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 .
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.
Specification
The specification and drawings have been reviewed and no clear informalities or objections have been noted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park (US 2021/0408548).
Regarding claims 1, 3 and 16, Park discloses a positive electrode for a rechargeable lithium battery, comprising
a current collector (10);
a first active material layer (20) disposed on the current collector (see paragraph 26 which states the positive electrode mixture layer is formed on the current collector 10) and including a first active material (first positive electrode active material, as discussed in paragraph 30) and a melamine-based compound (see paragraph 28 which discloses the first active material layer includes melamine); and
a second active material layer (30) disposed on the first active material layer (as depicted in Fig. 1) and including a second active material (see paragraph 40 which discloses a second positive active material in the layer 30),
wherein the first active material and the second active material are different from each other (see paragraph 41 which states that the first and second active materials can be different),
the first active material includes at least one of the compounds represented by Chemical Formula 3
Lia3Mn(2-x3)M3x3O4 [Chemical Formula 3]
wherein, in Chemical Formula 3, 0.90≤a3≤1.5, 0≤x3≤0.4, and M.sup.3 is Al, Cr, Mg, La, Ce, Sr, V, or a combination thereof (see paragraph 30 which discloses that the active material can be LiMnO4).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Park further discloses a conductive material included in the first active material layer where the conductive material includes natural graphite, artificial graphite, carbon black, acetylene black, denka black, ketjen black, a carbon nanotube, an L-carbon nanotube, a carbon fiber, or a combination thereof (see paragraph 45 which discloses a conductive agent in the active material layer and teaches ketjen black as an example).
Regarding claim 9, Park further discloses the first active material layer further includes a binder (such as the second binder, discussed in paragraphs 29).
Regarding claim 10, Park further discloses the binder includes polyvinylchloride, carboxylated polyvinylchloride, polyvinylfluoride, polyvinylidene fluoride, polyethylene oxide, polyvinylpyrrolidone, polyurethane, polytetrafluoroethylene, a styrene butadiene rubber, an acrylated styrene butadiene rubber, an acrylonitrile butadiene rubber, carboxylmethyl cellulose, hydroxypropyl cellulose, diacetyl cellulose, polyimide, polyamideimide, or a combination thereof (see paragraph 34 which discloses that the second binder can be PVDF).
Regarding claim 14, Park further discloses the second active material includes a compound represented by Chemical Formula 11:
Lia11M111-y11-z11M12y11M13z11O2 [Chemical Formula 11] wherein, in Chemical Formula 11, 0.9≤a11≤1.8, 0≤y11≤1, 0≤z11<1, 0≤y11+z11<1, and M11, M12, and M13 are each independently Ni, Co, Mn, Al, Mg, Ti or a combination thereof (see paragraph 40 which discloses LiCoO2).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 5, 8 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2021/0408548).
Regarding claim 2, Park does not explicitly disclose the claimed range, but does teach the melamine-based compound is included in an amount of 1.5 to 10 parts by weight of melamine based on 100 parts by weight of the first positive active material which overlaps the claimed range. As such, arriving at the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. 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 MPEP §2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 5, Park discloses the first active material layer includes a first active material, a binder and a conductive agent (paragraphs 42-45) and teaches that the conductive agent and the binder can be included in as little as 0.1 parts by weight based on 100 parts of the active material leaving the remainder as the active material. While not explicitly disclosing the claimed range, Park does teach a range that overlaps the claimed range. As such, arriving at the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. 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 MPEP §2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 8, Park does not explicitly teach the claimed range but does teach the conductive material is included in an amount of 0.1 to 10 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the active material (paragraph 45) which overlaps the claimed range. As such, arriving at the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. 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 MPEP §2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 11, Park does not explicitly disclose the claimed range, but does teach the binder (second binder) is included in an amount of 1.5 to 10 parts by weight of melamine based on 100 parts by weight of the first positive active material which overlaps the claimed range. As such, arriving at the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. 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 MPEP §2144.05(I)).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Park discloses that the combination of the first and second active material layers have a thickness of 3-500 microns (paragraph 25) and teaches that the ratio of the first active material layer is thinner than the second active material layer (see paragraph 43 which discloses a thickness ratio between the two active material layers where the first active material layer is thinner than the second active material layer). Park, therefore, does not teach the exact claimed range but does teach a range that overlaps the claimed range. As such, arriving at the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. 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 MPEP §2144.05(I)).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2021/0408548) in view of Katayama (US 2011/0052987 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Park is completely silent regarding the particle size of the first active material.
Katayama also discloses a battery system (see abstract).
Katayama teaches, like Park, a positive active material that includes LiCoO2 (see paragraphs 24-25) and teaches that the preferred particle size of this active material is between 0.01 and 30 microns (paragraph 25). Katayama teaches such a size as a known positive active material size which produces beneficial results in a battery.
As such, modifying Park, which is completely silent regarding particle sizes, with the particle size range of Katyama would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in order to produce a positive electrode that functions properly in a battery.
Furthermore, Park, as modified above, does not teach the exact claimed ranges but does teach a range that overlaps both (as taught by Katayama). As such, arriving at the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. 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 MPEP §2144.05(I)).
Relevant Prior Art
US 2018/0076463 – Discloses a positive active material that is mixed with melamine but is silent regarding multiple active materials.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J MERKLING whose telephone number is (571)272-9813. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8am-6pm.
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.
/MATTHEW J MERKLING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725