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 1-8 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 3 is shown as dependent on Claim 1. It is better suited to be dependent on Claim 2 due to the mention of “carbon nanotube” which is a feature of claim 2, and not claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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 the limitation "carbon nanotube" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As noted above, the first mention of “carbon nanotube” is in claim 2, not claim 1 and thus, claim 3 looks to be incorrectly dependent on claim 1. For antecedent basis purposes and consistency, it should be corrected to depend on claim 2.
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).
References of Interest
Examiner notes the following references of interest pertinent to the subject area.
Jo et al (US 20200185707 A1)
Baek et al (US 20190312259 A1)
Kawakami et al (US 20150155556 A1)
Conclusion
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