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 § 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) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2021/0408548) in view of Tanjo (US 2002/0028380).
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).
Park, however, does not teach an embodiment where the particle size of the first active material (which is layered on the current collector) is smaller than the particle size of the second active material (closer to the separator/electrolyte).
Tanjo also discloses a battery which two layers in the cathode (see Fig. 4).
Tanjo teaches a first layer (21A) that comprises a first active material (10A) that is coated on a current collector (30) and teaches a second active material layer (21B) that comprises a second active material (10B) that is layered on top of the first active material adjacent to the separator (40). Tanjo goes on to teach that the first active material layer (21A) comprises smaller particle sizes than the second active material layer (21B). Tanjo teaches such a configuration in order to facilitate lithium-ion migration near the collector which increases the total usage rate of the electrode active material along with the power density (paragraphs 54-57).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adopt the two-particle size configuration of Tanjo in the positive electrode of Park in order to facilitate lithium-ion migration near the collector which increases the total usage rate of the electrode active material along with the power density.
Regarding claim 4, Park, as modified by Tanjo above, further disclose the particle size of the first active material is 0.1-5 microns (see paragraph 47 of Tanjo). While modified Park does not teach the exact claimed range, it 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 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).
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)).
Regarding claim 15, Park, as modified by Tanjo above, further disclose the particle size of the second active material is 5-20 microns (see paragraph 58 of Tanjo). While modified Park does not teach the exact claimed range, it 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) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2021/0408548) in view of Tanjo (US 2002/0028380) and further in view of Sonobe (EP 3588636 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Park teaches a second active material layer that comprises a melamine binder (paragraph 42) but is silent regarding the presence of another binder with the claimed composition.
Sonobe also discloses a battery composition (see abstract).
Sonobe, like Park, teaches a binder which is configured to assist in adhere the active material particles (see paragraph 12). Sonobe goes on to teach that a particular ratio of melamine to binder is preferable to maximize adhesiveness as well as improving rate characteristics (paragraph 13). Specifically, Sonobe teaches 0.5 parts to 85 parts by mass of melamine relative to 100 parts by mass of a binder (paragraph 13). Sonobe also states that the binder can be an epoxy resin (paragraphs 49-50). Sonobe teaches that it is important to have a binder/melamine mixture in the disclosed ratio in order to maximize the benefit.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the binder of Sonobe to the melamine binder of modified Park in the disclosed ratio in order to maximize adhesiveness as well as improving rate characteristics.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2021/0408548) in view of Tanjo (US 2002/0028380) and further in view of Barker (US 6,528,033).
Regarding claim 18, Park teaches an active material that can be chosen from a lithium oxide material (lithium manganese oxide) , such as the one described in Formula 3 of claim 1. Park, however, does not teach an active material that comprises Formulas 1, 2 or 4.
Barker also discloses a battery (see abstract).
Barker teaches that well known active materials like the lithium manganese oxide (as disclosed in Park) have a disadvantage in that their cell capacity significantly diminishes with each cycle (col. 1 line 51 – col. 2 line 8). Barker then goes on to teach that lithium metal phosphates resolve this capacity problem and teaches an example as LiFe0.8Mg0.2PO4 (as disclosed in col. 23, lines 51-64, which reads on formula 1 of the instant claim) which performs significantly better than the problematic known cathode materials (see col. 23, lines 51-64).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilized the lithium phosphate active material of Barker in the active material of modified Park in order to provide better cell capacity after repeated cycles.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Relevant Prior Art
US 2018/0076463 – Discloses a positive active material that is mixed with melamine but is silent regarding multiple active materials.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights