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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 10/28/2025:
Claims 1-4 and 6-9 are pending in the current application. Claim 1 has been amended and Claim 5 has been canceled.
The cores of the previous prior art-based rejections have been overcome in light of the amendment. All changes made to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Interpretation
All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims are based on the claims as amended. The amended claim has been addressed in the new rejection below.
Arguments directed at amended Claim 1
Applicant argues that So teaches a relatively small L/T range of 1.4 to 2.0 and as such teaches away from the claimed range of 5 or more and 50 or less.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. So teaches a range of 1.4 or more and further specifies a preferred range of 1.4 to 2.0 (see paragraphs [0017]-[0019]). However, disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). So further gives reasons to optimize the ratio in order to achieve a path for supplying an electrolytic solution (see paragraphs [0017]-[0019]) so a skilled artisan would be capable of achieving a ratio falling in the range of 5 or more and 50 or less.
Applicant further argues that the claimed range results in benefits that are technologically significant and different in kind than those in So. However, there does not appear to be enough evidence to show criticality of the claimed range or unexpected results from the claimed range that a skilled artisan could not achieve with optimization.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over So JP-2017010670-A (hereinafter “So”) in view of Li et al. CN-103700881-A (hereinafter “Li”).
Regarding Claim 1, So discloses a positive electrode for a secondary battery comprising a positive electrode mixture layer including a positive electrode active material and a conductive material (see paragraphs [0010], [0016]-[0017], and [0033]), wherein
the positive electrode active material includes a lithium transition metal composite oxide including at least Ni (a lithium nickel cobalt manganese (LNCM) oxide with the formula LiNi1/3Co1/3Mn1/3O2, which a skilled artisan would recognize is a lithium transition metal composite oxide including Ni) (see paragraphs [0010], [0016]-[0017], and [0033]), and
the conductive material includes a carbon fiber having an average fiber diameter d of 5 μm or more and 30 μm or less (see paragraphs [0010], [0016]-[0017], and [0033]). So discloses the carbon fiber having a fiber diameter of 10 μm (see paragraph [0033]), which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of the carbon fiber having an average fiber diameter d of 5 μm or more and 30 μm.
So further discloses the ratio of the length of the carbon fibers to the thickness of the positive electrode mixture layer (positive electrode substance layer) is 1.5 or more (see paragraphs [0017]-[0019]). This range substantially overlaps with and therefore renders obvious the claimed range of a ratio of the average fiber length L of the carbon fiber to a thickness T of the positive electrode mixture layer: L/T is 5 or more and 50 or less.
Furthermore, So discloses the appropriate relationship between the fiber length and thickness of the positive electrode mixture layer can result in a path for supplying an electrolytic solution so the Li salt is sufficiently supplied into the positive electrode, and an increase in the internal resistance can be suppressed from occurring in the positive electrode (see paragraphs [0017]-[0019]). As such, the ratio between the fiber length and thickness of the positive electrode mixture layer is seen as a result effective variable and the discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the positive electrode for a secondary battery disclosed by So wherein the ratio of the average fiber length L of the carbon fiber to a thickness T of the positive electrode mixture layer: L/T is 5 or more and 50 or less in order to optimize the relationship between the fiber length and thickness of the positive electrode mixture layer to achieve a path for supplying an electrolytic solution so the Li salt is sufficiently supplied into the positive electrode, and an increase in the internal resistance can be suppressed from occurring in the positive electrode.
So is silent on the carbon fiber having an average fiber length L of 200 μm or more and 2000 μm less.
However, in the same field of endeavor of positive electrodes (see abstract), Li discloses using carbon fibers in a positive electrode mixture with diameter of 10 to 100 μm and a length of 100 to 1000 μm (see paragraphs [0013] and [0050]), which substantially overlaps with and renders obvious the claimed range of the carbon fiber having an average fiber length L of 200 μm or more and 2000 μm less. A skilled artisan would recognize this as an appropriate fiber length to use as a conductive material in positive electrodes such as the positive electrode of So. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the positive electrode of So wherein the carbon fiber has an average fiber length L of 200 μm or more and 2000 μm less, as disclosed by Li, as it is a known conductive material for positive electrodes.
Regarding Claim 2, modified So discloses the positive electrode for a secondary battery of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). So further discloses the lithium transition metal composite oxide further includes Co (a lithium nickel cobalt manganese (LNCM) oxide with the formula LiNi1/3Co1/3Mn1/3O2, which a skilled artisan would recognize is a lithium transition metal composite oxide including Co) (see paragraphs [0010], [0016]-[0017], and [0033]).
Regarding Claim 3, modified So discloses the positive electrode for a secondary battery of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). So further discloses the lithium transition metal composite oxide further includes Mn (a lithium nickel cobalt manganese (LNCM) oxide with the formula LiNi1/3Co1/3Mn1/3O2, which a skilled artisan would recognize is a lithium transition metal composite oxide including Mn) (see paragraphs [0010], [0016]-[0017], and [0033]).
Regarding Claim 4, modified So discloses the positive electrode for a secondary battery of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). So further discloses the positive electrode mixture layer contains the carbon fiber in an amount of 7 mass % or less (see paragraph [0033]). So discloses the mass ratio of the positive electrode mixture of LiNi1/3Co1/3Mn1/3O2:carbon fiber:acetylene black:PVdF=92:2:3:3 (see paragraph [0033]). A skilled artisan would recognize the mass % of the carbon fiber based on this ratio is 2 mass %. As such, the 2 mass % of carbon fiber disclosed by So falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of the positive electrode mixture layer containing the carbon fiber in an amount of 7 mass % or less.
Regarding Claim 6, modified So discloses the positive electrode for a secondary battery of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). So further discloses the conductive material further includes carbon particles (such as acetylene black and Ketjen black) (see paragraphs [0009]-[0010], [0021], and [0033]).
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over So in view of Li, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view Okamoto et al. JP-2019121606-A (hereinafter “Okamoto”).
Regarding Claim 7, modified So discloses the positive electrode for a secondary battery of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). So further discloses the diameter of the carbon fiber may be 10 μm (see paragraph [0033]).
So is silent on a ratio of the average fiber diameter d of the carbon fiber to an average particle size D of the positive electrode active material: d/D being 0.5 or more and 5 or less.
However, in the same field of endeavor of positive electrode active materials (see paragraphs [0007]-[0008]), Okamoto discloses a positive active material comprising a lithium transition metal oxide having an average particle size of 8 μm or more and 15 μm or less (see paragraphs [0015]-[0016]).
Furthermore, Okamoto discloses ensuring the average particle size of the active material particles falls within this range prevents both aggregation of the positive electrode active material particles and a decrease in the dispersion stability, and produces an appropriate contact area with the electrolyte in a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery, enabling an appropriate amount of desorption/insertion of lithium ions (see paragraph [0027]). As such, the average particle size of the active material particles is seen as a result effective variable and the discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
When combining the teaching of Okamoto of a lithium transition metal oxide having an average particle size (D) of 8 μm or more and 15 μm or less with the teaching of So using carbon fiber with a diameter (d) of 10 μm, the range of the ratio of the average fiber diameter d of the carbon fiber to an average particle size D of the positive electrode active material is about 0.67 to 1.25. This range falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of a ratio of the average fiber diameter d of the carbon fiber to an average particle size D of the positive electrode active material: d/D being 0.5 or more and 5 or less.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the positive electrode for a secondary battery disclosed by So wherein a ratio of the average fiber diameter d of the carbon fiber to an average particle size D of the positive electrode active material: d/D is 0.5 or more and 5 or less, as disclosed by Okamoto, in order to prevent both aggregation of the positive electrode active material particles and a decrease in the dispersion stability, and produce an appropriate contact area with the electrolyte in a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery, enabling an appropriate amount of desorption/insertion of lithium ions.
Regarding Claim 9, modified So discloses the positive electrode for a secondary battery of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
So is silent on the average particle size D of the positive electrode active material being 15 μm or less.
However, Okamoto discloses Okamoto discloses a positive active material comprising a lithium transition metal oxide having an average particle size of 8 μm or more and 15 μm or less (see paragraphs [0015]-[0016]). This range falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of the average particle size D of the positive electrode active material being 15 μm or less.
Furthermore, Okamoto discloses ensuring the average particle size of the active material particles falls within this range prevents both aggregation of the positive electrode active material particles and a decrease in the dispersion stability, and produces an appropriate contact area with the electrolyte in a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery, enabling an appropriate amount of desorption/insertion of lithium ions (see paragraph [0027]). As such, the average particle size of the active material particles is seen as a result effective variable and the discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the positive electrode for a secondary battery disclosed by So wherein the average particle size D of the positive electrode active material is 15 μm or less, as disclosed by Okamoto, in order to prevent both aggregation of the positive electrode active material particles and a decrease in the dispersion stability, and produce an appropriate contact area with the electrolyte in a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery, enabling an appropriate amount of desorption/insertion of lithium ions.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over So in view of Li, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Zheng et al., "A comprehensive understanding of electrode thickness effects on the electrochemical performances of Li-ion battery cathodes," 2012, Elsevier, Electrochemica Acta 71, Pages 258-265 (hereinafter “Zheng”).
Regarding Claim 8, modified So discloses the positive electrode for a secondary battery of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). So further discloses the thickness of the positive electrode mixture layer (positive electrode active substance layer) may be 10 to 200 μm per one side and the relationship between the thickness of the positive electrode mixture layer and fiber length of the carbon material can allow for a path for Li salt to be sufficiently supplied and suppress an increase in internal resistance (see paragraphs [0009], [0019], and [0026]). So also discloses the positive electrode active material may comprise Li, Ni, Co, and Mn (see paragraphs [0016] and [0033]).
So is not sufficiently specific on the thickness T of the positive electrode mixture layer being 40 μm or less.
However, in the same field of endeavor of cathode thicknesses (see pg. 258 abstract), Zheng discloses the thickness of a cathode comprising an active material containing Li, Ni, Co, and Mn (NCM) affects the energy density and capacity retention (see pg. 258 abstract, pg. 264, and Fig. 9). Zheng further discloses an NCM electrode with a thickness of 24 μm may retain 92% of its capacity while a thicker electrode (104 μm) may lose 40% of its capacity after 500 cycles (see pg. 264 and Fig. 9). The electrode thickness of 24 μm falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of the thickness T of the positive electrode mixture layer being 40 μm or less.
Additionally, Zheng discloses deterioration of rate capability with increasing electrode thickness is mainly due to Li ion diffusion within the electrode and proper optimization of electrode thickness is critical (see pg. 264 conclusions). As such, the cathode thickness is seen as a result effective variable and the discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the positive electrode for a secondary battery disclosed by So wherein the thickness T of the positive electrode mixture layer is 40 μm or less, as disclosed by Zheng, in order to ensure a sufficient Li ion diffusion path and obtain a high capacity retention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kono et al. JP-3146989-B2 discloses carbon fibers used as a conductive material having a length of 100 µm to 5 mm to uniformly fill in the positive electrode and improve charge/discharge cycle characteristics (see paragraphs [0008]-[0009] and [0011]).
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 SYDNEY L KLINE whose telephone number is (703)756-1729. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
/S.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights