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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 are pending.
Claims 9, 10 are new.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed on 4/29/2026 have been entered.
Claim objection and rejection under 35 USC 112(b) for Claim 3 has been withdrawn in view of the amendments.
The affidavit under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 4/29/2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of Claim 1 based upon the prior art reference of Zettsu et al applied under 35 U.S.C. 102 as set forth in the last Office action because:
The affidavit states that the ranges of Rm and the ratio of Rm/Rc are affected by conditions for drying the mixture slurry and process conditions such as the pressure in mixture layer rolling, as well as the conductive additive and amount thereof used. The affidavit does not provide any distinction regarding the drying conditions or pressure rolling conditions utilized in Zettsu and the instant invention. The specification also does not elaborate on the process conditions used for making the positive electrode. Hence, the difference in Zettsu’s processing conditions and the instant invention’s processing conditions is not evident.
With respect to the affidavit, applicant has also presented a table with Rm/Rc values from Zettsu. Applicant argues that the composition in Zettsu, when tested, does not arrive at the Rm/Rc values as claimed; however, examiner disagrees.
The instant disclosure states that “For the conductive additive, carbon fiber other than carbon nanotube and/or electrically conductive carbon particles can be mixed with carbon nanotube and used”. Claim 1 also does not preclude the addition of a conductive material other than the carbon fiber of length 1 um or more. Hence, the affidavit with updated table 1 to show that Zettsu cannot arrive at the Rm/Rc value is not commensurate in scope with the claim. In other words, if applicant is arguing that Zettsu fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed Rm/Rc value because 2 types of carbon nanotubes are present, examiner contends that such an argument is not commensurate in scope with the claim because the claim does not limit the composition to only one type of CNT.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zettsu et al (US 20210313559 A1).
Regarding Claim 1,
Zettsu teaches a positive electrode for a lithium ion rechargeable battery comprising a current collector, an electrode active material containing layer on the current collector, wherein the electrode active material contains active material particles, and a conductive material (Paragraph 0014-0017).
The active material a lithium nickelate LiNiO2 having a layered structure, or a solid solution layered structure Li(Ni, Al, Co)O2, or a layered structure Li(Ni, Al, Co)O2, LiNi0.5Mn1.5-O4 (Paragraph 0052). This shows material that has 80 atom% or more of metal (nickel) other than lithium.
The conductive material is a carbon material that is in a ratio of 95 to 99.7:0.3 to 5:0 to 1 (Paragraph 0017-0018). This shows that the conductive additive containing carbon is present at a ratio of 1 part by mass or less relative to 100 parts by mass of the positive electrode active material.
Zettsu teaches the claimed invention above but does not expressly teach the properties related to material resistance, and interface resistance. It is reasonable to presume that the resistance properties is inherent to Zettsu. Support for said presumption is found in that the conductive additive is carbon nanotubes of length 2 µm or more (Paragraph 0057), and the lithium containing material meets the atomic criteria of the claimed invention. Zettsu teaches the current collector as an aluminum foil material, and the claimed invention also includes aluminum as one of the materials for a current collector. The instant specification states that “The material resistance Rm of the positive electrode mixture layer, and the interface resistance Rc between the positive electrode current collector and the positive electrode mixture layer can be controlled by, for example, changing material, characteristics (particle size or fiber diameter, fiber length, etc.) and the amount contained of the conductive additive, and conditions when drying the mixture slurry”. The material, characteristics (length), and amount are the same in Zettsu and claimed invention. For drying method, both Zettsu and claimed invention refer to the process of applying a slurry to the current collector and drying the slurry. Hence, the method shows overlap. Hence, the properties related to material resistance, and interface resistance would be met by the positive electrode structure of Zettsu.
Regarding Claim 2 and Claim 3,
Zettsu teaches that the conductive additive is carbon nanotubes, and is of length 2 µm or more (Paragraph 0057).
Regarding Claim 4,
Zettsu teaches the claimed invention above but does not expressly teach the properties related to material resistance, and interface resistance. It is reasonable to presume that the resistance properties is inherent to Zettsu. Support for said presumption is found in that the conductive additive is carbon nanotubes of length 2 µm or more (Paragraph 0057), and the lithium containing material meets the atomic criteria of the claimed invention. Zettsu teaches the current collector as an aluminum foil material, and the claimed invention also includes aluminum as one of the materials for a current collector. The instant specification states that “The material resistance Rm of the positive electrode mixture layer, and the interface resistance Rc between the positive electrode current collector and the positive electrode mixture layer can be controlled by, for example, changing material, characteristics (particle size or fiber diameter, fiber length, etc.) and the amount contained of the conductive additive, and conditions when drying the mixture slurry”. The material, characteristics (length), and amount are the same in Zettsu and claimed invention. For drying method, both Zettsu and claimed invention refer to the process of applying a slurry to the current collector and drying the slurry. Hence, the method shows overlap. Hence, the properties related to material resistance, and interface resistance (i.e. Rm/Rc is 500 or more) would be met by the positive electrode structure of Zettsu.
Regarding Claim 5 and Claim 6,
Zettsu teaches the use of LiNiO2 as the positive electrode active material (paragraph 0052). This meets the claimed formula wherein a = 1, x = 1, 1-x =0.
Regarding Claim 8,
Zettsu teaches a secondary battery comprising a positive electrode as claimed, a separator, a negative electrode, and an electrolyte (Paragraph 0085, 0086, 0087).
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.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zettsu in view of Gogyo et al (US 20170309954 A1).
Zettsu describes that a coating layer of the active material is applied to the current collector, but does not specifically provide a loading amount as 250 g/m2 or more.
However, Gogyo teaches a cathode containing a layered lithium nickel manganese cobalt complex oxide (Paragraph 0041), and an electroconductive material such as carbon nanotube (Paragraph 0055) present in the active material mix. The current collector in Gogyo is also made of aluminum (Paragraph 0060). Furthermore, Gogyo teaches that the coating amount is 250 g/m2 (Paragraph 0061). This value is included within the claimed range. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the loading amount as claimed for applying the electrode mixture layer on the current collector in order to obtain a battery with high temperature storage stability and superior charge and discharge cycle performance (Paragraph 0007).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zettsu et al in view of Jo et al (US 20200185707 A1).
Zettsu teaches the positive electrode of Claim 1 (as described in rejection of Claim 1 above). Zettsu’s invention aims at solving the problem related to achieving both exceptional electrical conductivity and adhesion of electrode active material, and improving battery characteristics (Paragraph 0012), such as ion diffusion (Paragraph 0120). Zettsu does not limit the number of electrode active material layers present on the positive electrode. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine teachings from art that solves a similar technical problem.
The prior art of Jo also teaches an electrode for a lithium secondary battery (Paragraph 0008; positive electrode for a secondary battery, comprising: a positive electrode current collector (Paragraph 0009), and a positive electrode mixture layer including a positive electrode active material and provided on a surface of the positive electrode current collector (Paragraph 0009; second electrode mixture layer). The second electrode mixture layer is formed on the current collector per the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (which utilizes comprises terminology, and does not limit additional layers of the electrode). Based on the prior art of Jo, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to add an electrode mixture layer that facilitates the diffusion of ions (Paragraph 0008). Jo teaches that the positive electrode active material includes a lithium-containing composite oxide having a layered structure (Paragraph 0059), where 80 atom % or more of metal other than lithium is nickel (Paragraph 0059; example provided LiNiO2), the positive electrode mixture layer includes a conductive additive containing carbon at a ratio of 1 part by mass or less; or 0.01 parts by mass or more and 1 part by mass or less relative to 100 parts by mass of the positive electrode active material (Paragraph 0016; content of the conductive material in the second electrode mixture layer is more than 0.5 wt % and less than 5 wt% of the active material content). The range in Jo overlaps with the claimed range, and hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the overlapping value in Jo in order to enable contact between the active material and the conductive material for better electrical conductivity (Paragraph 0046).
Jo teaches the positive electrode mixture layer contains the second conductive material by itself as the conductive additive, and can be carbon nanotube (Paragraph 0014) having a fiber length of 1 um or more (Paragraph 0012; second electrode layer conductive material has an average particle diameter of 0.5 to 5 um). Average particle diameter for a carbon nanotube is similar to the fiber length of the nanotube. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the overlapping values in Jo in order to shorten the movement path of lithium ions, and to reduce electrical contact resistance between active material particles, and current collector particles (Paragraph 0043).
Since the second conductive material by itself as the conductive additive in the electrode layer, it accounts for 80 mass% or more of the conductive carbon fiber.
Jo also teaches the processing steps of drying and calendaring to form the electrode/cathode (Paragraph 0066, 0067). As a material of the current collector constituting the multilayer electrode according to an example, for example, stainless steel, aluminum, nickel, titanium, stainless steel surface-treated with sintered carbon, copper, carbon, nickel, titanium or silver, an aluminum-cadmium alloy, a nonconductive polymer surface-treated with a conductive material, and conductive polymers, or the like may be used (Paragraph 0058).
The material, characteristics (length), and amount are the same in Jo and claimed invention. The method steps show overlap between Jo and instant invention. Hence, the properties related to material resistance, and interface resistance would be met by the positive electrode structure of Jo, and is inherent to the prior art of Jo.
References of Interest
Examiner notes the following references of interest pertinent to the subject area.
Baek et al (US 20190312259 A1)
Kawakami et al (US 20150155556 A1)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Zettsu neither discloses nor suggests the ranges of the Rm and the ratio Rm/Rc. These ratios are also not inherent to the positive electrode of Zettsu. Applicant argues that ranges of the Rm and the ratio Rm/Rc recited in claim 1 can depend on the conditions for mixture slurry drying and process conditions such as the pressure in mixture layer rolling, in addition to the type and content of the conductive additive. Superficial similarities in ingredients and processes are not a sufficient basis for concluding or otherwise determining Rc for an ultimate electrode product. In Zettsu, a positive electrode mixture layer is formed by mixture slurry application but the conditions for slurry drying are unspecified and otherwise unclear. Examiner disagrees with the above argument.
Examiner asserts that the instant specification also does not provide any specific processing details regarding drying and pressure rolling conditions. Paragraph 0019 in instant specification states that; “The material resistance Rm of the positive electrode mixture layer, and the interface resistance Rc between the positive electrode current collector and the positive electrode mixture layer can be controlled by, for example, changing material, characteristics (particle size or fiber diameter, fiber length, etc.) and the amount contained of the conductive additive, and conditions when drying the mixture slurry, the pressure when rolling the positive electrode mixture layer, etc.” Paragraph 0033 in instant specification states that: “The positive electrode mixture layer can be formed by applying a positive electrode slurry in which a positive electrode mixture containing a positive electrode active material, a binder, and the like is dispersed in a dispersion medium on a surface of a positive electrode current collector and drying the slurry. The dried coating film may be rolled, if necessary”. Hence, in that respect both Zettsu and instant invention teach broad processing conditions, and Rm, Rc behaviors of the electrode materials in Zettsu based on these broad conditions would also naturally flow. Therefore, the examiner maintains the rejection of limitations related to Rm and Rc based on inherency in Zettsu.
Applicant argues that “it is understood from paragraph [0020] of the present specification that the Rc tends to decrease when the temperature or the hot air discharge flow rate in the drying conditions is changed to increase the volatilization speed of the dispersion medium in the mixture slurry, and the Rc tends to increase when the dispersion medium is slowly volatilized. The extent to which the Rc changes relative to the volatilization rate depends on, for example, the type and content of the conductive additive and the volatility and viscosity of the dispersion medium, and is appropriately adjusted according to the configuration of the positive electrode. As to the conditions for mixture layer rolling, when the pressure is increased, the adhesion between the positive electrode mixture layer and the positive electrode current collector is increased. This decreases the Rc and increases the bonding between the positive electrode active material particles. As a result, the Rm tends to decrease.” Examiner disagrees with this argument because Paragraph 0020 only provides a broader teaching around controlling Rm, and Rc based on material characteristics, and process conditions. The relationships stated in the argument are not evident from the instant specification as written.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SUHANI JITENDRA PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6278. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, Maria Veronica D. Ewald can be reached on 571-272-8519. 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.
/SUHANI JITENDRA PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 1783 /MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights