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 .
Examiner’s Comments
The examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, paragraphs, or figures in the references as applied to the claims for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 1-2, 4, and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20190124038 in view of Matsuda (US 10,741,838).
Regarding claim 1, KR ‘038 discloses a positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery comprising a positive electrode current collector, and a positive electrode mixture layer, which is disposed on at least one surface of the positive electrode current collection, and which comprises a positive electrode active material of Lix(NiaCobMnc)O2, wherein 0.5<x<1.3, 0<a<1, 0<b<1, 0<c<1, a+b+c = 1, or Lix(NiaCobMnc)O4, wherein 0.5<x<1.3, 0<a<2, 0<b<2, 0<c<2, a+b+c = 2, and a positive electrode additive of Li6CoO4.
Although KR ‘038 discloses a positive electrode mixture layer and charge capacity after initial charging (Table 1), KR ‘038 fails to explicitly disclose a cross-section of the positive electrode mixture layer after initial charging comprising a second region having a needle-shaped crack structure inside and outside the positive electrode additive as presently claimed.
Matsuda discloses a lithium secondary battery comprising a positive electrode, wherein the positive electrode LiCoMO, wherein M is RE, Ti, Zr, Cu, Al, Ga (Abstract), which is similar to that of KR ‘038. Matsuda discloses that the positive electrode additive comprises cracks on the surfaces, thereby corresponds to the cracks being outside the positive electrode additive (Fig. 2). Given that cracks on the surface inherently have depth and the claims are open to unrecited dimensions of the cracks, the depth of the cracks from the surface would corresponds to being “inside” the positive electrode additive. The broadest reasonable interpretation for “inside” is any portion of the positive electrode additive that is not at the surface level.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive electrode additive to have a needle-shaped crack structures, as suggested by Matsuo, in order to obtain a battery having excellent capacity retention.
Further, KR ‘038 fails to explicitly disclose that the second region accounts for 0.001-10% of the cross-section area of the positive electrode mixture layer.
However, KR ‘038 discloses that the second region comprises of 1-10 wt.% of the positive electrode mixture layer (claims), which also contributes to the densities of the positive electrode mixture layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the concentration or area of the second region within the limits known in the art based on the desired density since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) 1980.
Regarding claim 2, KR ‘038 in view of Matsuda discloses the structure as claimed.
Regarding claim 7, KR ‘038 discloses the conductive materials as claimed.
Regarding claim 8, KR ‘038 discloses a negative electrode and a separator as claimed.
Regarding claims 9-10 and 12, KR ‘038 discloses a negative electrode current collector, a negative electrode mixture layer, and a negative electrode active material comprising of carbon material as claimed and Si material.
Regarding claim 11, KR ‘038 discloses that the negative electrode active material comprises variety of materials including carbon material and Si material, however, fails to explicitly disclose the Si material is 1-20 wt.% of the negative electrode mixture layer as presently claimed. However, given that KR’ 038 discloses a variety of materials are used in the negative electrode active material, each of concentration for every material appears to be functionally equivalent. It would have been obvious to choose any concentration from that ranged for instance 1-20 wt.% of Si based on the desired active material properties and that choosing concentration values would have rendered the claimed relationship of all the negative electrode active material concentration would have rendered the claimed concentration obvious in the absence of showing criticality.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20190124038 in view of Matsuda (US 10,741,838), and further in view of Mizuno (US 2022/0315435).
KR ‘038 teaches a positive electrode composition comprising Li6CoO4 as the positive electrode additive as set forth above. However, KR ‘038 does not teach the space group of the Li6CoO4 additive.
However, Mizuno teaches a positive electrode composition comprising Li6CoO4 [0067]. The Li6CoO4 has a crystal structure with a space group of P42/nmc [0070]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by design need for a crystal structure to combine the space group of Mizuno with the composition of KR ‘038 to obtain a space group known to be suitable for a positive electrode composition.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20190124038 in view of Cho et al. (US 2013/0171524).
Regarding claim 1, KR ‘038 discloses a positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery comprising a positive electrode current collector, and a positive electrode mixture layer, which is disposed on at least one surface of the positive electrode current collection, and which comprises a positive electrode active material of Lix(NiaCobMnc)O2, wherein 0.5<x<1.3, 0<a<1, 0<b<1, 0<c<1, a+b+c = 1, or Lix(NiaCobMnc)O4, wherein 0.5<x<1.3, 0<a<2, 0<b<2, 0<c<2, a+b+c = 2, and a positive electrode additive of Li6CoO4.
Although KR ‘038 discloses a positive electrode mixture layer and charge capacity after initial charging (Table 1), KR ‘038 fails to explicitly disclose a cross-section of the positive electrode mixture layer after initial charging comprising a second region having a needle-shaped crack structure inside and outside the positive electrode additive as presently claimed.
Cho discloses a lithium secondary battery comprising a positive electrode, wherein the positive electrode Li6CoO4, which is same to that of KR ‘038. Cho discloses that the positive electrode additive comprises cracks on the surfaces, thereby corresponds to the cracks being outside the positive electrode additive (Fig. 4A, [0043]). Given that cracks on the surface inherently have depth and the claims are open to unrecited dimensions of the cracks, the depth of the cracks from the surface would corresponds to being “inside” the positive electrode additive. The broadest reasonable interpretation for “inside” is any portion of the positive electrode additive that is not at the surface level.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive electrode additive to have a needle-shaped crack structures, as suggested by Cho, in order to obtain a battery with increase charge capacity (Abstract).
Further, KR ‘038 fails to explicitly disclose that the second region accounts for 0.001-10% of the cross-section area of the positive electrode mixture layer.
However, KR ‘038 discloses that the second region comprises of 1-10 wt.% of the positive electrode mixture layer (claims), which also contributes to the densities of the positive electrode mixture layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the concentration or area of the second region within the limits known in the art based on the desired density since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) 1980.
Regarding claim 2, KR ‘038 in view of Matsuda discloses the structure as claimed.
Regarding claim 7, KR ‘038 discloses the conductive materials as claimed.
Regarding claim 8, KR ‘038 discloses a negative electrode and a separator as claimed.
Regarding claims 9-10 and 12, KR ‘038 discloses a negative electrode current collector, a negative electrode mixture layer, and a negative electrode active material comprising of carbon material as claimed and Si material.
Regarding claim 11, KR ‘038 discloses that the negative electrode active material comprises variety of materials including carbon material and Si material, however, fails to explicitly disclose the Si material is 1-20 wt.% of the negative electrode mixture layer as presently claimed. However, given that KR’ 038 discloses a variety of materials are used in the negative electrode active material, each of concentration for every material appears to be functionally equivalent. It would have been obvious to choose any concentration from that ranged for instance 1-20 wt.% of Si based on the desired active material properties and that choosing concentration values would have rendered the claimed relationship of all the negative electrode active material concentration would have rendered the claimed concentration obvious in the absence of showing criticality.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20190124038 in view of Matsuda (US 10,741,838), and further in view of Mizuno (US 2022/0315435).
KR ‘038 teaches a positive electrode composition comprising Li6CoO4 as the positive electrode additive as set forth above. However, KR ‘038 does not teach the space group of the Li6CoO4 additive.
However, Mizuno teaches a positive electrode composition comprising Li6CoO4 [0067]. The Li6CoO4 has a crystal structure with a space group of P42/nmc [0070]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by design need for a crystal structure to combine the space group of Mizuno with the composition of KR ‘038 to obtain a space group known to be suitable for a positive electrode composition.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Although Matsuda and Cho disclose cracks on the surface of the positive electrode additive (Matsuda: Fig. 2, Cho Fig. 4A), Matsuda and Cho fails to disclose, suggest, or otherwise render obvious the dimensions of the cracks itself, inside and outside of the additive, specifically having an average thickness of 5-800 nm and an average length of 50 nm to 10 µm as presently claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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. Applicant has amended the claims to define what is meant by first region (positive electrode active material) and second region (positive electrode additive).
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 LINDA N CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-5835. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571)272-1291. 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.
Linda Chau
/L.N.C/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/Holly Rickman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785