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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “in Formula 1 above” in Line 7 should read “in the Formula 1 above”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “at least one selected from” in Line 9 should read “at least one element selected from”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “in Formula 2 above” in Line 6 should read “in the Formula 2 above”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “at least one selected from” in Line 8 should read “at least one element selected from”. 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.
Claims 1-10 are 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.
Claims 1, 2, and 5 recite the limitation "a crystalline size" in Line 4, Line 2, and Line 3, respectively. There appears to be inherent antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims (i.e. the first positive electrode material has only one crystalline size) as the specification at [0057] and [0076] appears to suggest such. Therefore the claim is rendered indefinite as it is unclear if its scope embraces multiple crystalline sizes for the first positive electrode active material since the claim has open-ended language “including” at line 2 and “has” at line 4. For the purpose of this Office action, Claim 1 has been interpreted as “wherein the crystalline size of the first positive electrode active material is 150 nm or more”, Claim 2 has been interpreted as “the crystalline size of the first positive electrode active material is 150 nm to 200 nm”, and Claim 5 has been interpreted as “wherein the crystalline size of the second positive electrode active material is 90 nm to 160 nm”.
Claims 3 and 4 recite the limitation “an average particle diameter” in Line 2 and Line 3, respectively. There appears to be inherent antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims (i.e. the first and second positive electrode materials have only one average particle diameter each) as the specification at [0059] and [0063] appears to suggest such. Therefore the claims are rendered indefinite as it is unclear if their scope embraces multiple average particle diameters for the first and second positive electrode active materials since the claims have the open-ended language “has” at line 2 of Claim 3 and “having” of line 3 of Claim 4. For the purpose of this Office action, Claim 3 has been interpreted as “wherein the average particle diameter D50 of the first positive electrode active material is 10 µm to 20 µm” and Claim 4 has been interpreted as “the average particle diameter D50 of the second positive electrode active material is 1 µm to 8 µm.”
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a specific surface area” in Line 2. There appears to be inherent antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (i.e. the single walled carbon nanotubes have only one specific surface area) as the specification at [0087] appears to suggest such. Therefore the claim is rendered indefinite as it is unclear if its scope embraces multiple specific surface areas for the single-walled carbon nanotubes since the claim has open-ended language “have” at line 2. For the purpose of this Office action, Claim 7 has been interpreted as “wherein the specific surface area for the single-walled carbon nanotubes is 700 m2/g to 1,500 m2/g.”
Claim 9 recites the limitation “an amount” in Line 2. There appears to be ambiguous antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether “an amount” refers to the total amount of the carbon nanotubes added or any part of said amount. The specification at [0089] appears to suggest the amount of single-walled carbon nanotubes is the total amount of single-walled carbon nanotubes. Therefore the claim is rendered indefinite as it is unclear if its scope embraces multiple amounts of the single-walled carbon nanotubes since the claim has open-ended language “included” at line 2. For the purpose of this Office action, Claim 9 has been interpreted as “wherein the total amount of the single-walled carbon nanotubes is 0.01 wt% to 2 wt%”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “a total weight” in Lines 2-3. There appears to be ambiguous antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear how “a total weight” is different from “the total weight”. For the purpose of this Office action, “a total weight” has been interpreted to mean “the total weight”.
Additionally, dependent Claim 6 is rejected as a result of its dependence on indefinite Claim 4, as it includes all the limitations of Claim 4, and as it does not resolve the issues identified in the rejections set forth above.
Additionally, dependent Claims 8 and 10 are rejected as a result of their dependence on indefinite Claim 1, as they include all the limitations of Claim 1 and as they do not resolve the issues identified in the rejections set forth above.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du (CN 111384372A, see machine translation for citation purposes) in view of Park (KR 20180144888A, see machine translation for citation purposes) and in further view of Kim (KR 20190117387A, see machine translation for citation purposes).
Regarding Claim 1, Du discloses a positive electrode (see [0068]/L1) for a lithium secondary battery (see “lithium-ion battery”, [0068]/L1) comprising a positive electrode active material layer (see “positive active material layer”, [0069]/L2-3) including a first positive electrode active material (see lithium nickel transition metal oxide A, [0030]) represented by Formula 1 below
[Formula 1] Lix1[Nia1Cob1M1c1M2d1]O2wherein, in Formula 1 above,M¹ is Mn, Al, or a combination thereof, M² is at least one selected from the group consisting of Zr, B, W, Mg, Ce, Hf, Ta, La, Ti, Sr, Ba, F, P, and S, and0.9<x1<1.1, 0.8<a1<1, 0<b1<0.2, 0<c1<0.2, 0<d1<0.1 (see [0082], lithium transition metal oxide A, LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2).
Du further discloses a conductive agent including carbon nanotubes (see [0069]/L3-4, [0070]/L1-3) and a binder (see [0069]/L3).
Du does not disclose wherein the crystalline size of the first positive electrode active material is 150 nm or more.
Park discloses a positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery comprising a positive electrode active material layer (see [0025]) including a first positive electrode active material represented by Formula 1 (see [0031-34], Lia(Ni)x MnyCozAwO2+b where a is one or more of the elements W, V, Cr, Nb and Mo, and 0.95≤a≤1.2, 0≤b≤0.02, 0<x<1, 0<y≤0.4, 0<z<1, 0≤w<0.2, x+y+z+w=1, which overlaps in range of Formula 1), a conductive agent and a binder (see [0156]).
Park additionally discloses that the crystalline size of the first positive electrode active material is 150 nm or more (see [0040], “180-400 nm” and “180-250 nm”). Park further discloses that when the crystalline size is within the disclosed range, this results in more excellent capacity characteristics and that when the crystalline size is less than 180 nm, it is difficult for the primary particles to have a perfect shape as a single particle, and as a result, the interface area between the positive electrode active material and the electrolyte is large, and there is a concern that the contact between the primary particles may be lost due to a change in volume during charging and discharging (see [0042]/L1-8) and when the crystalline size is greater than 400 nm, the resistance is excessively increased, and thus the capacity may be reduced (see [0042]/L8-10).
Du and Park are analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the field of positive active materials for lithium secondary batteries. It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the first positive active material of Du to have the crystalline size being 180-400 nm or 180-250 nm, which are both within the claimed range of 150 nm or more, as taught by Park for the purpose of avoiding the issues of it being difficult for the primary particles to have a perfect shape as a single particle, resulting in the interface area between the positive electrode active material and the electrolyte being large, and a concern that the contact between the primary particles may be lost due to a change in volume during charging and discharging, as well as the resistance being excessively increased, and thus the capacity being reduced.
Further, Du does not specify that the carbon nanotubes disclosed in [0070], as set forth above, are single walled nanotubes.
Kim teaches a positive electrode (see [0101]/L3) for a lithium secondary battery (see [0181]/L8-9) comprising a positive active material layer (see [0101/L7-9]) including a first positive electrode active material represented by Formula 1 (see [0036], Lithium-nickel-manganese oxides (e.g., LiNi)1-y1Mny1O2 (here, 0<y1<1), which overlaps in range with Formula 1).
Kim further teaches (see [0043]/L18-25) that the first positive electrode active material includes a conductive agent including single-walled carbon nanotubes and stated that multi-walled nanotubes have high structural defects, are more easily cleaved during the dispersion process, are more likely to aggregate with each other, and are difficult to uniformly disperse in the electrode slurry.
Du and Kim are analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the field of positive active materials for lithium secondary batteries. It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the nanotubes disclosed by Du with single-walled nanotubes, as taught by Kim, for the purpose of avoiding the issues of multi-walled carbon nanotubes, such as high structural defects, being more easily cleaved during the dispersion process, being more likely to aggregate with each other, and being difficult to uniformly disperse in the electrode slurry.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Du discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Du further discloses that the crystalline size of the first positive electrode active material is 180 nm to 250 nm (see Park, [0040]) which overlaps the claimed range of 150 nm to 200 nm. Further, Park teaches that when the crystalline size of the first positive electrode active material falls within this range, it leads to avoiding the issues of it being difficult for the primary particles to have a perfect shape as a single particle, resulting in the interface area between the positive electrode active material and the electrolyte being large, and a concern that the contact between the primary particles may be lost due to a change in volume during charging and discharging, as well as the resistance being excessively increased, and thus the capacity being reduced.
Note that when claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.01.I).
Thus, while modified Du does not explicitly disclose the claimed range of 150 nm to 200 nm, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the overlapping portions of the ranges for the crystalline size of the first positive electrode active material within the positive electrode active material layer with the reasonable expectation that such a selection would successfully result in a positive electrode active material avoiding the issues of it being difficult for the primary particles to have a perfect shape as a single particle, resulting in the interface area between the positive electrode active material and the electrolyte being large, and a concern that the contact between the primary particles may be lost due to a change in volume during charging and discharging, as well as the resistance being excessively increased, and thus the capacity being reduced.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Du discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Du further discloses wherein the average particle diameter D50 of the first positive electrode active material is 10 µm to 20 µm (see [0048]/L2 for example ranges, “10 µm to 12 µm, 12 µm to 15 µm”).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Du discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Du further discloses that the positive electrode active material layer further includes a second positive electrode active material (see [0030]/L3-4], “lithium nickel transition metal oxide B”) wherein the average particle diameter D50 of the second positive electrode active material is 1 µm to 8 µm (see [0051]/L2, “1 µm to 7 µm”).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Du discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Du further discloses the second positive electrode active material (lithium nickel transition metal oxide B, see [0030]/L3-4) represented by Formula 2 below
[Formula 2] Lix2[Nia2Cob2M3c2M4d2]O2wherein, in Formula 2, M3 is Mn, Al, or a combination thereof, M4 is at least one selected from the group consisting of Zr, B, W, Mg, Ce, Hf, Ta, La, Ti, Sr, Ba, F,P, and S, and0.9<x2<1.1, 0.6<a2<0.9, 0<b2<0.4, 0<c2<0.4, 0<d2<0.1 (see [0085], lithium transition metal oxide B (LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2).
Du further discloses that the crystalline size in the mixture of the first and second positive active materials, is, for example, in the range of 100 nm - 150 nm or 150 nm - 200 nm in order to balance well-utilized capacity, small cycling polarization, and fewer side reactions with the electrolyte ([0038]), which lies within the claimed range of 90 nm to 160 nm. The examiner notes that, because the acceptable crystalline size taught is in the context of a mixture of the first and second positive active materials, the effects gleamed by Du for such apply to each of the first and second positive active materials independently as well as in combination.
Du further discloses that the second positive electrode active material is small and single-crystalline, with the added benefit that controlling crystallinity and particle size of a mixed cathode active material reduces particle breakage, increases the powder compaction density, and improves cycle performance (see [0017]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected, for example, 100 nm – 150 nm for the crystalline size of the second positive electrode active material of modified Du in order to arrive at a desired balance between well-utilized capacity, small cycling polarization, and fewer side reactions with the electrolyte, while also ensuring reduced particle breakage, increased powder compaction density, and improved cycle performance as taught by Du.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Du discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Du further discloses that the first positive electrode active material and the second positive electrode active material are included at a mass ratio of 10:1 to 1:1 which is within the scope of the claimed range of 50:50 to 95:5 ([0065]/L6-7).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Du discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Du further discloses the specific surface area of the single-walled carbon nanotubes is 500 m2/g to 1,000 m2/g (see Kim, [0047]/L1-2) which overlaps the claimed range of 700 m2/g to 1,500 m2/g. Further, Kim teaches that when the specific surface area falls within this range, the conductive path can be smoothly secured by a wide specific surface area, which can maximize conductivity of the electrode (see Kim, [0047]/L3-6).
Note that when claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.01.I).
Thus, while modified Du does not explicitly disclose the claimed range of 700 m2/g to 1,500 m2/g, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the overlapping portions of the ranges for the specific surface area of the single-walled nanotubes with the reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in a single-walled nanotube with suitable surface area that makes the conductive path smoothly secured by a wide specific surface area, which can maximize conductivity of the electrode.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Du discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Du further discloses that the conductive agent further includes carbon black and carbon fiber, VGCF ([0070]/L2-4) which is within the scope of the claimed list of conductive agents.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Du discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Du further discloses wherein the total amount of the conductive agent, which includes carbon nanotubes, is 1.0 wt% to 5.0 wt% based on the total weight of the positive electrode active material, but does not appear to be specifically tied to such range as Du does not explicitly discourage other amounts (Du: [0070]) which overlaps the claimed range of 0.01 wt% to 2 wt% based on the total weight of the positive electrode active material layer. Thus, as the single-walled carbon nanotubes of modified Du are utilized as, at least, a part of the conductive agent of Du as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges with a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Additionally, Kim further teaches that the total amount of the single-walled carbon nanotubes is 0.01 wt% to 0.5 wt% (see [0050]/L1-2) as if the total weight percent falls within this range, the conductive path can be secured and the lifespan characteristics of the battery are improved while maintaining a low level of electrode resistance (see Kim, [0050]/L3-5). Note that when claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.01.I). As Du does not teach away from using a conductive agent less than 1 wt%, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the taught ranges and/or encompassing/overlapping portions of the ranges for the total weight percent of the single-walled nanotubes, taught by Kim, within the positive electrode active material layer, disclosed by Du, with the reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in a positive electrode active material layer with single-walled nanotube including suitable total weight precent that secures the conductive path and improves the lifespan characteristics of the battery while maintaining a low level of electrode resistance.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Du discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Du further discloses a lithium secondary battery (see “lithium-ion battery”, [0068]/L1-4) comprising the positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery as set forth above (see [0068]/L1-4).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENNAN M STEWART whose telephone number is (571)272-2134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/B.M.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 5/11/2026
Prosecution Insights