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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-14 are currently pending.
Claims 1 and 11 are currently amended.
Status of Objections and Rejections Pending Since the Office Action of 11/28/2025
The 112(b) rejection of claim 11 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment;
The 103 rejections of claims 1-14 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment and argument and replaced with new 103 rejections.
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.
Claims 1, 6-7, 10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan et al. (CN-107706351-A), hereinafter Pan, as cited and translated in the IDS, in view of Li et al. (US-20210359302-A1), hereinafter Li.
Regarding claim 1, Pan teaches a positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery, comprising: a positive electrode current collector ([0014]); and a positive electrode mixture layer disposed on the positive electrode current collector ([0014]) wherein the positive electrode mixture layer includes a positive electrode active material ([0014]), the positive electrode mixture layer includes a positive electrode additive represented by the following Chemical Formula 1 ([0014]; [0022] lithium supplementation component), a first conductive material ([0031]), and a binder ([0031]); wherein the first conductive material contains one or more of carbon nanotubes, graphite nanofibers, carbon nanofibers, vapor-grown carbon fibers and activated carbon fibers ([0031]; [0033]); [Chemical Formula 1] LipCo(1-q)M1qO4 wherein, M1 is 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 ([0022] Li6Co1-xMnxO4 wherein 0≤x≤0.3, such as when x is 0 such as Li6CoO4 corresponding to p=6 and q=0 in the instant claim language). 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).
Pan fails to disclose a sheet resistance ranging from 1.0 Ω/sq. to 3.0 Ω/sq.
Li is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of positive electrodes (Abstract). Li teaches that an appropriate amount of conductive agent in the positive electrode can help obtain low sheet resistance ([0022]).
Given this teaching, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the sheet resistance of the positive electrode by optimizing the content of the conductive agent as taught in Li ([0022]). Doing so also helps in improving the rate performance and cycle performance of the battery (Li [0080]). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). A sheet with low sheet resistance is expected to have a sheet resistance that at least overlaps 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. 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).
Regarding claim 6, modified Pan teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Pan also teaches a content of the positive electrode additive is 0.1 to 10 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the positive electrode mixture layer ([0035] 1-10 mass ratio). 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).
Regarding claim 7, modified Pan teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Pan also teaches a content of the first conductive material is 0.1 to 10 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the positive electrode mixture layer ([0035]; 1-5 mass ratio). 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).
Regarding claim 10, modified Pan teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Pan also teaches wherein the positive electrode active material is a lithium metal composite oxide represented by the following Chemical Formula 2: [Chemical Formula 2] Lix[NiyCozMnwM²v]Ou wherein, M² is 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, 0.1≤y<0.95, 0.01<z≤0.5, 0.01<w≤0.5, 0≤v≤0.2, 1.5≤u≤4.5, respectively ([0019]; Li1+xL1-y-zMyNzO2 or Li1+xNi1-y-zMyNzO2). 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).
Regarding claim 14, modified Pan teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Pan also teaches a lithium secondary battery including the positive electrode according to claim 1; a negative electrode; and a separator positioned between the positive electrode and the negative electrode ([0049]).
Claims 2-4 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan in view of Li as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (CN-110767875-A), hereinafter Zhang.
Regarding claim 2, modified Pan teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Pan fails to teach that the positive electrode mixture layer further includes a second conductive material, and the second conductive material contains one or more of natural graphite, artificial graphite, carbon black, acetylene black, Denka black, ketjen black, Super-P, channel black, furnace black, lamp black and thermal black.
Zhang is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of conductive agents for battery cathodes ([0005]). Zhang teaches a second conductive material, and the second conductive material contains one or more of natural graphite, artificial graphite, carbon black, acetylene black, Denka black, ketjen black, Super-P, channel black, furnace black, lamp black and thermal black ([0009] conductive agent A is at least one of superconducting carbon black, acetylene black, etc).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pan and added a second conductive agent such as in Zhang. Doing so helps build a conductive network, increase the amount of active material used in the battery, and improve the energy density (Zhang [0023]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Pan teaches all of the limitations of claim 2. Modified Pan fails to explicitly teach an electrode sheet resistance (R12) of the positive electrode containing the first conductive material and the second conductive material in the positive electrode mixture layer has: a ratio (R12/R1) of 0.5 to 1.2 with respect to an electrode sheet resistance (R1) of the positive electrode containing the first conductive material alone in the positive electrode mixture layer, or a ratio (R12/R2) of 0.1 to 0.8 with respect to an electrode sheet resistance (R2) of the positive electrode containing the second conductive material alone in the positive electrode mixture layer. However, this value is optimizable. Modified Pan discloses that the resistivity of the electrode decreases significantly with an increase of the amount of conductive agent B, including the carbon nanotube interpreted as the first conductive agent ([0046]). Fig. 1 of Zhang shows that the resistivity of the electrode when there is no conductive agent B present is significantly higher than when there is any amount of conductive agent B present. As such, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the amount of conductive agent B to optimize the electrode resistivity, and by extension the sheet resistance, in order to achieve a conductive network that increases the amount of active material used in the battery and improves the energy density (Zhang [0023]). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 4, modified Pan teaches all of the limitations of claim 2. Modified Pan fails to explicitly teach an electrode sheet resistance (R12) of the positive electrode containing the first conductive material and the second conductive material in the positive electrode mixture layer has: a ratio (R12/R1) of 0.7 to 1.0 with respect to an electrode sheet resistance (R1) of the positive electrode containing the first conductive material alone in the positive electrode mixture layer, or a ratio (R12/R2) of 0.2 to 0.6 with respect to an electrode sheet resistance (R2) of the positive electrode containing the second conductive material alone in the positive electrode mixture layer. However, this value is optimizable. Modified Pan discloses that the resistivity of the electrode decreases significantly with an increase of the amount of conductive agent B, including the carbon nanotube interpreted as the first conductive agent ([0046]). Fig. 1 of Zhang shows that the resistivity of the electrode when there is no conductive agent B present is significantly higher than when there is any amount of conductive agent B present. As such, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the amount of conductive agent B to optimize the electrode resistivity, and by extension the sheet resistance, in order to achieve a conductive network that increases the amount of active material used in the battery and improves the energy density (Zhang [0023]). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 8, modified Pan teaches all of the limitations of claim 2. Modified Pan also teaches that a total content of the first conductive material and the second conductive material is 0.1 to 10 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the positive electrode mixture layer ([0008] 0.5-2.5% by weight). 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).
Regarding claim 9, modified Pan teaches all of the limitations of claim 2. Modified Pan also teaches that the second conductive material is included in an amount of 20 to 60 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the first conductive material (Zhang [0010] the weight ratio of conductive agent A (interpreted as the second conductive material) to conductive agent B (interpreted as the first conductive material including the carbon nanotubes) is 1:0.25-4). 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).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan in view of Li as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mizuno et al. (US-20220315435-A1), hereinafter Mizuno.
Regarding claim 5, modified Pan teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified Pan fails to explicitly teach that the positive electrode additive has a tetragonal structure with a space group of P42/nmc.
Mizuno is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of methods of producing positive electrodes ([0001]). Mizuno teaches that the positive electrode additive has a tetragonal structure with a space group of P42/nmc (Li6CoO4 [0067]; [0070]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the space group of Mizuno with the composition of modified Pan to obtain a space group known to be suitable for a positive electrode composition.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan et al. (CN 107706351 A), hereinafter Pan, in view of Li et al. (US-20210359302-A1), hereinafter Li and Yushin et al. (US-20180151884-A1), hereinafter Yushin.
Regarding claim 11, Pan teaches a method of manufacturing a positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery, preparing a positive electrode slurry by mixing a positive electrode additive represented by the following Chemical Formula 1, a first conductive material, a binder, a positive electrode active material, and a second binder ([0062]; [0068]); and preparing a positive electrode mixture layer by applying the positive electrode slurry on a positive electrode current collector ([0062]; [0068]); wherein the first conductive material contains one or more of carbon nanotubes, graphite nanofibers, carbon nanofibers, vapor-grown carbon fibers and activated carbon fibers ([0068] example 2 carbon nanotubes; [0033]); [Chemical Formula 1] LipCo(1-q)M1qO4 wherein, M1 is 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 (([0022] Li6Co1-xMnxO4 wherein 0≤x≤0.3, such as when x is 0 such as Li6CoO4 corresponding to p=6 and q=0 in the instant claim language). 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).
Pan fails to teach that the manufactured positive electrode has a sheet resistance ranging from 1.0 Ω/sq. to 3.0 Ω/sq.
Li is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of positive electrodes (Abstract). Li teaches that an appropriate amount of conductive agent in the positive electrode can help obtain low sheet resistance ([0022]).
Given this teaching, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the sheet resistance of the positive electrode by optimizing the content of the conductive agent as taught in Li ([0022]). Doing so also helps in improving the rate performance and cycle performance of the battery (Li [0080]). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). A sheet with low sheet resistance is expected to have a sheet resistance that at least overlaps 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. 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).
Pan also fails to teach preparing a pre-dispersion by mixing a positive electrode additive, a first conductive material, and a binder.
Yushin is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of methods of forming electrodes ([0089]-[0093]) Yushin teaches preparing a pre-dispersion by mixing a positive electrode additive, a first conductive material, and a binder ([0093]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pan to preparing a pre-dispersion by mixing a positive electrode additive, a first conductive material, and a binder. Doing so helps simplify the missing protocol (Yushin [0093]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan in view of Li and Yushin as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Honoki et al. (US-20120094177-A1), hereinafter Honoki.
Regarding claim 12, modified Pan teaches all of the limitations of claim 11. Pan fails to teach that the step of preparing the pre-dispersion is carried out at a relative humidity of 10% or less.
Honoki is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of positive electrodes for secondary batteries ([0001]). Honoki teaches forming a positive electrode active material layer at a relative humidity of 10% or less ([0038] 1 to 70% RH). 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to have carried out the pre-dispersion of modified Pan at a relative humidity of 10% or less such as in Honoki. Doing so avoids moisture attaching excessively to the positive electrode active material layer (Honoki [0038]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan in view of Li and Yushin as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (CN-110767875-A), hereinafter Zhang.
Regarding claim 13, modified Pan teaches all of the limitations of claim 11. Pan fails to teach that in the step of preparing the positive electrode slurry, a second conductive material is further mixed.
Zhang is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of conductive agents for battery cathodes ([0005]). Zhang teaches a second conductive material ([0009] conductive agent A is at least one of superconducting carbon black, acetylene black, etc).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pan and added a second conductive agent such as in Zhang. Doing so helps build a conductive network, increase the amount of active material used in the battery, and improve the energy density (Zhang [0023]).
With the presence of a second conductive material, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art that the second conductive material would be further mixed in order to incorporate it into the positive electrode slurry.
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 MADISON L KYLE whose telephone number is (571)272-0164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 AM - 5 PM ET.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/M.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights