and the current collector foil 212 and reduces the interface impedance between components or layers in a mixed state of two different kinds of active materials, and as a result, improves AC impedance, DC impedance, power characteristics of the electrode as well as lifetime during long-term cyclic operation ([0022], [0024]). A skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify the positive electrode plate of Yamazaki with the Gaussian concentration gradient taught by Lin, because Lin teaches it is a known configuration that results in improvements to the impedance and power characteristics of the electrode as well as its lifetime during long-term cyclic operation. Accordingly, a Gaussian concentration gradient (normal distribution) would be applicable to describing the surface density distribution of component positive electrode materials, including the main positive electrode material in the positive electrode active sub-layers, wherein a percentage of a surface density of the main positive electrode material in each of the first positive electrode active sub-layer to an mth positive electrode active sub-layer to a surface density of the main positive electrode material in the positive electrode active layer (the cumulative surface density of the main positive electrode material) shows a normal distribution.
Regarding claim 20, the combination above teaches the positive electrode plate of claim 5, and Lin further teaches the number of positive electrode active sub-layers m can be three, which overlaps with the claimed range. 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), MPEP 2144.05, I.
Claims 6, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki et al (US 20240258497 A1, prior US filing date of May 16, 2022) in view of Chung et al 2014 J. Electrochem. Soc. 161 A422 and Kako et al (US 20210273219 A1) as applied to claims 1-4 above, and further in view of Nagayama et al (JP 2006210003 A) and Lin et al (US 20150162139 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 17-19 the combination above teaches the positive electrode plate of claims 1-4 but does not disclose wherein in the positive electrode active layer, a percentage of a surface density of the main positive electrode material in each of the positive electrode active sub-layers to a surface density of the main positive electrode material in the positive electrode active layer satisfies the claimed expressions for surface density. The combination also does not teach m as an integer equal to or greater than 3.
In the same field of endeavor, Nagayama teaches a positive electrode with three sub-layers (m=3) comprising a main positive electrode material such as a lithium-transition metal oxide ([0027], [0047]; Fig. 1, reproduced below).
Fig. 1 of Nagayama:
PNG
media_image3.png
679
336
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In addition to teaching an embodiment with three positive electrode active sub-layers (m=3), Nagayama also teaches that by arranging an active material (13a) with a small specific surface area (large average particle diameter) on the side (13A) far from the current collector and an active material (13c) with a large specific surface area (small average particle diameter) on the side (13C) close to the current collector, the internal resistance along the thickness direction of the electrode is more evenly distributed under high power conditions, which improves the durability of the battery ([0010],[0021]; Fig. 1). Nagayama also teaches that the number of active material sub-layers can be 2 to 10, and when the active material layer (13, 15) is composed of a plurality of sub-layers, the number of sub-layers is not particularly limited, and can be determined appropriately taking into consideration the desired gradient of the specific surface area and ease of production ([0047]); therefore, the number of active material sub-layers is a result-effective variable. A skilled artisan would have been motivated by this teaching to modify modified Yamazaki to adjust the number of positive active material sub-layers to use more than two sub-layers given that Nagayama teaches it is a known configuration, and would have adjusted the number of intermediate sub-layers as needed to achieve the desired gradient of the surface area and ease of production. They would have also been motivated to adjust the average particle size of the main positive electrode material in each positive electrode active sub-layer to optimize the evenness of the internal resistance along the thickness direction of the electrode and alleviate reaction irregularities under high output conditions and would have arrived at the particle size relationships of the main positive electrode material and auxiliary positive electrode material consistent with the claimed particle size relationships.
In the same field of endeavor, Lin et al teaches a positive electrode with an oxidation-reduction electrode material comprising of a similar lithium transition metal oxide ([0018]-[0021]) that has a multilayer structure, wherein the intermediate layer 106b contains a larger amount of the oxidation-reduction electrode material ([0024]) and the outermost layers 106a contacting the separation membrane 206 and the current collector 212 have the lowest concentration of the oxidation-reduction electrode material ([0020]). Lin further teaches that for the electrode design of their invention, a proportion of the oxidation-reduction electrode material in the outer layers 106a (n = 1, 3) can be more than 0 and less than or equal to 27 wt%, and a proportion of the oxidation-reduction electrode material in the intermediate layer 106b (n = 2) is approximately 30-60 wt% (Fig. 1, [0021]). The taught concentration distribution is expected to correspond to a surface density distribution (units of mass per area) of the same gradient profile. Accordingly, 0<ρ1≤27%, 0<ρ3≤27%, and 30%≤ρ2≤60%. For m=3, the claimed expressions correspond to ρ1≤ 10.0%, ρm≤ 10.0% (i.e., ρ3≤ 10.0%), ρ2 ≥10.0%, ρm-1 ≥10.0% (i.e., ρ2≥10.0%), and 40.0% ≤ ρm/2 ≤ 60.0% (wherein m/2 = [3/2]+1 = 2, and the expression corresponds to 40.0% ≤ ρ2 ≤ 60.0%). Lin also teaches that use of such a concentration (and associated surface density) gradient increases compatibility between the outer layer 106a and the current collector foil 212 and reduces the interface impedance between components or layers in a mixed state of two different kinds of active materials, and as a result, improves AC impedance, DC impedance, power characteristics of the electrode as well as lifetime during long-term cyclic operation ([0022], [0024]). A skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify the positive electrode plate of Yamazaki with the concentration gradient taught by Lin, because Lin teaches it is a known configuration that results in improvements to the impedance and power characteristics of the electrode as well as its lifetime during long-term cyclic operation. Therefore, the taught proportions overlap with the claimed percentages of surface density of the main positive electrode material of specific sub-layers to a surface density of the main positive electrode active material in the positive electrode active 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), MPEP 2144.05, I.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki et al (US 20240258497 A1, prior US filing date of May 16, 2022) in view of Chung et al 2014 J. Electrochem. Soc. 161 A422 and Kako et al (US 20210273219 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seong et al (KR 101407085 B1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination above teaches the positive electrode plate of claim 1, and Yamazaki further teaches wherein each of the positive electrode active sub-layers further comprises a conductive agent and a binder ([0128]).
The combination is silent regarding a surface density of the positive electrode active layer satisfying 300 g/m2≤ρ≤500g/m2.
In the same field of endeavor, Seong teaches a multilayer electrode active material layer composed of sub-layers of the electrode active material and teaches the total loading amount, corresponding to a surface density, of the multilayer positive electrode active material forming the positive electrode can be 540 mg/25 cm2 or more, which would correspond to 260 g/m2 or more (machine translation [0040]), which overlaps with the claimed range. Seong further teaches that the loading amount of the electrode active material of each layer to be coated or the type of the electrode active material can be designed according to the use and purpose of the secondary battery required ([0070]); the sum of the loading amount (surface density) of electrode active material of each layer corresponds to the total loading amount (surface density). Seong also teaches that increasing the loading amount of electrode active material is associated with higher battery capacity ([0007]) but also can negatively affect binder distribution within the electrode active material layer that increases the resistance of the battery; therefore, the loading amount (and corresponding surface density) of the positive electrode active layer is considered to be a result-effective variable. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify the modified positive electrode plate of Yamazaki to greater than 260 g/m2 given that it is a known configuration and to use routine experimentation to adjust the surface density to the claimed range to optimize the capacity of the battery for the designated use and purpose of the battery while minimizing possible negative impacts such as increases in resistance. Accordingly, the taught range overlaps with the claimed range of surface density of the positive electrode active 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), MPEP 2144.05, I.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki et al (US 20240258497 A1, prior US filing date of May 16, 2022) in view of Chung et al 2014 J. Electrochem. Soc. 161 A422 and Kako et al (US 20210273219 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nagayama et al (JP 2006210003 A) and Lin et al (US 20150162139 A1).
Regarding claims 9-10, the combination above teaches the electrode plate of claim 1 but does not teach wherein the m is an integer ranging from 3 to 6, or equal to 4.
In the same field of endeavor, Nagayama teaches a positive electrode with three sub-layers comprising a main positive electrode material such as a lithium-transition metal oxide ([0027], [0047]; Fig. 1)
In addition to teaching an embodiment with three positive electrode active sub-layers (m=3), Nagayama also teaches that by arranging an active material (13a) with a small specific surface area (large average particle diameter) on the side (13A) far from the current collector and an active material (13c) with a large specific surface area (small average particle diameter) on the side (13C) close to the current collector, the internal resistance along the thickness direction of the electrode is more evenly distributed under high power conditions, which improves the durability of the battery ([0010],[0021]; Fig. 1). Nagayama also teaches that the number of active material sub-layers can be 2 to 10, and when the active material layer (13, 15) is composed of a plurality of sub-layers, the number of sub-layers is not particularly limited, and can be determined appropriately taking into consideration the desired gradient of the specific surface area and ease of production ([0047]); therefore, the number of active material sub-layers is a result-effective variable. A skilled artisan would have been motivated by this teaching to modify modified Yamazaki to adjust the number of positive active material sub-layers to use more than two sub-layers given that Nagayama teaches it is a known configuration, and would have adjusted the number of intermediate sub-layers as needed using routine experimentation to achieve the desired gradient of the surface area and ease of production, and accordingly, would have arrived at the claimed limitation for m as a result.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applied combination relies on primary reference Yamazaki to teach a main positive electrode material and Kako to teach a configuration comprising the combination of a first (i.e., main) positive electrode material and an auxiliary (i.e., second) positive electrode material. Kako teaches it is known in the prior art that a mixture of positive electrode materials with different particle sizes so as to have a specific diameter ratio confers the advantage of enhancing the filling property of the positive active material layer, which can improve the capacity of the energy storage device ([0012], [0046]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have thus found it obvious to have applied Kako’s teaching regarding the combination of two populations of positive electrode materials with different particle sizes as corresponding to the main positive electrode material and the auxiliary positive electrode material to each sublayer to enhance the filling property of each sublayer, especially in the context of Yamazaki’s teaching that the median particle sizes of the main positive electrode active material varies across sublayers.
In response to Applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the Examiner recognizes that obviousness may 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 found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation for teaching a monodisperse size distribution for the main positive electrode material is provided by Chung as it results in a more evenly utilized surface of the active material. The approach of the median, D90, and D10 values of the main positive electrode material towards the same value is associated with characteristics of a monodisperse population as a result of the combination. Chung’s teaching of an advantage of a monodisperse size distribution would also be expected to apply to all active materials.
Kako teaches a relationship between degree of filling of the positive active material within the positive electrode and the capacity, thus providing support for degree of filling of the positive active material as a result-effective variable. Yamazaki in view of Chung provides information regarding the size distribution of the main positive electrode material. A skilled artisan provided with the size distribution of the main positive electrode material would be able to simulate porous electrode microstructures as demonstrated by Chung’s numerical simulations (for example, see pA424) , and accordingly, adjust the auxiliary positive electrode material size distribution to optimize the filling the void spaces within the template of the larger main positive electrode material. Thus, as presented in the prior art rejection of the Office Action, the combination of prior art provides a basis for articulating how the taught size distribution of the main positive electrode material of Yamazaki in view of Chung can be modified with Kako to teach the claimed relationship between the D90 particle size of the auxiliary positive electrode material and the D10 particle size of the main positive electrode material in the first positive electrode active sublayer.
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 GIGI LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-2017. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 6.
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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/G.L.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 15 May 2026
Prosecution Insights