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 .
Response to Amendment and Claim Status
The amendment filed 2 March 2026 has been entered. Claim 19 has been canceled. Claims 1–18 and 20–27 are pending in the application.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0035] (P12L9): “by finding that the safety”;
[0068] and [0070]: instances of “Dmin” which should instead be written “Dmin”;
[0084]–[0087]: instances of “among all metals expect for the nickel” should instead read “among all metals except for the lithium”; note this proposed correction has basis in [0078] of the specification which discloses that the mol% of nickel is respect with the total number of moles of transition metal, i.e. all metals except for lithium;
[00144] (P51L10): “connection plate 143a” should instead read “cap plate 143a”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1–4, 7–13, 15–17, 20, 26, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2018/0248195 A1), as evidenced by Park et al. (US 2021/0344033 A1), in view of Han et al. (US 2024/0282953 A1), further in view of Shinoda et al. (US 2022/0376261 A1), and further evidenced by Findlay et al. (US 2022/0311103 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 20, Choi discloses a lithium secondary battery ([0113]) comprising:
an electrode assembly ([0114]) in which a positive electrode plate (see positive electrode 10, [0059], [0114]), a negative electrode plate (see negative electrode, [0114]), and a separator ([0114]) interposed between the positive electrode plate (10) and the negative electrode plate are present;
a battery can in which the electrode assembly is accommodated (see battery container, [0114]); and
a sealing body which seals an open end of the battery can (see sealing member, [0114]),
wherein the positive electrode plate comprises a positive electrode active material layer (see porous positive electrode active material layer 2, [0059]) that comprises a positive electrode active material (see positive electrode active material 2a, [0061], FIG. 1A and 1B), a conductive material (see first carbon nanotubes 2b, [0061], FIG. 1A), and a binder ([0082]),
the positive electrode active material comprises a lithium nickel-containing oxide ([0062]–[0063]), and
the conductive material comprises bundle-type carbon nanotubes ([0069]).
While Choi discloses as set forth above the electrode assembly accommodated in the battery can of the lithium secondary battery, Choi is silent to any specific arrangement of said electrode assembly inside the battery can as well as the shape of the battery can, and therefore does not explicitly disclose wherein the positive electrode plate, negative electrode plate, and separator interposed between the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate are wound in one direction, nor wherein the lithium secondary battery is a cylindrical secondary battery.
Park, directed to cylindrical lithium secondary batteries and their construction (Abstract, [0034], FIG. 1), evidences that it is a well-known practice in the field to wind together in one direction the components of an electrode assembly to form a jelly-roll shape ([0029] and FIG. 4, which shows a single winding direction) for accommodation in a cylindrical battery can ([0035], FIG. 1). It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to organize the lithium secondary battery of Choi such that the positive electrode plate, negative electrode plate, and separator interposed between the positive electrode plate and negative electrode plate are wound in one direction, and accommodated in a cylindrical battery can such that the lithium secondary battery is a cylindrical secondary battery, as Park evidences that this is a well-known practice in the field of lithium secondary battery construction, and doing so would amount to nothing more than use of a known design for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Modified Choi does not explicitly disclose wherein the lithium nickel-containing oxide comprises at least one of single particles or quasi-single particles.
Han teaches a lithium secondary battery ([0014]) comprising a positive electrode active material (see cathode active material, [0014]) comprising a lithium nickel-containing oxide (see lithium transition metal complex oxide, [0014], [0045]–[0051]) in the form of single particles (see one-body primary particles, [0014]). Han teaches ([0007]) that single particles are advantageous because of less possibility of cracking and reduced side reactions due to small specific surface area in contact with electrolyte.
Han and Choi are analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of lithium secondary batteries. It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lithium secondary battery of modified Choi such that the lithium nickel-containing oxide comprises single particles, as taught by Han, for the purpose of limiting the possibility of cracking and reducing side reactions due to small specific surface area in contact with electrolyte.
Modified Choi does not disclose that the conductive material comprises single-walled carbon nanotubes in addition to the bundle-type carbon nanotubes.
Shinoda teaches a lithium secondary battery (see lithium-ion secondary battery, [0120]) comprising a positive electrode plate (see positive electrode, [0120]) comprising a positive electrode active material layer (see positive electrode mixture layer, [0120]) comprising single-walled carbon nanotubes ([0028]). Shinoda teaches ([0028]) that the addition of single-walled carbon nanotubes to the positive electrode active material layer will result in a lower resistance, a decreased total amount of conductive additive such as acetylene black, and increased total amount of an active material, thus resulting in a lithium secondary battery with a high energy density.
Shinoda is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of lithium secondary batteries. It therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lithium secondary battery of modified Choi such that the conductive material further comprises single-walled carbon nanotubes, as taught by Shinoda, for the purpose of lowering the resistance of the positive electrode plate and achieving a lithium secondary battery with higher energy density.
While modified Choi discloses the cylindrical lithium secondary battery (Choi [0113] and Park [0029] and FIG. 1), modified Choi does not explicitly disclose wherein said battery has a ratio of form factor of 0.4 or more, wherein the ratio of form factor is a value obtained by dividing a diameter of the cylindrical battery by a height of the cylindrical battery (Claim 1), nor wherein the cylindrical battery is a 46110 cell, a 4875 cell, a 48110 cell, a 4880 cell, or a 4680 cell (Claim 20). Further, Choi discloses ([0127]) that the lithium secondary battery can be utilized in an electric vehicle.
Findlay, directed to lithium secondary batteries ([0002]), evidences that it is a well-known practice in the field of secondary batteries to utilize cylindrical 4680 cells in electric vehicles ([0041]); one of ordinary skill in the art will understand that such a cell has a diameter of 46 mm and a height of 80 mm, i.e. a ratio of form factor of 0.575. It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lithium secondary battery of modified Choi such that it is a cylindrical 4680 cell having a ratio of form factor of 0.575, wherein the ratio of form factor is a value obtained by dividing a diameter of the cylindrical battery by a height of the cylindrical battery, as Findlay evidences that it is a well-known practice in the field of secondary batteries to utilize cylindrical 4680 cells in electric vehicles and doing so would amount to nothing more than a use of a known battery type for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Choi discloses the lithium secondary battery as set forth above. Choi further discloses ([0077]) wherein the positive electrode active material layer comprises the bundle-type carbon nanotubes in an amount of 0.2 wt% to 2 wt%, but does not explicitly disclose the bundle-type carbon nanotubes are comprised in an amount of 0.4 wt% to 0.6 wt%.
Further, Choi teaches ([0077]) that the amount of bundle-type carbon nanotubes controls the conductivity and resistance of the positive electrode active material layer and output characteristics of the battery.
A result-effective variable is a variable which achieves a recognized result. The determination of the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable is routine experimentation and therefore obvious (MPEP § 2144.05.II). In the instant case, the amount of bundle-type carbon nanotubes comprised in the positive electrode active material layer is a variable that achieves the recognized result of controlling conductivity and resistance of the positive electrode active material layer and output characteristics of the battery, as taught by Choi, thus making the amount of bundle-type carbon nanotubes comprised in the positive electrode active material layer a result-effective variable. As such, 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 modify the amount of bundle-type carbon nanotubes comprised in the positive electrode active material layer of Choi to lie within a range of 0.4 wt% to 0.6 wt% via routine experimentation, for the purpose of achieving a positive electrode active material layer that has suitable conductivity and resistivity and a battery that has suitable output characteristics.
Regarding Claims 3 and 4, modified Choi discloses the lithium secondary battery as set forth above. Modified Choi (Shinoda [0034]) further discloses wherein the positive electrode active material layer comprises the single-walled carbon nanotubes in an amount of 0.01 wt% to 1 wt%, but does not explicitly disclose the claimed ranges of 0.001 wt% to 0.04 wt% (Claim 3) and more narrowly 0.01 wt% to 0.02 wt% (Claim 4).
Modified Choi discloses (Shinoda [0034]) that when the single-walled carbon nanotubes are in an amount of 0.01 to 1 wt%, the composition for forming the positive electrode active material layer has appropriate viscosity and is well-dispersed without applying an extremely strong shear force, and the positive electrode active material layer can have lowered resistance. When the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I), and thus 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 amount of single-walled carbon nanotubes with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in suitable dispersity of the composition utilized in preparation of the positive electrode active material layer formed with minimal shear force, and a positive electrode active material layer having lowered resistance.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Choi discloses the lithium secondary battery as set forth above. Choi does not disclose any positive electrode active material which must necessarily be present besides the lithium-nickel containing oxide set forth above (see [0062]–[0066]), and therefore it can be understood that modified Choi implicitly discloses wherein the lithium-nickel containing oxide is present in an amount of 100 wt%, on a basis of a total weight of the positive electrode active material present in the positive electrode active material layer.
Regarding Claims 8–12, modified Choi discloses the lithium secondary battery as set forth above. Modified Choi further discloses ([0067]) wherein the positive electrode active material has D50 of 3 µm to 20 µm, but does not explicitly disclose the claimed range of 5 µm or less (Claim 8).
Further, modified Choi does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the positive electrode active material has Dmin of 1.0 µm or more (Claim 9);
wherein the positive electrode active material has Dmax of 12 µm to 17 µm (Claim 10);
wherein a particle size distribution (PSD) of the positive electrode active material is represented by Equation 1 below and has a value of 3 or less:
Particle size distribution (PSD) = Dmax – Dmin / D50 [Equation 1] (Claim 11); nor
wherein the positive electrode active material has a unimodal particle size distribution that exhibits a single peak in a volume accumulated particle size distribution graph (Claim 12).
Han teaches a positive electrode active material (Example 1, [0060], [0067]) with a D50 of 4.56 µm (Table 1), Dmin of 1.50 µm (Table 1, FIG. 1), a Dmax of approximately 14.14 µm (FIG. 1 shows the curve of Example 1 having a maximum value on the x-axis, corresponding to Dmax, at a point approximately halfway between the tick marks for 10 µm and 20 µm; one of ordinary skill in the art will understand that the halfway point between two tick marks on a logarithmic-scale axis is their geometric mean; for the instant case, the geometric mean of 10 and 20 is approximately 14.14), a calculated PSD of 14.14 µm – 1.50 µm / 4.56 µm = 2.77, and a unimodal particle size distribution that exhibits a single peak in a volume accumulated particle size distribution graph (FIG. 1). Han teaches ([0074]–[0075]) that such a positive electrode active material exhibiting the above recited size properties has superior lifespan and lifespan resistance characteristics.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lithium secondary battery of modified Choi such that the positive electrode active material has a D50 of 4.56 µm, a Dmin of 1.50 µm, a Dmax of approximately 14.14 µm, a calculated PSD of 2.77, and a unimodal particle size distribution that exhibits a single peak in a volume accumulated particle size distribution graph, as taught by Han, for the purpose of achieving superior lifespan and lifespan resistance characteristics.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Choi discloses the lithium secondary battery as set forth above. Choi further discloses wherein the lithium nickel-containing oxide comprises 80 mol% or more of Ni on a basis of a total number of moles of transition metal in the lithium nickel-containing oxide (see Li(Ni0.8Mn0.1Co0.1)O2, [0063]).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Choi discloses the lithium secondary battery as set forth above. Choi further discloses ([0067]) wherein the lithium nickel-containing oxide has a primary particle diameter of 3 µm to 20 µm, but does not explicitly disclose the claimed range of 0.5 µm to 5 µm.
Choi teaches ([0067]) that when the primary particle diameter lies within the disclosed range, good dispersibility, mechanical strength, and specific surface area can be achieved. When the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I), and thus 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 primary particle diameter of the lithium nickel-containing oxide with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in good dispersibility, mechanical strength, and specific surface area.
Regarding Claim 16, modified Choi discloses the lithium secondary battery as set forth above. Choi further discloses ([0118]) wherein the negative electrode plate comprises a silicon-containing negative electrode active material.
Regarding Claim 17, modified Choi discloses the lithium secondary battery as set forth above. Choi further discloses ([0118]) wherein the negative electrode plate comprises a silicon-containing negative electrode active material and a carbon-containing negative electrode active material.
Regarding Claim 26, modified Choi discloses the lithium secondary battery as set forth above. Choi further discloses ([0128]) a battery pack comprising the lithium secondary battery of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 27, modified Choi discloses the battery pack as set forth above. Choi further discloses ([0129]) an automobile comprising the battery pack of Claim 26.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2018/0248195 A1), as evidenced by Park et al. (US 2021/0344033 A1), in view of Han et al. (US 2024/0282953 A1), further in view of Shinoda et al. (US 2022/0376261 A1), and further evidenced by Findlay et al. (US 2022/0311103 A1) as applied to Claims 1–4, 7–13, 15–17, 20, 26, and 27 above, further in view of Mun et al. (WO 2023/080366 A1; see attached machine translation) and further in view of Chen (US 2023/0282835 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Choi discloses the lithium secondary battery as set forth above. Modified Choi further discloses (Shinoda [0032]) wherein the single-walled carbon nanotubes have an average grain size (one of ordinary skill will understand “grain size” in this context is analogous to the disclosed “length”) of 1 to 10 µm, but does not explicitly disclose the claimed range of 2 to 8 µm.
Mun teaches a lithium secondary battery ([0045]) comprising a positive electrode plate (see positive electrode, [0045]) comprising single-walled carbon nanotubes ([0022]). Mun teaches ([0029]) that the average grain size (one of ordinary skill will understand “grain size” in this context is analogous to a disclosed “dispersion particle size”) of single-walled carbon nanotubes affects their ability to evenly cover the entire surface of a positive electrode active material (thus affecting the contact resistance) and the dispersion stability of the slurry composition utilized in the preparation of the positive electrode active material layer. Note that Mun is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of lithium secondary batteries.
A result-effective variable is a variable which achieves a recognized result. The determination of the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable is routine experimentation and therefore obvious (MPEP § 2144.05.II). In the instant case, the grain size of the single-walled carbon nanotubes is a variable that achieves the recognized result of affecting the ability of the single-walled carbon nanotubes to evenly cover the entire surface of a positive electrode active material (thus affecting the contact resistance) and the dispersion stability of the slurry composition utilized in the preparation of the positive electrode active material layer, as taught by Mun, thus making the grain size of the single-walled carbon nanotubes a result-effective variable. It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the grain size of the single-walled carbon nanotubes of modified Choi to lie within a range of 2 to 8 µm via routine experimentation, for the purpose of achieving single-walled carbon nanotubes which evenly cover an entire surface of a positive electrode active material, lowering the contact resistance, and provide the slurry composition utilized in the preparation of the positive electrode active material layer with a suitable dispersion stability.
Modified Choi further discloses (Choi [0072]) wherein the bundle-type carbon nanotubes have an average grain size of 3 µm to 10 µm, but does not explicitly disclose the claimed range of 0.5 µm to 5 µm.
Chen teaches a lithium secondary battery (see secondary battery, [0004]) comprising a positive electrode plate ([0043]) comprising a positive electrode active material layer ([0043]) comprising bundle-type carbon nanotubes (see carbon nanotube bundles, [0043]). Chen teaches ([0052]–[0053], [0061]) that when the average grain size (one of ordinary skill will understand “grain size” in this context is analogous to a disclosed “length”) of the bundle-type carbon nanotubes is 2 µm to 5 µm and suitable tube diameter and length-to-diameter ratios are also met, it becomes possible to achieve superior overall performance such as a low direct-current resistance, good rate performance, good low-temperature performance, and long cycle life.
Chen is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of lithium secondary batteries. It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lithium secondary battery of modified Choi such that the bundle-type carbon nanotubes have an average grain size of 2 µm to 5 µm, as taught by Chen, for the purpose of achieving superior overall performance such as a low direct-current resistance, good rate performance, good low-temperature performance, and long cycle life.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2018/0248195 A1), as evidenced by Park et al. (US 2021/0344033 A1), in view of Han et al. (US 2024/0282953 A1), further in view of Shinoda et al. (US 2022/0376261 A1), and further evidenced by Findlay et al. (US 2022/0311103 A1) as applied to Claims 1–4, 7–13, 15–17, 20, 26, and 27 above, further in view of Tsuchida et al. (US 2014/0287324 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Choi discloses the lithium secondary battery as set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein a maximum distance between particles of the positive electrode active material inside the positive electrode active material layer is 2 µm or more.
Tsuchida teaches a lithium secondary battery (see all solid state battery, [0033]) comprising a positive electrode plate (see cathode layer, [0042]) comprising a positive electrode active material (see cathode active material particle, [0033]) comprising a lithium nickel-containing oxide (see LixMyOz, [0068]). Tsuchida teaches that increasing the distance between particles of positive electrode active material increases lithium ion conductivity but decreases the packing density of the positive electrode active material and the discharge capacity of the lithium secondary battery. Note that Tsuchida is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of lithium secondary batteries.
A result-effective variable is a variable which achieves a recognized result. The determination of the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable is routine experimentation and therefore obvious (MPEP § 2144.05.II). In the instant case, the distance between particles is a variable that achieves the recognized result of affecting lithium ion conductivity, packing density of the positive electrode active material, and discharge capacity of the lithium secondary battery, as taught by Tsuchida, thus making the distance between particles a result-effective variable. Therefore, 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 modify the lithium secondary battery of modified Choi such that the maximum distance between particles of the positive electrode active material inside the positive electrode active material layer is 2 µm or more via routine experimentation, for the purpose of achieving suitable lithium ion conductivity, packing density of the positive electrode active material, and discharge capacity of the lithium secondary battery.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2018/0248195 A1), as evidenced by Park et al. (US 2021/0344033 A1), in view of Han et al. (US 2024/0282953 A1), further in view of Shinoda et al. (US 2022/0376261 A1), and further evidenced by Findlay et al. (US 2022/0311103 A1) as applied to Claims 1–4, 7–13, 15–17, 20, 26, and 27 above, further in view of Saito et al. (US 2023/0238525 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Choi discloses the lithium secondary battery as set forth above. Choi further discloses ([0063]) wherein the lithium nickel-containing oxide has a composition represented by:
Lia(NibCocM1d)O2
where M1 is Mn, a = 1, 0 < b < 1, 0 < c < 1, 0 < d < 1, and b + c + d = 1, which overlaps in scope with the claimed Chemical Formula 1 below:
LiaNibCocM1dM2eO2 [Chemical Formula 1]
where, in Chemical Formula 1, M1 is Mn, Al, or a combination thereof, M2 is Zr, W, Ti, Mg, Ca, Sr, and Ba, 0.8 ≤ a ≤ 1.2, 0.83 ≤ b < 1, 0 < c < 0.17, 0 < d < 0.17, and 0 ≤ e ≤ 0.1.
Furthermore, Saito teaches a lithium secondary battery (see non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery 10, [0015], FIG. 1) comprising a positive electrode plate (see positive electrode 11, [0015], FIG. 1) comprising a positive electrode active material layer (see positive electrode mixture layer, [0023]) comprising a positive electrode active material (see positive electrode active material, [0023]) comprising a lithium nickel-containing oxide (see lithium transition metal composite oxide, [0025]–[0026]) comprising single particles (see single particles 30A, [0025], FIG. 2). Saito teaches that when the lithium nickel-containing oxide comprises 85 mol% or more of Ni on the basis of a total number of moles of transition metal, the battery capacity can be increased.
Saito is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of lithium secondary batteries. It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lithium secondary battery of modified Choi such that the lithium nickel-containing oxide comprises 85 mol% or more of Ni on the basis of a total number of moles of transition metal, as taught by Saito, with the result that the composition is represented by Lia(NibCocM1d)O2 where M1 is Mn, a = 1, 0.85 ≤ b < 1, 0.15 < c < 1, 0 < d < 0.15, and b + c + d = 1, for the purpose of increasing the battery capacity.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2018/0248195 A1), as evidenced by Park et al. (US 2021/0344033 A1), in view of Han et al. (US 2024/0282953 A1), further in view of Shinoda et al. (US 2022/0376261 A1), and further evidenced by Findlay et al. (US 2022/0311103 A1) as applied to Claims 1–4, 7–13, 15–17, 20, 26, and 27 above, further in view of Chae et al. (US 2021/0036314 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Choi discloses the lithium secondary battery as set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the silicon-containing negative electrode active material and the carbon-containing negative electrode active material are present in a weight ratio of 1:99 to 20:80.
Chae teaches a lithium secondary battery ([0041]) comprising a negative electrode plate (see negative electrode, [0029]) comprising a negative electrode active material layer (first negative electrode active material layer, [0030]) comprising a silicon-containing negative electrode active material (see silicon-based negative electrode active material, [0033]) and a carbon-containing negative electrode active material (see carbon-based negative electrode active material, [0034]) present in a weight ratio of 5:95 to 20:80 ([0034]). Chae teaches ([0035]) that when the weight ratio lies within the disclosed range, a high capacity of the lithium secondary battery can be achieved without an increase in the degree of volume expansion of the negative electrode plate.
Chae is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of lithium secondary batteries. It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lithium secondary battery of modified Choi such that the silicon-containing electrode active material and the carbon-containing negative electrode active material are present in a weight ratio of 5:95 to 20:80, as taught by Chae, for the purpose of achieving a high capacity of the lithium secondary battery without an increase in the degree of volume expansion of the negative electrode plate.
Claims 21–25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2018/0248195 A1), as evidenced by Park et al. (US 2021/0344033 A1), in view of Han et al. (US 2024/0282953 A1), further in view of Shinoda et al. (US 2022/0376261 A1), and further evidenced by Findlay et al. (US 2022/0311103 A1) as applied to Claims 1–4, 7–13, 15–17, 20, 26, and 27 above, further in view of Park et al. (US 2021/0344033 A1).
Regarding Claims 21–25, modified Choi discloses the lithium secondary battery as set forth above. While modified Choi discloses the cylindrical lithium secondary battery (Choi [0113], and Park [0029], FIG. 1) comprising the electrode assembly in the form of a jelly-roll shape wound together in one direction (Park [0029], FIG. 4), modified Choi does not explicitly disclose specific details of said electrode assembly such as uncoated portions formed of a plurality of bendable segments of the electrode plates, forming electrode tabs, said electrode tabs being connected to a current collecting plate, said current collecting plate being connected to an electrode terminal or insulating layer covering a portion of the positive electrode active material layer and a portion of the uncoated portion.
Park, in addition of showing that it is well known to design lithium secondary batteries in the form of cylindrical batteries comprising jelly roll electrode assemblies (as set forth above), also teaches ([0028]–[0029], FIG. 1) a secondary battery (see secondary battery 100) comprising an electrode assembly (see electrode assembly 110) in which a positive electrode plate (see first electrode plate 111), a negative electrode plate (see second electrode plate 112), and a separator (see separator 113) interposed between the positive electrode plate (111) and the negative electrode plate (112) are wound in one direction (see “wound in a so-called jelly-roll shape”); a battery can in which the electrode assembly is accommodated (see can 120); and a sealing body which seals an open end of the battery can (120) (see cap assembly 130, [0036]), wherein the positive electrode plate (111) comprises a positive electrode active material layer (see first electrode active material 111a, [0030], FIG. 2).
Further, regarding Claim 21, Park teaches wherein each of the positive electrode plate (111) and the negative electrode plate (112) comprise an uncoated portion in which an active material layer (111a) is not formed (regarding the positive electrode plate-uncoated portion, see first non-coated part 111b, [0030], FIG. 2; regarding the negative electrode plate-uncoated portion, see second non-coated part, [0031]),
wherein at least a portion of the uncoated portion of the positive electrode plate (111b) or the negative electrode plate (second non-coated part) defines an electrode tab ([0033], FIG. 2).
Further, regarding Claim 22, Park discloses wherein the positive electrode plate-uncoated portion (111b) and the negative electrode plate-uncoated portion (second non-coated part) are formed at an end of one side of the positive electrode plate (111), respectively, along a direction in which the electrode assembly (150) is wound, by teaching ([0030]–[0031]) that the positive electrode plate-uncoated portion (111b) is formed along the upper end of the positive electrode plate (111), and the negative electrode plate-uncoated portion (second non-coated part) is formed along the lower end of the negative electrode plate (112); it can be understood from the context of [0042]–[0043] in view of FIG. 1 that the positive electrode plate-uncoated portion (111b) will be at the top of the can (120) in FIG. 1, the negative electrode plate-uncoated portion (second non-coated part) will be at the bottom of the can (120) in FIG. 1, and the winding direction of the wound electrode assembly (110) is along the horizontal axis in FIG. 1.
Park further teaches ([0028], [0042]–[0043], FIG. 1) wherein a current collecting plate is coupled to each of the positive electrode plate-uncoated portion (111b) (see first current collecting plate 141) and the negative electrode plate-uncoated portion (second non-coated part) (see second current collecting plate 142).
Further, Park discloses wherein the current collecting plate (141, 142) is connected to an electrode terminal, by teaching ([0037]–[0043], FIG. 1) that the current collecting plate (141) is connected to an electrode terminal (see upwardly protruding terminal portion of cap plate 131) via the electrode lead 133; furthermore, Park discloses wherein the current collecting plate (142) is electrically connected to the bottom of the battery can (120), thus making the battery can (120) have a negative polarity such that it can also be considered an electrode terminal.
Further, regarding Claim 23, Park discloses wherein each of the positive electrode plate-uncoated portion (111b) and the negative electrode plate-uncoated portion (second non-coated part) is processed in a form of a plurality of segments that are independently bendable, by teaching ([0033]) that the positive electrode plate-uncoated portion (111b) and negative electrode plate-uncoated portion (second non-coated part) have V-shaped notches at predetermined positions along the longitudinal direction of the electrode plates (111, 112), providing a plurality of electrode tabs, i.e. segments, configured as isosceles trapezoids arranged in parallel, shown for the positive electrode plate (111) in FIG. 2–3. Park further teaches ([0059]-–[0064]) that the positive electrode plate-uncoated portion (111b) and negative electrode plate-uncoated portion (second non-coated part) are bent; it can be understood that the V-shaped notches delineating the produced segments will result in each segment being independently bendable.
Further, Park teaches ([0059]–[0063], FIG. 1) wherein at least a portion of the plurality of segments are bent toward a winding center of the electrode assembly (110).
Further, regarding Claim 24, Park discloses wherein at least a portion of the plurality of bent segments are overlapped on an upper end and a lower end of the electrode assembly (150), by teaching ([0059]–[0060], FIG. 1) that the plurality of segments formed by the positive electrode plate-uncoated portion (111b) are bent such they are not randomly overlapped, but rather have an area substantially corresponding to the top of the electrode assembly with improved flatness, i.e. are regularly overlapped to form a flat top surface of the electrode assembly (110); Park further teaches ([0063], FIG. 1) that the negative electrode plate-uncoated portion (second non-coated part), positioned at the lower end of the electrode assembly (110), can be formed in the same manner.
Further, Park discloses wherein the current collecting plate (141, 142) is coupled to the plurality of overlapped segments (Claim 24), by teaching ([0060], FIG. 1) that the current collecting plate (141) coupled to the positive electrode plate (111) comes into contact with the positive electrode plate-uncoated portion (111b). Park teaches ([0063], FIG. 1) the same configuration for the current collecting plate (142) coupled to the negative electrode plate (112).
Further, regarding Claim 25, Park discloses wherein on the positive electrode plate (111), an insulating layer is further provided, which covers a portion of the positive electrode active material layer (111a) and a portion of the uncoated portion (111b) along a direction parallel to the winding direction, by teaching ([0061]–[0062], FIG. 2) an insulating layer (see insulation layer 111c) provided between a part of the positive electrode active material layer (111a) and the uncoated portion (111b) along a direction parallel to the winding direction, i.e. the longitudinal direction.
As taught by Park ([0014]–[0015]), the secondary battery (100) as described for Claims 21–25 above has the advantages that the plurality of independently bendable segments can be made flat to have an area substantially corresponding to a top (and, as disclosed in [0063]–[0064], bottom) surface of the electrode assembly (150) which allow for close contact with the current collecting plates (141, 142), resulting in a secondary battery (100) with generally uniform welding strength and resistance; furthermore, Park teaches ([0015]) that the insulating layer (111c) present between the positive electrode active material layer (111a) and uncoated portion (111b) of the positive electrode plate (111) support the plurality of independently bendable segments, preventing the electrode plate (111) from being improperly deformed during bending and pressing, preventing a short circuit.
Park is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of secondary battery construction. It therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lithium secondary battery of modified Choi such that it has the structure of the secondary battery of Park, for the purpose of producing a secondary battery with uniform welding strength and resistance with electrode plates which will not experience short circuits due to deformities during the bending and pressing processes.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the Remarks filed 2 March 2026 directed to the reference Lambert (“Tesla unveils new 4680 battery cell: bigger, 6x power, and 5x energy”) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant’s arguments directed generally to the application of form-factor ratios greater than 0.4 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant argues on p. 9–10 of Remarks that there is a lack of motivation to combine references and a lack of reasonable expectation of success. Applicant specifically argues:
The cited references primarily concern material compositions and electrode designs under small or conventional cell conditions, and neither recognize nor address the heat, gas, and conductive network stability issues that become significantly exacerbated in large cylindrical cells, nor do they provide concrete guidance for resolving these problems.
Considering that in large cylindrical batteries, increases in electrode length and changes in heat and current distribution make conductive path continuity more sensitive, and the influence of electrode microstructure and conductive network formation on performance become more pronounced, it would have been difficult to predict that simply combining known components would yield the desired improvements in cycle life and stability.
This argument is not persuasive. Firstly, the motivation for the obvious combination of each of the references Choi, Shinoda, Han, and Park presently applied to Claim 1 by a person of ordinary skill in the art have been laid out in the above rejection. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Secondly, it is further submitted that none of the references Choi, Shinoda, Han, and Park applied in the rejection above appear to mention battery size conditions, and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have no reason to believe that the teachings of these references were specific only to small or conventional cells. Finally, as also set forth in the rejection above, Findlay evidences ([0041]) that it is a well-known practice to utilize cylindrical 4680 cells in electric vehicles, which Choi notes ([0127]) is a relevant application of the disclosed lithium secondary battery. Thus considering that the disclosures of Choi, Shinoda, Han, and Park are unconcerned with the battery’s size but understanding that the battery of modified Choi can be utilized in an electric vehicle and must necessarily have some diameter and height, it is submitted as set forth in the above rejection that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the lithium secondary battery of modified Choi such that it is a cylindrical 4680 cell. These arguments are therefore not persuasive.
Applicant argues on p. 11–15 of Remarks that the present invention demonstrates unexpected results. Applicant specifically argues:
Cycle-life improvement occurs in a large cylindrical battery only when single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs) and bundle-type carbon nanotubes (B-CNTs) are used in combination; as shown in Table 1, when B-CNTs are used alone under comparative conditions, cycle life deteriorates significantly, while when SWCNTs and B-CNTs are used together, capacity retention and cycle performance improve meaningfully; such results would not have been reasonably predictable from the cited references, considering that Choi and Shinoda each disclose single conductive material systems.
The argument of unexpected results are supported by specific technical and scientific literature, namely the reference Eze et al. provided by Applicant, demonstrating that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have applied the cited references to the particular problem of a cylindrical battery having a form factor ratio of 0.4 or more, with Eze providing quantitative electro-thermal evidence that scaling cylindrical batteries to the 4680 form factor substantially increases thermal risk compared with small cylindrical batteries. Relevant findings including:
Large cylindrical batteries have degraded heat-dissipation capability and increased overheating risk.
4680 cells show more rapid heat accumulation and a substantially larger internal (core) vs. external (surface) temperature gradient under the same high-rate discharge conditions, with the results indicating materially greater internal thermal stress, gas-generation propensity, and thermal-runaway risk for large cylindrical batteries.
A reduced surface-to-volume ratio impairs heat removal, causing greater heat accumulation and enhanced thermal non-uniformity, with this being a fundamental structural limitation that prevents upscaling of small to large cylindrical batteries.
This argument is not persuasive. Firstly, the instant specification does not describe the results as unexpected, and thus a showing of unexpected results must be in an affidavit or declaration. An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979). Applicants may compare the claimed invention with prior art that is more closely related to the invention than the prior art relied upon by the Examiner. In re Holladay, 584 F.2d 384, 199 USPQ 516 (CCPA 1978); Ex parte Humber, 217 USPQ 265 (Bd. App. 1961). In other words, the evidence of unexpected results must be compared with prior art. See MPEP § 716.02(e). Secondly, evidence relied upon should establish “that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance.” Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). In the instant case, a comparison of results of Embodiments 1–7 and Comparative Examples 1 and 2 (Table 1) does not include a Comparative Example where the B-CNT content is 0. As such, it has not been established that any improvement shown by e.g. Embodiment 1 compared to Comparative Example 2 is the product of an unexpected or synergistic effect between the combination of B-CNTs and SWCNTs as the conductive material, as it instead could be a result of simply increased SWCNT content. Thirdly, the motivation for the obvious combination of the reference Shinoda (teaching SWCNTs) with primary reference Choi presently applied to Claim 1 by a person of ordinary skill in the art has been laid out in the above rejection; namely, Shinoda teaches ([0028]) that the addition of single-walled carbon nanotubes to the positive electrode active material layer will result in a lower resistance, a decreased total amount of conductive additive such as acetylene black, and increased total amount of an active material, thus resulting in a lithium secondary battery with a high energy density. Considering these benefits, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have indeed found it obvious to include the SWCNTs taught by Shinoda in the already B-CNT comprising lithium secondary battery of Choi, as set forth in the rejection above. Finally, the reference Eze does not serve to establish a finding of unexpected results. As set forth above, a showing of unexpected results must be in an affidavit or declaration. An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979). Furthermore, as also set forth above, none of the references Choi, Shinoda, Han, and Park applied in the rejection above appear to mention battery size conditions, and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have no reason to believe that the teachings of these references were specific only to small or conventional cells, and that they could not be applied to larger cells. Additionally, the motivation for the obvious combination of each of the references Choi, Shinoda, Han, and Park presently applied to Claim 1 by a person of ordinary skill in the art has been laid out in the above rejection. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage, i.e. usefulness in large format cylindrical cells (which as evidenced by Findlay are typically utilized in electric vehicles) which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Finally, as per MPEP § 716.02(e), the evidence relied upon should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance." Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). See MPEP § 716.02(b). In the instant case, Applicant has not shown evidence of statistical and practical significance that the claimed invention provides unexpectedly good results in large format cells compared with the closest prior art, and the reference Eze does not remedy this. Thus, this argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA MARIE FEHR, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-0860. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, 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.
/J.M.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights