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 .
Remarks
Claim 1 has been amended. Claim 2 has been canceled. Claims 3-13 are as previously presented. Claims 1 and 3-13 are currently examined.
Status of Objections and Rejections
The rejection as set forth within the previous office action has been modified as necessitated by the applicants amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 3-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2023/0178805), and further in view of Park*627 (US 2022/0181627) and Sakamoto (JP 2003-109662 as cited within the IDS 4/12/2023).
As to claim 1, Park discloses a positive electrode (figure 1 #14, [0077], discussed throughout) for a lithium secondary battery (figure 1 #100, [0077], discussed throughout), comprising: a positive electrode current collector ([0045], discussed throughout), and a positive electrode mixture layer disposed on the positive electrode current collector ([0045], discussed throughout) and containing a positive electrode active material ([0045]-[0048], discussed throughout).
Park is silent to wherein, the positive electrode active material comprises a positive electrode additive represented by Formula 1 below, wherein the positive electrode mixture layer has one or more peaks shown at 19.1±0.5°, 36.6±0.5°, 38.7±0.5°, 42.4±0.5° and 44.8±0.5°, represented by 2θ, in X-ray diffraction (XRD) measurement after initial charging to SOC 100%:
LipCo(1-q)M1 qO4 [Formula 1]
wherein, in Formula 1,
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, and wherein, the positive electrode mixture layer satisfies Equation 1 below in X-ray diffraction (XRD) measurement after initial charging to SOC 100%:
0.4≤P1/P2≤1.5 [Equation 1]
Wherein in Equation 1, P1 represents the highest intensity of a peak present at 42.4±0.5°, and P2 represents the highest intensity of a peak present at 44.8±0.5°.
Park*627 discloses a positive electrode additive for a lithium ion battery ([0012]), with the formula LipCo(1-q)M1 qO4 [Formula 1] wherein, in Formula 1, 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 ([0013]-[0017], discussed throughout). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to use the positive electrode additive from Park*627 within Park because it is a non-reversible capacity improving additive for improving the non-reversible characteristic of a negative electrode ([0012], and discussed throughout Park*627).
While modified Park discloses the same materials, within the same locations as the instant claimed invention (see in claims 1 and 3-13), per the instant specification as seen within Tables 1 and 2 the materials and the location do not always yield the same results. Thus, the examiner will also contribute this to the charging initial charging of the battery as seen within Table 1. Sakamoto discloses a method of manufacturing a battery (abstract) wherein a first charge is performed with a current value of 0.2C or less, then a second charge is performed at a current value of 0.5C or less and then a final charge is performed at a value of 0.5C or less ([0008]-[0010], discussed throughout). It would have been obvious to use the charging method from Sakamoto within modified Park which is similar to the instant claimed Examples 1-2 because the first charge a film can be formed on the surface of the negative electrode without generating hydrocarbon gas at the negative electrode, the second charge the carbon negative electrode surface film formed suppresses the direct reaction between the carbon negative electrode and the electrolyte solution, the final charge the carbon dioxide generated at the positive electrode can be sufficiently dissolved in the electrolyte solution, thus the initial charge can be performed without deterioration of the battery capacity ([0008]-[0010], Sakamoto).
Thus, modified Park discloses the same structure as the instant claimed invention, using the same materials as the instant claimed invention and charged in a similar manor as the instant claimed invention. Therefore, the positive electrode mixture would behave in the same manner as the instant claimed invention (see MPEP 2112).
As to claim 3, modified Park does not specifically state wherein, the positive electrode mixture layer has a peak at any one or more of 1.4±0.5 Å, 2.4±0.5 Å, 4.45±0.5 Å, 4.6±0.5 Å, 5.1±0.1 Å and 5.2±0.1 Å in extended X-ray absorption fine structure (EXAFS) analysis after initial charging to SOC 100%. However, modified Park discloses the same structure as the instant claimed invention, using the same materials as the instant claimed invention and charged in a similar manor as the instant claimed invention (see claim 1 above). Thus, the positive electrode mixture would behave in the same manner as the instant claimed invention (see MPEP 2112).
As to claim 4, modified Park does not specifically state wherein, the positive electrode additive has a tetragonal structure with a space group of P42/nmc. However, modified Park discloses the same chemical composition as the instant claimed invention ([0013]-[0018], discussed throughout, Park*627) and thus would have the same structure as the instant claimed additive (see MPEP 2112).
As to claim 5, modified Park discloses wherein, the positive electrode additive is included in an amount ranging from 0.01 to 5 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the positive electrode mixture layer ([0034], [0085] and discussed throughout, Park*627). 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).
As to claim 6, modified Park discloses wherein, the positive electrode active material is a lithium metal composite oxide represented by Formula 2 below:
Lix[NiyCozMnwM2 v]Ou [Formula 2]
wherein in Formula 2, 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, and 1.5≤u≤4.5, respectively ([0047]-[0049], Park). 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).
As to claim 7, modified Park discloses wherein, the positive electrode mixture layer further comprises one or more conductive materials of natural graphite, artificial graphite, carbon black, acetylene black, Ketjen black, carbon nanotubes, graphene or carbon fiber ([0058] and discussed throughout; Park).
As to claim 8, modified Park discloses wherein, the conductive material is included in an amount ranging from 0.5 to 5 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the positive electrode mixture layer ([0056], and discussed throughout, Park).
As to claim 9, modified Park discloses a lithium secondary battery (figure 1 #100, [0077], discussed throughout, Park) comprising the positive electrode of claim 1 (see above), a negative electrode (figure 1 #112, [0077], discussed throughout; Park) and a separator disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (figure 1 #113, [0077], discussed throughout; Park).
As to claim 10, modified Park discloses wherein, the negative electrode comprises a negative electrode current collector ([0060], discussed throughout, Park); and a negative electrode mixture layer disposed on the negative electrode current collector ([0060], discussed throughout; Park), wherein the negative electrode mixture layer contains a carbon material and a silicon material as negative electrode active materials ([0062]-[0065], discussed throughout; Park).
As to claim 11, modified Park discloses wherein, the silicon material is included in an amount ranging from 1 to 20 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the negative electrode mixture layer ([0065]-[0069], discussed throughout; Park). 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).
As to claim 12, modified Park discloses wherein, the carbon material comprises one or more of natural graphite, artificial graphite, graphene, carbon nanotubes, carbon black, acetylene black, Ketjen black or carbon fiber ([0062]-[0065], discussed throughout; Park).
As to claim 13, modified Park discloses wherein, the silicon material comprises one or more of silicon (Si) particles or silicon oxide (SiOx, 1≤x≤2) particles ([0065], discussed throughout; Park).
Claim 4 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Park as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mizuno (US 2022/0315435).
As to claim 4, should it be considered modified Park is silent to wherein, the positive electrode additive has a tetragonal structure with a space group of P42/nmc. Mizuno discloses a positive active material (abstract) that uses Li6CoO4 ([0070]) wherein Li6CoO4 has a space group of P42/nmc ([0070]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art the time of the effective filling date of the invention to use the space group from Mizuno within modified Park as a mere combing prior art elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143 I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant points to a case that is similar to the instant case and discusses that each and every limitation needs to be present to reject the claim. The examiner agrees. The applicant points to the instant Table to and shows that the materials alone do not yield the amended claim limitation. The examiner agrees. The applicant does not address the prior art Sakamoto (JP 2003-109662) which was used to modify Park to be consistent with Examples 1 and 2 as seen within the rejection above. Thus, as the examiner attributed the results to the Examples to the materials and charging characteristics which are different from the Comparative examples and the applicant did not argue, therefore, the examiner maintains the rejection.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN R OHARA whose telephone number is (571)272-0728. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM-3:30 PM 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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
/BRIAN R OHARA/Examiner, Art Unit 1724