DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-8 are presented for examination, wherein claims 1 and 7 are currently amended.
The NSDP rejection of claims 7-8 over 18/037,858 is withdrawn, as a result of the terminal disclaimer electronically filed on March 18, 2026, which was approved on March 18, 2026.
The NSDP rejection of claims 1 and 5-6 over 18/037,858 in view of Kim is withdrawn, as a result of the terminal disclaimer electronically filed on March 18, 2026, which was approved on March 18, 2026.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (CN 111788724, citations to US 2021/0005877) in view of Raman et al (US 2017/0256367).
Regarding newly amended independent claim 1, Kim teaches a improved positive electrode that has high energy density based on a higher pressed density, without causing positive electrode material particles being pressed into an aluminum foil (hereinafter “electrode biting”), wherein said electrode biting may result in said aluminum foil ripping or breaking during further processing and/or particle breaking issues during cycling in a battery, wherein said positive electrode comprises e.g.
(i) a positive electrode current collector, which may be a 20 μm-thick aluminum foil; and,
(ii) coatings on both sides of said positive electrode current collector, said coatings comprising a mixture of positive electrode active material, a conductive agent, and a binder,
wherein said positive electrode active material may be in an amount of at least 90wt%; and,
wherein an example comprising positive electrode active material; Super-P and graphite, as conductive agents; and, polyvinylidene fluoride binder in a mass ratio respectively at e.g. 95/3/1/2, said coatings formed from a dispersion medium that was dried,
wherein said positive electrode active material may be a bimodal lithium transition metal oxide based powder mixture (also referred to as “compound C”) comprising a first powder (also referred to as “compound A”) and a second powder (also referred to as “compound B”),
(ii.a) said first powder (“compound A”) comprising a material A having a general formula:
Li1+aCo1−mM’mO2, with −0.05≤a≤0.05 and 0≤m≤0.05,
wherein M’ is either one or more metals of the group consisting of Al, Ca, Si, Ga, B, Ti, Mg, W, Zr, Cr and V,
said first powder having an average particle size D50 between 10 and 40 μm; and,
(ii.b) said second powder “compound B”) comprising a material B having a general formula
Li1+bN’1−bO2, with −0.03≤b≤0.10,
wherein N’=NixM”yCozEd, wherein 0.30≤x≤0.92 0.05≤y≤0.40, 0.05≤z≤0.40 and 0≤d≤0.10, with M” being either one or both of Mn or Al, and with E being a dopant different from M,”
said second powder having an average particle size D50 between 2 and 4 μm,
wherein a weight ratio of said second powder in bimodal mixture is between 15 and 60 wt %,
wherein said higher pressed density results from a particle size distribution of said bimodal lithium transition metal oxide based powder mixture (“compound C”), said second powder—having said average particle size D50 between 2 and 4 μm—fitting in pores between said first powder—having said average particle size D50 between 10 and 40 μm—to maximize volume density of said bimodal powder mixture (“compound C”) and said coating mixture
said coating mixture may have a pressed density ≥ 3.3 g/cm3, such as “at least 3.65 g/cm3;” and further noting e.g. the following teaching regarding packing density
[0052] Particles of conventional NMC positive electrode materials are usually spherical and always polycrystalline. For increasing the volumetric density, this invention provides a lithium transition metal oxide “bimodal PSD” compound—further referred to as Compound C—that can be used as positive electrode materials for lithium ion batteries, comprising a large regular spherical polycrystalline compound—further referred to as Compound A—and a small monolithic filler compound—further referred to as Compound B, within a certain weight ratio between compounds A and B. Since the particles of Compound A are spherical, there are pores among them. Theoretically, in a closed packing system of equal spherical particles, the maximum volume fraction of space occupied by the spherical particles is around 74%. The remaining 26% are pores that can be filled by smaller particles. Therefore, by using the right amount of smaller particles (Compound B) the volumetric density can be increased. Practically the volume of pores depends on the morphology of the matrix formed by Compound A. Compound B should fit well in the pores to maximize the volumetric density. As the fine particle fraction may have a very high specific surface area, it can contribute excessively to potential undesired side reactions with the electrolyte, causing a poor battery cycle life. The fine particles of the invention are more resistant against these side reactions as they have a smaller surface area. The positive electrode materials having a bimodal particle size distribution according to the invention also contribute to obtain a high pressed density, and the positive electrode material (Compound C) has a high energy density and less electrode processing issues such as particle breaking (or cracking) and electrode biting.
wherein said particle size distribution of said bimodal lithium transition metal oxide based powder mixture (“compound C”), said second powder—having said average particle size D50 between 2 and 4 μm—fitting in pores between said first powder—having said average particle size D50 between 10 and 40 μm—to maximize volume density of said bimodal powder mixture (“compound C”), and said weight ratio of said second powder in bimodal mixture is between 15 and 60 wt %, wherein said coating mixture results in said minimized electrode biting
(e.g. ¶¶ 0008-15, 26-27, 52-53, 62-72, 81, and 83, emphasis added), reading on “electrode,” said positive electrode comprising:
(1) said positive electrode current collector, which may be said 20 μm-thick aluminum foil (e.g. supra), reading on “a core;” and,
(2) said coatings on both sides of said positive electrode current collector, said coatings comprising said mixture of positive electrode active material, said conductive agent, and said binder, wherein said positive electrode active material may be in said amount of at least 90wt%; and, wherein said example comprising positive electrode active material; Super-P and graphite, as conductive agents; and, polyvinylidene fluoride binder in said mass ratio respectively at e.g. 95/3/1/2, said coatings formed from a dispersion medium that was dried (e.g. supra), wherein “stacked” is interpreted as a structure, see e.g. instant specification at e.g. ¶¶ 0016 and 52 plus e.g. Figure 1; alternatively, in the event “stacked” is interpreted a process step, said process step does not patentably distinguish the instant invention from the art, see e.g. MPEP § 2113, see also e.g. instant specification at e.g. ¶¶ 0016 and 52 plus e.g. Figure 1, reading on “an electrode mixture stacked on a surface of the core,” wherein “the electrode mixture includes an active material, a conductive agent, and a … binder,”
said coating mixture may have said pressed density ≥ 3.3 g/cm3, such as “at least 3.65 g/cm3;” and further noting e.g. the following teaching regarding packing density
[0052] Particles of conventional NMC positive electrode materials are usually spherical and always polycrystalline. For increasing the volumetric density, this invention provides a lithium transition metal oxide “bimodal PSD” compound—further referred to as Compound C—that can be used as positive electrode materials for lithium ion batteries, comprising a large regular spherical polycrystalline compound—further referred to as Compound A—and a small monolithic filler compound—further referred to as Compound B, within a certain weight ratio between compounds A and B. Since the particles of Compound A are spherical, there are pores among them. Theoretically, in a closed packing system of equal spherical particles, the maximum volume fraction of space occupied by the spherical particles is around 74%. The remaining 26% are pores that can be filled by smaller particles. Therefore, by using the right amount of smaller particles (Compound B) the volumetric density can be increased. Practically the volume of pores depends on the morphology of the matrix formed by Compound A. Compound B should fit well in the pores to maximize the volumetric density. As the fine particle fraction may have a very high specific surface area, it can contribute excessively to potential undesired side reactions with the electrolyte, causing a poor battery cycle life. The fine particles of the invention are more resistant against these side reactions as they have a smaller surface area. The positive electrode materials having a bimodal particle size distribution according to the invention also contribute to obtain a high pressed density, and the positive electrode material (Compound C) has a high energy density and less electrode processing issues such as particle breaking (or cracking) and electrode biting.
(e.g. supra, emphasis added), establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed range, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on “a proportion of a density of the active material in the electrode mixture to a true density of the active material is greater than or equal to 72%;” and/or, Kim teaches a substantially identical positive electrode coating mixture (e.g. supra, compared with instant specification, at e.g. ¶¶ 0006, 19, 35, and 44), establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed limitation, see also e.g. MPEP § 2112.01.
Kim teaches said positive electrode current collector, which may be said 20 μm-thick aluminum foil; and,
further teaches said coatings on both sides of said positive electrode current collector, said coatings comprising said mixture including said bimodal lithium transition metal oxide based powder mixture (“compound C”) comprising said first powder (“compound A”) and said second powder (“compound B”),
wherein said first powder having an average particle size D50 between 10 and 40 μm; said second powder having an average particle size D50 between 2 and 4 μm; and, said weight ratio of said second powder in bimodal mixture is between 15 and 60 wt %,
wherein said particle size distribution of said bimodal lithium transition metal oxide based powder mixture (“compound C”), said second powder—having said average particle size D50 between 2 and 4 μm—fitting in pores between said first powder—having said average particle size D50 between 10 and 40 μm—to maximize volume density of said bimodal powder mixture (“compound C”), and said weight ratio of said second powder in bimodal mixture is between 15 and 60 wt %, wherein said coating mixture results in said minimized electrode biting (e.g. supra), said teaching of said
improved positive electrode that has high energy density based on a higher pressed density, without causing positive electrode material particles being pressed into an aluminum foil (“electrode biting”), sufficiently close to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of the newly amended claimed range, see e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on the newly amended limitation “a maximum embedded depth of the active material into the core is greater than or equal to 1% and less than or equal to 18% of a thickness of the core,” see also the instant specification, some relevant portions reproduced below for ease of reference.
SUMMARY…[0006] An electrode according to an aspect of the present disclosure includes: a core; and an electrode mixture stacked on a surface of the core. The electrode mixture includes an active material, a conductive agent, and a fibrous binder, a proportion of a density of the electrode mixture to a true density of the active material is greater than or equal to 72%, and a maximum embedded depth of the active material into the core is less than or equal to 18% of a thickness of the core.
…[0033] A maximum embedded percentage (P/T) defined as a proportion of a maximum embedded depth P of the active material 14 into the core 11 to the thickness T of the core 11 is less than or equal to 18%. P/T is preferably less than or equal to 15%, more preferably less than or equal to 10%, and particularly preferably less than or equal to 8%. This may improve the adhesiveness between the electrode mixture 12 and the core 11 with keeping the strength of the core 11. P/T is preferably greater than or equal to 1%, more preferably greater than or equal to 3%, and particularly preferably greater than or equal to 5%.
(Instant specification, at e.g. ¶¶ 0006 and 33, emphasis added); and/or, Kim teaches a substantially identical positive electrode (e.g. supra, compared with instant specification, at e.g. ¶¶ 0017-18, 20-28, 30, 33, and 52-59), establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of said limitation, see also e.g. MPEP § 2112.01.
Kim teaches said improved positive electrode that has high energy density based on said higher pressed density, without electrode biting, wherein said positive electrode comprises said coating mixture comprising said positive electrode active material, said conductive agent, and said binder, wherein said positive electrode active material may be in said amount of at least 90wt% (e.g. supra), but does not expressly teach said binder being a “fibrous binder.”
However, Raman teaches a positive electrode with an improved electrode film that includes super-fibrillized binder particles that improve electrical and/or mechanical performance to said electrode film (e.g. ¶¶ 0022-28).
As a result, it would have been obvious to substitute the super-fibrillized binder particles of Raman for the binder of Kim, since Raman teaches said super-fibrillized binder particle improve electrical and/or mechanical performance of an electrode film, reading on said limitation, see also instant specification, at e.g. ¶ 0025.
Regarding claims 2-3, Kim as modified teaches the positive electrode of claim 1, wherein Kim teaches said positive electrode active material may be said bimodal lithium transition metal oxide based powder mixture comprising said first powder and said second powder, wherein said first powder having said average particle size D50 between 10 and 40 μm; and, said second powder having said average particle size D50 between 2 and 4 μm; and, wherein said weight ratio of said second powder in bimodal mixture is between 15 and 60 wt % (e.g. supra),
said taught first powder (D50: 10-40µm) corresponding with the claimed “second active material;” and,
said taught second powder (D50: 2-4µm) corresponding with the claimed “first active material”
severably establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed ranges, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on “ the active material includes a first active material and a second active material, the first active material has an average particle diameter within a range of greater than or equal to 3 µm and less than or equal to 7 µm, and the second active material has an average particle diameter within a range of greater than or equal to 10 µm and less than or equal to 34 µm” (claim 2); and, “a mixing ratio between the first active material and the second active material is within a range of greater than or equal to 10:90 and less than or equal to 30:70 in terms of mass ratio” (claim 3).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2021/0005877) in view of Raman et al (US 2017/0256367), as provided supra, and further in view of Hara et al (US 2015/0280241).
Regarding claim 6, Kim as modified teaches the positive electrode of claim 1, wherein Kim teaches said positive electrode current collector, which may be a 20 μm-thick aluminum foil, and said coatings on both sides of said positive electrode current collector (e.g. supra), but does not expressly teach the limitation “further including an adhesive layer between the core and the electrode mixture, the adhesive layer containing a binder and a conductive agent, wherein a content rate of the conductive agent in the adhesive layer is greater than or equal to 40 mass% and less than or equal to 80 mass%.”
However, Hara teaches a current collector (e.g. item 108) comprising a conductive layer (e.g. item 104) formed on at least one side of a metal foil (e.g. item 102), which may be an aluminum foil with a thickness of e.g. 5-50 µm, wherein said conductive layer improves safety against internal short-circuit and internal heat generation, wherein said conductive layer comprises a conductive filler (e.g. item 110) and an insulating binder (e.g. item 112), a “preferable ratio of the conductive filler 110 contained in the conductive layer 104 is generally 0.01 to 0.9” (e.g. ¶¶ 0010-18, 21-32, 37-38, and 50-51).
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the conductive layer of Hara on both surfaces of said aluminum alloy foil positive electrode current collector of Kim, since Hara teaches its conductive layer improves safety against internal short-circuit and/or internal heat generation, reading on “further including an adhesive layer between the core and the electrode mixture, the adhesive layer containing a binder and a conductive agent,” wherein in the ratio of said conduction filler to the conductive layer is generally 0.01 to 0.9, the units may be interpreted to be measured by mass and/or the density of said conduction filler and said conductive layer may be estimated to be about equal, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed range, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on “a content rate of the conductive agent in the adhesive layer is greater than or equal to 40 mass% and less than or equal to 80 mass%.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 4 is allowable since the art does not teach the claimed limitation of claim 4 in combination with those of independent claim 1 and intervening claim 2.
Claim 5 is allowable since the art does not teach the claimed limitation of claim 5 in combination with those of independent claim 1.
None of the timely art of record teaches the limitations of claims 7-8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed March 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, the applicant alleges the following.
The Applicant respectfully submits that the combination of Kim and Raman does not teach, suggest, or render obvious at least, for example, the features of “a maximum embedded depth of the active material into the core is greater than or equal to 1 % and less than or equal to 18% of a thickness of the core,” as recited in amended independent claim 1.
It was alleged in the Office Action that:
reading on the limitation “a maximum embedded depth of the active material into the core is less than or equal to 18% of a thickness of the core;” and/or, Kim teaches a substantially identical positive electrode
See Office Action at page 11 (emphasis added).
Kim describes “[a] suitable positive electrode material should be able to be compacted into high density electrodes already at low pressure - without electrode biting occurring.” See Kim at [0008].
Kim describes prevention of occurrence of electrode biting. However, Kim nowhere describes that a maximum embedded depth of an active material into a core is greater than or equal to 1 % and less than or equal to 18% of thickness of the core.
Therefore, the Applicant respectfully submits that Kim teaches away from the feature “a maximum embedded depth of the active material into the core is greater than or equal to 1% and less than or equal to 18% of a thickness of the core,” as recited in amended independent claim 1.
Further, those skilled in the art could not have easily conceived the present invention according to amended independent claim 1 based on the combination of Kim and Raman.
Accordingly, amended independent claim 1 is not taught, suggested, or rendered obvious over the combination of Kim and Raman.
(Remarks, at e.g. 5:8-6:7.)
In response, the examiner respectfully refers supra.
Second, the applicant alleges the following.
The Applicant respectfully submits that dependent claims 2 and 3 are not taught, suggested, or rendered obvious over the references cited in the Office Action based at least on the dependence on amended independent claim 1. Further, each of dependent claims 2 and 3 separately recites subject matter not described or suggested by the cited references, whether taken individually or in combination. At least for these reasons, claims 2 and 3 are believed to be patentable.
(Remarks, at e.g. 6:8-7:1.)
In response, the examiner respectfully refers supra.
Third, the applicant alleges the following.
Hara does not remedy the above-noted deficiencies of Kim and Raman. The Applicant respectfully submits that dependent claim 6 is not taught, suggested or rendered obvious over the references cited in the Office Action based at least on the dependence on amended independent claim 1. Further, dependent claim 6 recites subject matter not described or suggested by any of the cited references, whether taken individually or in combination. At least for these reasons, claim 6 is believed to be patentable.
(Remarks, at e.g. 7:2.)
In response, the examiner respectfully refers supra.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shin et al (US 2021/0249657);
Matsushita (US 2019/0245210);
Wei et al (CN 102629681, IDS); and,
Suzuki et al (US 2005/0241137).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOSHITOSHI TAKEUCHI whose telephone number is (571)270-5828. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-4.
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, TIFFANY LEGETTE-THOMPSON can be reached at (571)270-7078. 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.
/YOSHITOSHI TAKEUCHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723