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 Request for Reconsideration and Claim Status
The request for reconsideration after non-final rejection and Applicant arguments filed 19 August 2025 have been entered. Claims 1–27 are pending in the application.
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.
Claim 1–4, 7–8, 13, 15–17, and 26–27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2018/0248195 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2021/0005875 A1) and Shinoda et al. (US 2022/0376261 A1), as evidenced by Park et al. (US 2021/0344033 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, 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 (10) 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 (2a) comprises a lithium nickel-containing oxide ([0062]–[0063]), and
the conductive material (2b) comprises bundle-type carbon nanotubes ([0069]).
Choi does not explicitly disclose wherein the positive electrode plate (10), negative electrode plate, and separator interposed between the positive electrode plate (10) and the negative electrode plate are wound in one direction. However, winding together in one direction the components of an electrode assembly to form a jelly-roll shape is a well-known practice in the field of secondary batteries, as evidenced by the teachings of Park ([0029] and FIG. 4, which shows a single winding direction). 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 (10), negative electrode plate, and separator interposed between the positive electrode plate (10) and negative electrode plate are wound in one direction.
Modified Choi does not explicitly disclose wherein the lithium nickel-containing oxide comprises at least one of single particles or quasi-single particles. Lee discloses lithium secondary battery comprising a positive electrode ([0084]), wherein the positive electrode comprises a positive electrode active material ([0020]–[0021]) that is a lithium composite transition metal oxide including nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co), and manganese (Mn) that is in the form of a single particle. Lee discloses ([0023]) that the single particle is not in the form of an aggregated secondary particle, but rather a primary particle (note that this definition of a single particle by Lee is in agreement with the definition of a single particle by the Instant Specification disclosed in e.g. [0035]). Lee further discloses ([0024], [0113], [0117], [0134]) that in the case where a positive electrode active material is composed of single particles (as opposed to aggregated secondary particles), particle strength may be increased to suppress particle breakage during rolling and improve rolling density, and the amount of gas generated by a side reaction with an electrolyte solution may be reduced due to decreases in specific surface area and lithium by-product.
Lee and Choi are analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of secondary batteries capable of cycling lithium. 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 lithium nickel-containing oxide comprises single particles, as taught by Lee, for the purpose of increasing particle strength to suppress particle breakage during rolling and improve rolling density, and reducing the amount of gas generated by a side reaction with an electrolyte solution due to decreases in specific surface area and lithium by-product.
Modified Choi does not disclose that the conductive material comprises single-walled carbon nanotubes in addition to the bundle-type carbon nanotubes. Shinoda discloses ([0008], [0017]–[0018], [0028]), a secondary battery comprising a positive electrode plate, wherein the positive electrode plate comprises a positive electrode mixture layer formed from a positive electrode mixture comprising single-walled carbon nanotubes. Shinoda further discloses ([0028]) that the addition of single-walled carbon nanotubes to an electrode mixture layer will result in a lower resistance, allowing for a decrease in the total amount of a conductive additive such as acetylene black and an increase in the total amount of an active material which can be present in the electrode mixture layer, thus resulting in an electrochemical device with a high energy density.
Shinoda is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of secondary batteries capable of cycling lithium. 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 producing an electrochemical device with a higher energy density.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Choi discloses the lithium secondary battery of Claim 1. Choi further discloses ([0077]) wherein the positive electrode active material layer (2) comprises the bundle-type carbon nanotubes (2b) in an amount of 0.2 wt% to 2 wt%, which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.4 wt% to 0.6 wt%. Note that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I).
Further, Choi teaches ([0077]) that the amount of bundle-type carbon nanotubes (2b) controls the conductivity and resistance of the positive electrode active material layer (2) 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, in addition to the prima facie case of obviousness established above, it would have further 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 of Claim 1. Regarding the limitations wherein the positive electrode active material layer comprises the single-walled carbon nanotubes in an amount of 0.001 wt% to 0.04 wt% (Claim 3), or more specifically 0.01 wt% to 0.02 wt% (Claim 4), Shinoda discloses ([0034]) that the amount of single-walled carbon nanotubes affects the dispersity of the electrode mixture utilized in preparation of the electrode active material layer, the shear force necessary to achieve a given dispersity, and the resistivity of the prepared electrode active material layer.
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 single-walled carbon nanotubes in the positive electrode active material layer is a variable that achieves the recognized result of affecting the dispersity of the electrode mixture, the shear force required to achieve a given dispersity, and the resistivity of the prepared positive electrode active material layer, thus making the amount of single-walled carbon nanotubes in the positive electrode active material layer a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the amount of single-walled carbon nanotubes in the positive electrode active material layer of modified Choi to lie within the range of 0.0001 wt% to 0.04 wt% (Claim 3), or more specifically 0.01 wt% to 0.02 wt% (Claim 4), for the purpose of achieving a suitable dispersity of the electrode mixture utilized in preparation of the positive electrode active material layer, minimizing the shear force necessary to achieve this suitable dispersity, and a suitable resistivity of the prepared positive electrode active material layer.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Choi discloses the lithium secondary battery of Claim 1. Further, Lee implicitly discloses that 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, by teaching ([0020], [0023]) that the positive electrode active material is a lithium composite transition metal oxide including nickel that is composed of a single particle. In other words, the disclosure of Lee does not indicate that any other positive electrode active material need be present in the positive electrode active material layer except for lithium nickel-containing oxide comprising single particles, and therefore it can be assumed that these are 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 Claim 8, modified Choi discloses the lithium secondary battery of Claim 1. Choi further discloses ([0067]) wherein the positive electrode active material has D50 of 3 µm to 20 µm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 5 µm or less. Note that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I).
Further, Choi teaches ([0067]) that the average particle diameter (D50) of a positive electrode active material controls its dispersibility, mechanical strength, and specific surface area.
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 D50 of the positive active material is a variable that achieves the recognized result of controlling dispersibility, mechanical strength, and specific surface area, as taught by Choi, thus making the D50 of the positive active material a result-effective variable. As such, in addition to the prima facie case of obviousness established above, it would have further been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the D50 of the positive electrode active material of Choi to lie within a range of 5 µm or less via routine experimentation, for the purpose of achieving a positive electrode active material with suitable dispersibility, mechanical strength, and specific surface area.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Choi discloses the lithium secondary battery of Claim 1. Choi further discloses ([0062]–[0063]) 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 e.g. Li(Ni0.8Mn0.1Co0.1)O2 disclosed in [0063]).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Choi discloses the lithium secondary battery of Claim 1. Note that as described above for Claim 1, the lithium nickel-containing oxide of modified Choi is in the form of a single particle, i.e. an unaggregated primary particle, and thus the diameter of the primary particle is analogous to the diameter of the single particle. Choi discloses wherein the lithium nickel-containing oxide has a primary particle diameter of 3 µm to 20 µm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.5 µm to 5 µm, by teaching ([0067]) that the positive electrode active material, which in the instant case is composed of single particles of lithium nickel-containing oxide, has an average particle diameter (D50) of 3 µm to 20 µm. Note that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I).
Further, Choi teaches ([0067]) that the average particle diameter of a positive electrode active material controls its dispersibility, mechanical strength, and specific surface area.
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 particle diameter of the positive electrode active material is a variable that achieves the recognized result of controlling dispersibility, mechanical strength, and specific surface area, as taught by Choi, thus making the particle diameter of the positive active material a result-effective variable. As such, in addition to the prima facie case of obviousness established above, it would have further been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the primary particle diameter of the lithium nickel-containing oxide of modified Choi to lie within a range of 0.5 µm to 5 µm via routine experimentation, for the purpose of achieving a lithium nickel-containing oxide with suitable dispersibility, mechanical strength, and specific surface area.
Regarding Claim 16, modified Choi discloses the lithium secondary battery of Claim 1. 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 of Claim 1. 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 of Claim 1. Choi further discloses ([0128]) a battery pack comprising the lithium secondary battery of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 27, modified Choi discloses the lithium secondary battery of Claim 26. 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) in view of Lee et al. (US 2021/0005875 A1) and Shinoda et al. (US 2022/0376261 A1), as evidenced by Park et al. (US 2021/10344033 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Mun et al. (WO 2023/080366 A1; see attached machine translation) and Chen (US 2023/0282835 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Choi discloses the lithium secondary battery of Claim 1. Shinoda further discloses ([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 a disclosed “length”) of 1 to 10 µm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 2 to 8 µm. Choi further discloses ([0072]) wherein the bundle-type carbon nanotubes (2b) have an average grain size of 3 µm to 10 µm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.5 µm to 5 µm. Note that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I).
Further, Mun discloses ([0022]) a slurry composition for preparation of a positive electrode plate for a lithium secondary battery, wherein the slurry comprises carbon nanotubes, and wherein ([0027]) the carbon nanotubes can specifically be single-walled carbon nanotubes. 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 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. Mun is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of secondary batteries capable of cycling lithium.
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 disclosed by Mun, thus making the grain size of the single-walled carbon nanotubes a result-effective variable. As such, in addition to the prima facie case of obviousness established above, it would have further 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.
Chen discloses ([0043]) a positive electrode plate including a positive electrode active material layer (see positive active material layer), wherein the positive electrode active material layer includes bundle-type carbon nanotubes (see carbon nanotube bundles). Chen teaches ([0052]) that the average grain size of the carbon nanotube bundles can fall within a range of 2 µm to 5 µm, while ([0043]) the length-to-diameter ratio should be greater than or equal to 2.5 but less than or equal to 100. Chen teaches ([0063]) that nanotube bundles with average grain sizes and length-to-diameter ratios (and therefore also average nanotube bundle diameters) that fall within these ranges 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 secondary batteries capable of cycling lithium ions. As such, in addition to the prima facie case of obviousness established above, it would have further 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 (and in addition, a length-to-diameter ratio of greater than or equal to 2.5 but less than or equal to 100), which anticipates the claimed range of 0.05 µm to 5 µm, 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) in view of Lee et al. (US 2021/0005875 A1) and Shinoda et al. (US 2022/0376261 A1), as evidenced by Park et al. (US 2021/10344033 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further evidenced by Suzuki et al. (US 2022/0255065 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Choi discloses the lithium secondary battery of Claim 1, 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. One of ordinary skill in the art will understand that a maximum distance between particles of the positive electrode active material inside the positive electrode active material layer is a concept analogous to the porosity of the positive electrode active material layer.
It is well-known in the field of secondary batteries that the porosity of a positive electrode active material layer affects the permeation ability of an electrolyte solution, with a low porosity resulting in impaired productivity, as evidenced by Suzuki ([0006]).
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 maximum distance between particles of the positive electrode active material inside the positive electrode active material layer (i.e. the porosity of a positive electrode active material layer) is a variable that achieves the recognized result of affecting the permeation ability of an electrolyte solution, affecting the productivity, as evidenced by Suzuki, thus making the maximum distance between particles of the positive electrode active material inside the positive electrode active material layer a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective fling date of the claimed invention to modify the maximum distance between particles of the positive electrode active material inside the positive electrode active material layer of modified Choi to lie within the range of 2 µm or more via routine experimentation, for the purpose of achieving a suitable permeation ability of an electrolyte solution and therefore a suitable productivity.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2018/0248195 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2021/0005875 A1) and Shinoda et al. (US 2022/0376261 A1), as evidenced by Park et al. (US 2021/10344033 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Han et al. (US 2024/0282953 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Choi discloses the lithium secondary battery of Claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the positive electrode active material has a Dmin of 1.0 µm or more.
Han discloses ([0014]) a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery comprising a lithium transition metal complex oxide. Han teaches ([0035]) that a Dmin of the positive electrode active material is preferably 1.0 µm or more, which anticipates the claimed range; Han further teaches ([0034]) that decreasing Dmin increases the possibility of the presence of fine powder particles, which ([0013]) can negatively affect lifespan and resistance characteristics.
Han is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of secondary batteries capable of cycling lithium. 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 positive electrode active material has a Dmin of 1.0 µm or more, as disclosed by Han,Choi, for the purpose of limiting the possibility of the presence of fine powder particles, which can negatively affect lifespan and resistance characteristics.
Claims 10–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2018/0248195 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2021/0005875 A1) and Shinoda et al. (US 2022/0376261 A1), as evidenced by Park et al. (US 2021/10344033 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2022/0255065 A1).
Regarding Claims 10–12, modified Choi discloses the lithium secondary battery of Claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the positive electrode active material has a Dmax of 12 µm to 17 µm (Claim 10), wherein a particle size distribution of the positive electrode active material is represented by Equation 1 below and has a value of 3 or less (Claim 11):
Particle size distribution (PSD) = (Dmax–Dmin)/D50 [Equation 1]
or 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).
Suzuki discloses a secondary battery (see battery 100, [0037), FIG. 1) comprising a positive electrode plate (see positive electrode 10, [0041], FIG. 2) that includes a positive electrode active material layer (see positive electrode active material layer 12, [0043], FIG. 2). Suzuki discloses ([0051], [0054], [0085]–[0088]) that the positive electrode active material layer (12) has a multilayer structure comprising a first layer and second layer (see first layer 1 and second layer 2, FIG. 3) wherein ([0054]) the first layer (1) includes a first positive electrode active material, for example a lithium nickel-containing oxide, which ([0054]–[0060]) has a particle size distribution based on volume.
Specifically regarding Claim 12, Suzuki discloses wherein the positive electrode active material has a unimodal particle size distribution that exhibits a single peak in a volume accumulated particle size distribution peak, by teaching ([0054]–[0060], FIG. 4) that the first positive electrode active material has a first particle size distribution based on volume that is unimodal, in other words, the first particle size distribution consists essentially of a single peak.
Specifically regarding Claim 10, one of ordinary skill in the art will understand that the width of a particle size distribution for a positive electrode active material can be made larger or smaller by increasing or decreasing, respectively, the Dmax of the positive electrode active material.
Specifically regarding Claim 11, one of ordinary skill in the art will understand that minimizing a particle size distribution of the positive electrode active material represented by Equation 1 is a concept analogous to optimizing a particle size distribution to be as small in width as possible.
Suzuki further teaches ([0060]) that when the particle size distribution for a positive electrode active material is unimodal and the width of the distribution is moderately small, it is expected that the gaps between the particles in the prepared positive electrode active material layer (12) are not likely to be filled, such that the porosity of the layer increases and the permeation of liquid electrolyte into the layer is enhanced.
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). First, in the instant case, the Dmax of the positive electrode active material is a variable that achieves the recognized result of affecting the width of the particle size distribution of the positive electrode active material, as will be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, thus making Dmax a result-effective variable. Second, in the instant case, the width of the particle size distribution of the positive electrode active material is a variable that achieves the recognized result of affecting the porosity and permeation of liquid electrolyte into the positive electrode active material layer, as disclosed by Suzuki, thus making the width of the particle size distribution of the positive electrode active material a result-effective variable.
Suzuki is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of wound 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 positive electrode active material has a Dmax of 12 µm to 17 µm (Claim 10) and such that the particle size distribution of the positive electrode active material represented by Equation 1 has a value of 3 or less (Claim 11) via routine experimentation, and also to modify the lithium secondary battery of modified Choi such that 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), all for the purpose of achieving a unimodal particle size distribution with a small width which, as taught by Suzuki, will result in an enhanced porosity of the positive electrode active material layer and permeability of the liquid electrolyte.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2018/0248195 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2021/0005875 A1) and Shinoda et al. (US 2022/0376261 A1), as evidenced by Park et al. (US 2021/10344033 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (Li, T.; Yuan, X-Z.; Zhang, L.; Song, D.; Shi, K.; Bock, C. Degradation Mechanisms and Mitigation Strategies of Nickel-Rich NMC-Based Lithium-Ion Batteries, Electrochemical Energy Reviews, 3, p. 43–80. Published online: 21 October 2019).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Choi discloses the lithium secondary battery of Claim 1. Modified 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. This composition 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. Note that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I).
Li teaches (p. 44, ¶ beginning with “Following the initial commercial…”) that Ni-rich materials have a high discharge capacity, representing a large increase in energy density compared to Co-based LiCoO2 and Mn-based LiMn2O4 materials, and (p. 44, ¶ beginning with “However, although increasing…”) that increasing Ni percentages in Ni-rich LiNixMnyCo1−x−yO2 (NMC)-based batteries enhances their capacity performance but also increases capacity fading. One of ordinary skill in the art will understand that for NMC-based materials, increasing the percentage of Ni will decrease the percentages of Co and Mn. Li is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of secondary batteries capable of cycling lithium.
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 composition of the lithium nickel-containing oxide represented by Chemical Formula 1 is a variable that achieves the recognized result of affecting the capacity, energy density, and capacity fade of the lithium secondary battery, as disclosed by Li, thus making the composition of the lithium nickel-containing oxide represented by Chemical Formula 1 a result-effective variable. As such, in addition to the prima facie case of obviousness established above, it would have further 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 has a composition represented by Chemical Formula 1 via routine experimentation, for the purpose of achieving a composition of the lithium nickel-containing oxide that has suitable capacity, energy density, and capacity fade.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2018/0248195 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2021/0005875 A1) and Shinoda et al. (US 2022/0376261 A1), as evidenced by Park et al. (US 2021/10344033 A1), as applied to Claim 17 above, and further in view of Chae et al. (WO 2019/203455 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Choi discloses the lithium secondary battery of Claim 17, but does not 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 discloses ([0016], [0064]) a negative electrode plate (see anode, [0016]) for a lithium secondary battery comprising a negative electrode active material layer (see first negative electrode active material layer, [0064]) comprising a silicon-containing negative electrode active material (see silicon-based negative electrode active material, [0064]) and a carbon-containing negative electrode active material (see carbon-based negative electrode active material, [0064]). Chae teaches ([0064]) that the silicon-containing negative electrode active material and the carbon-containing negative electrode active material are preferably present in a weight ratio of 5:95 to 20:80, which anticipates the claimed range of 1:99 to 20:80. Chae further teaches ([0065]) that including the silicon-containing negative electrode active material in an amount less than the disclosed range can make it difficult to increase the energy density and this achieve high capacity of the battery, while including the silicon-containing negative electrode active material in an amount greater than the disclosed range can lead to an increase in volume expansion of the negative electrode plate.
Chae is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of secondary batteries capable of cycling lithium. 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 silicon-containing negative 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 suitable energy density, capacity, and level of volume expansion of the negative electrode plate.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2018/0248195 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2021/0005875 A1) and Shinoda et al. (US 2022/0376261 A1), as evidenced by Park et al. (US 2021/10344033 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Lambert (Lambert, F. Electrek. “Tesla unveils new 4680 battery cell: bigger, 6x power, and 5x energy”, p. 1–4. Published 22 September 2020).
Regarding Claims 19 and 20, modified Choi discloses the lithium secondary battery of Claim 1. Modified Choi does not disclose wherein the lithium secondary battery is a cylindrical battery having 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 19), or wherein the cylindrical battery is a 46110 cell, a 4875 cell, a 48110 cell, a 4880 cell, or a 4680 cell (Claim 20).
Lambert discloses a cylindrical battery having 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 19), and wherein the cylindrical battery is a 4680 cell (Claim 20), by teaching a cylindrical battery (p. 2, FIG. 3 shows a cylindrical battery) that is a 4680 cell (p. 1, ¶ beginning with “Tesla has unveiled…”), wherein the cylindrical battery is 46 mm by 80 mm (p. 1, ¶ beginning with “Today, the company confirmed…”; p. 2, FIG. 3 shows that 46 mm refers to the diameter of the cylindrical battery while 80 mm refers to the height), thus giving it a ratio of form factor of 0.575. Lambert discloses (p. 2, ¶ beginning with “Tesla claims that the…”) that the form factor of the cylindrical battery results in a five times increase in energy and six times increase in power capacity, while also resulting in a 14% reduction in cost per kWh (in comparison to previous cells from Tesla, as disclosed in p. 1, ¶ beginning with “The new cell is…”).
Lambert is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of cylindrical 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 it is a cylindrical battery that is a 4680 cell (Claim 20), thus 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 (Claim 19), for the purpose of increasing the energy and power capacity of the cell, and reducing the cost per kWh.
Claims 21–25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2018/0248195 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2021/0005875 A1) and Shinoda et al. (US 2022/0376261 A1), as evidenced by Park et al. (US 2021/10344033 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of
Park et al. (US 2021/0344033 A1).
Regarding Claims 21–25, modified Choi discloses the lithium secondary battery of Claim 1, but does not disclose the limitations of Claims 21–25.
Park discloses ([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).
Specifically regarding Claim 21, Park discloses 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).
Specifically 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 discloses ([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.
Specifically 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 discloses ([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).
Specifically 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) he same configuration for the current collecting plate (142) coupled to the negative electrode plate (112).
Specifically 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 disclosed 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 discloses ([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 wound 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 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 filed 19 August 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on p. 5–6 of Remarks that the cited references Choi, Shinoda, Lee, and Park do not disclose the technical problem and the solution principle of the present invention. Particularly, Applicant argues that (1) Choi and Shinoda only disclose the use of B-CNT or SWCNT alone, and do not mention the conductivity issues arising from the single particle positive electrode active material and the gas problems occurring in wound-type structures, (2) Lee only discloses the single particle positive electrode active material, and does not recognize the incomplete conductive network issue caused by the single particle positive electrode active