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
Claim 1 is amended. Claims 2-9 & 14-20 are canceled. Claims 1 & 10-13 are currently pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/05/2025 has been entered
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1 & 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2023/0261178 A1) in view of Ma (US 2022/0102724 A1) and Ho (US 2023/0187639 A1).
Regarding claims 1 & 10-13, Wang teaches a lithium-ion power battery comprising a positive electrode plate comprising a ternary positive active material such as NCM811 (i.e LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2), NCM622 or NCM333 (or equivalently NCM111) ; a negative electrode plate comprising a negative active material such as graphite or silicon-based material; a separator and an electrolyte, wherein a median particle size D50 of the positive active material is 2 microns to 10 microns; the compacted density, PD, of the positive electrode plate in a specific embodiment is 3.4 g/cm3; and the density, CW, of the electrode layer in the positive electrode plate in a specific embodiment is 19.5 mg/cm2 (Table 1: Examples 26-30; [0075], [0083], [0096]-[0126], [0137]-[0138] & [0152]). However, Wang is silent as to a CW amount ranging from 16 mg/cm2 to 17 mg/cm2 and a PD amount of 3.5 g/cm3. Ma teaches a lithium-ion battery comprising a positive electrode plate comprising a layered lithium transition metal oxide such as NCM, wherein a CW amount ranges from 14 mg/cm2 to 20 mg/cm2 and a PD value ranging from 3.3 g/cm3 to 3.5 g/cm3 ([0019]-[0033] & [0039]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to optimize the CW value within a range of 14 mg/cm2 to 20 mg/cm2 and the PD value within a range of 3.3 g/cm3 to 3.5 g/cm3, as result effective variable, which affect the energy density of the battery as taught by Ma ([0039]). While Wang is silent as to the solid phase diffusion coefficient of lithium ions in the positive electrode plate, Ds, it is noted that Wang’s NCM333 and NCM622 positive active materials are the same as the ones claimed where the median particle sizes D50 of 10 microns is encompassed in Wang and further wherein the claimed range of CW and value of PD are rendered obvious over the teachings of Ma. Accordingly, Wang’s modified positive electrode plate would be expected to similarly possess the claimed property (i.e solid phase diffusion coefficient of lithium ions in the positive electrode plate, Ds, of 10-10 cm2/S to 10-13 cm2/S). Since each of D50, CW and PD in modified Wang read on the claimed ranges and value of PD recited in claim 1 and are furthermore substantially identical to the values used in examples embodiments (i.e Examples 5-6) of the present invention, Wang’s modified positive electrode plate would be expected to satisfy the claimed relationship 1.02 < (ln Ds)2 / (D50 x CW x PD) < 1.61. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”. See MPEP 2112.01 I. Should it be taken that the areal density of Wang which was equated to the claimed surface density, CW, does not constitute a surface density of the positive electrode plate, it would have nevertheless been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to set a surface density of the positive electrode plate to a range of 10 mg/cm2 to 30 mg/cm2 as a suitable range for the same intended purpose (i.e surface density of a positive electrode plate) in view of Ho ([0014] & [0184]). See MPEP 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to Applicant’s arguments that Wang as modified by Ma and Ho does not fairly teach or suggest 1) the positive active material is NCM111 or NCM622 and 2) Ds is in a range from 3x10-12 cm2/S to 5.5x10-10 cm2/S, D50 is 10 microns, CW is 17 mg/cm2, and PD is 3.5 g/cc, the examiner respectfully disagrees. However, contrary to Applicant’s assertions, Wang uses NCM811 in exemplary embodiments as applicant correctly notes but also disclose NCM333 (or NCM111) and NCM622 as suitable active materials ([0075]). Wang also discloses a D50 which, in some embodiments, ranges from 2 microns to 10 microns and thus encompasses the claimed value of 10 microns. With regards to the claimed values of CW and PD, it is noted that such amounts are rendered obvious over the teachings of Ma. As noted in the above rejection, when the CW value is within a range of 14 mg/cm2 to 20 mg/cm2 and when the PD value is within a range of 3.3 g/cm3 to 3.5 g/cm3, the energy density of the battery can be improved as taught by Ma ([0039]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the CW and PD in Wang, as result effective variables, in view of optimizing the energy density. As to Applicant’s arguments regarding criticality of the claimed features which result in no lithium precipitation, it is noted that Applicant’s improved results of no lithium precipitation can be achieved by through various combination of the active material and values for D50, PD and CW employed as evidenced by Table 1 of the instant specification. Thus, Applicant’s argument of criticality of the claimed features is not found to be persuasive since the same unexpected results (i.e no lithium precipitation) can be achieved with other values of CW and PD.
Thus, in view of the foregoing, claims 1 & 10-13 stand rejected.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANAEL T ZEMUI whose telephone number is (571)272-4894. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm (EST).
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, BARBARA GILLIAM can be reached on (571)272-1330. 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.
/NATHANAEL T ZEMUI/Examiner, Art Unit 1727