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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/2/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges amended Claim 1, cancelled Claim 2, withdrawn-currently amended Claim 6, and withdrawn Claims 7-9 in the response filed on 9/2/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1, 3-5, 10, and 11 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites a thickness ratio (D1:D2) of an average thickness (D1) of the first mixture layer to an average thickness (D2) of the second mixture layer ranges from 4:6 to 1:10 (i.e. 0.1 to 0.
6
-
). Claim 1, in which Claim 3 is dependent from, recites an average thickness of the first mixture layer ranges from 0.1 μm to 20 μm, and an average thickness of the second mixture layer ranges from 50 μm to 300 μm.
Claim 3 is indefinite because it is unclear how the first and second mixture layers, each having a respective thickness range, can satisfy the claimed thickness ratio. For example, with a first mixture layer having a thickness of 0.1 μm, the second mixture layer must have a thickness of 0.15 μm to achieve a thickness ratio of 4:6 (or 0.
6
-
) A second mixture layer with a thickness of 0.15 μm is well outside the scope of 50 μm to 300 μm.
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, 3, 4, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20160013480 (“Sikha et al.”) in view of US Pub. No. 20150372304 (“Hasegawa et al.”).
With regards to Claims 1, 3, and 4, Sikha et al. teaches a positive electrode (103) for a lithium secondary battery comprising a current collector (113) and a mixture layer (202) formed on one surface or both surfaces of the current collector, wherein the mixture layer is a double-layer structure in which a first mixture layer (210) and a second mixture layer (220) are stacked, wherein the second mixture layer is formed on the first mixture layer formed on the current collector (Abstract, Figs. 1A, 1B, and 2C, [0005], [0026], [0027], and [0053]).
Sikha et al. further teaches an average thickness of the first mixture layer ranges from 1 to 80 microns, and an average thickness of the second mixture layer ranges from 10 to 80 microns, wherein a thickness ratio of the first mixture layer to the second mixture layer is between about 5:1 to 1:5 (i.e. 0.2 to 5) ([0038] and [0068]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Sikha et al. teaches the first mixture layer includes a positive electrode active material, a conductive material, and a binder, and wherein a porosity of the first mixture layer ranges from 15% to 20%, and a porosity of the second mixture layer ranges from about 30% to about 60% ([0026], [0030], [0033], [0061], [0062], and [0068]).
Sikha et al. does not teach the first mixture layer includes a positive electrode additive represented by Chemical Formula 1.
However, Hasegawa et al. teaches a positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery comprising a mixture layer, wherein the mixture layer comprises a positive electrode active material, a positive electrode additive of Li6CoO4, a conductive material, and a binder. The content of the positive electrode additive is 0.1% by mass or more and less than 10% by mass based on a total weight of the first mixture layer (Abstract, [0018]-[0020], [0023], [0024], [0027], and [0029]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Li6CoO4 positive electrode additive in Sikha et al.’s positive electrode in order to increase the capacity while suppressing degradation of load properties ([0020]-[0022]).
With regards to Claim 10, Sikha et al. teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising the positive electrode (103a, 103b, 202), a negative electrode (102a, 102b), and a separator (115) interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (Figs. 1A, 1B, and 2C, [0005] and [0029]).
With regards to Claim 11, Sikha et al. teaches the negative electrode includes a negative electrode current collector (111) and a negative electrode mixture layer (102a, 102b) which is located on the negative electrode current collector and contains a negative electrode active material, and the negative electrode active material includes a carbon material and a silicon material (Fig. 1A and 1B, [0028], [0029], and [0031]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20160013480 (“Sikha et al.”) in view of US Pub. No. 20150372304 (“Hasegawa et al.”) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 20200212428 (“Han et al.”).
Sikha et al. teaches its positive electrode active material is a lithium metal composite oxide, Li(NixMnyCoz)O2 (X+Y+Z = 1), e.g., lithium nickel-manganese-cobalt oxide or “NMC”) ([0021], [0030], and [0041]).
Sikha et al. does not explicitly teach the concentrations for each of Ni, Mn, and Co.
However, Han et al. teaches its positive electrode active material is a lithium metal composite oxide of LiNi0.6Mn0.2Co0.2O2 ([0031] and [0068]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Sikha et al.’s positive electrode active material be LiNi0.6Mn0.2Co0.2O2 in order to achieve desirable capacity, energy density, stability, etc. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings relating to one NMC positive electrode active material with another NMC positive electrode active material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-5496. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11 AM-730 PM.
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.
/LC/
Lisa Chau
Art Unit 1785
/Holly Rickman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights