DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This is a final office action for application 18/053,278 in response to the amendment(s) filed on 10/14/2025. Claims 1-18 are under examination.
Withdrawn Objections
The amendment(s) to the claim(s), specification, and/or drawing(s) filed 10/14/2025 is acknowledged and the previous claim objections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 10/14/2025 have been fully considered. The amendments have overcome the previous prior art rejection of record. However, in light of the amendments the previously applied prior art was reconsidered and a new grounds of rejection has been applied rendering the previous arguments moot. See claims 1-18 rejection below.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Part numbers 1 and 2 in FIG. 1 are not clearly identified in the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because the updated drawings, while they do better show the claimed invention, have boxes that overlap with some of the labels (e.g. the box showing the double-sided coated area runs through the label Surface M in FIG. 1). The drawings should be clear and clean representation of the claimed invention. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-7 and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al. (US-20200144605-A1) and further in view of Nagata et al. (US-20190067677-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Su discloses a spirally wound positive electrode sheet (see e.g. "cathode are wound to form an electrode assembly" in paragraph [0016]) wherein the positive electrode sheet comprises a positive electrode current collector (see e.g. "cathode current collector" in paragraph [0005] and annotated figure below), and the positive electrode current collector comprises a single-sided coated area and a double-sided coated area (see annotated figure below); in the single-sided coated area, a first coating layer is disposed on a first surface of one side of the positive electrode current collector, and no coating layer is disposed on a second surface of the other side of the positive electrode current collector (see annotated figure below); the first coating layer comprises a first positive electrode active material layer and a second positive electrode active material layer, the second positive electrode active material layer is disposed on the first surface of the positive electrode current collector, and the first positive electrode active material layer is disposed on a surface of the second positive electrode active material layer (see annotated figure below); in the double-sided coated area, a second coating layer and a third coating layer are disposed on the first surface of the positive electrode current collector (see annotated figure below), and the first coating layer, the second coating layer, and the third coating layer are sequentially connected (see annotated figure below); a fourth coating layer is disposed on the second surface of the other side of the positive electrode current collector (see annotated figure below); the second coating layer comprises the first positive electrode active material layer and the second positive electrode active material layer (see annotated figure below), the second positive electrode active material layer is disposed on the first surface of the positive electrode current collector (see annotated figure below), and the first positive electrode active material layer is disposed on the surface of the second positive electrode active material layer (see annotated figure below); the third coating layer comprises the first positive electrode active material layer, and the first positive electrode active material layer is disposed on the first surface of the positive electrode current collector (see annotated figure below); the fourth coating layer comprises the first positive electrode active material layer and the second positive electrode active material layer (see annotated figure below), the second positive electrode active material layer is disposed on the second surface of the positive electrode current collector (see annotated figure below), and the first positive electrode active material layer is disposed on the surface of the second positive electrode active material layer (see annotated figure below); the first positive electrode active material layer comprises a first positive electrode active material (see e.g. "a first cathode active material layer" in paragraph [0038]), the second positive electrode active material layer comprises a second positive electrode active material (see e.g. "a second cathode active material layer" in paragraph [0038]).
Su is silent as to the D10 of the first positive electrode active material is larger than D10 of the second positive electrode active material.
Nagata, however, in the same field of endeavor, layered positive electrode sheets for wound type batteries, discloses positive active material with a D50 particle distribution values of 14.2 μm (see e.g. Example 1 in Table 1 of Nagata) and 17.6 μm (see e.g. Example 2 in Table 2 of Nagata). Furthermore, Nagata discloses that D10 is 5 to 10 μm and D90 is 22 to 30 μm (see e.g. "For example, D10 is 5 to 10 μm and D90 is 22 to 30 μm." in paragraph [0023]).
Nagata discloses points and ranges that lie within or overlap with the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses points and ranges that lie within or overlap with claimed ranges, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). This further reinforces the obviousness of selecting particle distributions in the claimed ranges.
Moreover, Nagata explicitly discloses a reason to use larger particle diameters, namely, that increasing the particle size increases the voids between the positive electrode active material particles which forms a continuous flow path leading to a greater number of positive electrode active material particles being packed at a high density and also contains interparticle voids through which electrolyte solutions easily flow (see e.g. paragraph [0022] of Nagata). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and use the teachings of Nagata to utilize active material particles with larger diameters in order to increase active material particle density and increase interparticle voids so
PNG
media_image1.png
551
1328
media_image1.png
Greyscale
that electrolyte solution can flow easily as disclosed by Nagata.
(Su, figure 2, annotated for illustration)
Regarding Claim 2, Su in view of Nagata disclose the positive electrode sheet according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above). Su in view of Nagata does not explicitly discloses that a lithium-ion extraction rate of the second positive electrode active material is greater than a lithium-ion extraction rate of the first positive electrode active material.
However, Su in view of Nagata discloses a positive electrode sheet with no compositional or structural distinction the positive electrode sheet claimed in the instant application (see e.g. “the first positive electrode active material and the second positive electrode active material are the same or different, and are independently selected from at least one of lithium cobaltate, lithium nickel cobalt manganate, lithium manganate, lithium nickel manganate, lithium nickel cobalt aluminate, lithium iron phosphate or lithium-rich manganese” in paragraph [0043] of the instant application and “lithium iron phosphate slurry, including the first cathode active material” and “lithium cobaltate slurry (slurry of a second cathode active material layer)” in paragraph [0084] of Su). Because of this it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the positive electrode sheet, which has no compositional or structural distinction to the claimed positive electrode sheet, would have the same lithium-ion extraction rate in both the second positive electrode and the first positive electrode. Thus, it would have been in the prior art that a lithium-ion extraction rate of the second positive electrode active material is greater than a lithium-ion extraction rate of the first positive electrode active material and thus a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2112 (III) and MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding Claim 3, Su in view of Nagata disclose the positive electrode sheet according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above). Su further discloses that the first positive electrode active material (referred to herein as the “top layer”) forming the first positive electrode active material layer on top of the second positive electrode active material layer (referred to herein as the "surface layer") has a particle size distribution of 0.2 µm - 8 µm < D50 < 15 µm - 600 µm and D90 ≤ 40 µm - 1600 µm (see e.g. " the particle diameter cumulated to 50% by volume of the small particle diameter (Dv50), i.e., the average particle diameter, in a range of from about 0.2 μm to about 15 μm, and in the volume-based particle size distribution of the first cathode active material (surface layer), the particle diameter cumulated to 90% by volume of the small particle diameter (Dv90) in a range of less than or equal to about 40 μm." and "In some embodiments of the present application, the average particle diameter (Dv50) of the second cathode active material (top layer): the average particle diameter (Dv50) of the first cathode active material is from about 1:1 to about 40:1." in paragraph [0046]; Su discloses the particle distribution of the surface layer and further discloses the particle distribution ratio between the surface layer and the top layer is 1:1 to 40:1, the disclosed range can then be multiplied by the ratio to find the range of the top layer as shown above).
Su further discloses the second positive electrode active material (surface layer) forming the second positive electrode active material layer (surface layer) has a particle size distribution of 0.2 µm < D50 < 15 µm and D90 ≤ 40 µm (see e.g. " the particle diameter cumulated to 50% by volume of the small particle diameter (Dv50), i.e., the average particle diameter, in a range of from about 0.2 μm to about 15 μm, and in the volume-based particle size distribution of the first cathode active material (surface layer), the particle diameter cumulated to 90% by volume of the small particle diameter (Dv90) in a range of less than or equal to about 40 μm." in paragraph [0046]).
Su discloses ranges that either lie within or overlap with the ranges claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses ranges that either lie within or overlap with the claimed ranges, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 4, Su in view of Nagata disclose the positive electrode sheet according to claim 2 (see claim 2 rejection above). Su further discloses that the first positive electrode active material (referred to herein as the “top layer”) forming the first positive electrode active material layer on top of the second positive electrode active material layer (referred to herein as the "surface layer") has a particle size distribution of 0.2 µm - 8 µm < D50 < 15 µm - 600 µm and D90 ≤ 40 µm - 1600 µm (see e.g. " the particle diameter cumulated to 50% by volume of the small particle diameter (Dv50), i.e., the average particle diameter, in a range of from about 0.2 μm to about 15 μm, and in the volume-based particle size distribution of the first cathode active material (surface layer), the particle diameter cumulated to 90% by volume of the small particle diameter (Dv90) in a range of less than or equal to about 40 μm." and "In some embodiments of the present application, the average particle diameter (Dv50) of the second cathode active material (top layer): the average particle diameter (Dv50) of the first cathode active material is from about 1:1 to about 40:1." in paragraph [0046]; Su discloses the particle distribution of the surface layer and further discloses the particle distribution ratio between the surface layer and the top layer is 1:1 to 40:1, the disclosed range can then be multiplied by the ratio to find the range of the top layer as shown above).
Su further discloses the second positive electrode active material (surface layer) forming the second positive electrode active material layer (surface layer) has a particle size distribution of 0.2 µm < D50 < 15 µm and D90 ≤ 40 µm (see e.g. " the particle diameter cumulated to 50% by volume of the small particle diameter (Dv50), i.e., the average particle diameter, in a range of from about 0.2 μm to about 15 μm, and in the volume-based particle size distribution of the first cathode active material (surface layer), the particle diameter cumulated to 90% by volume of the small particle diameter (Dv90) in a range of less than or equal to about 40 μm." in paragraph [0046]).
Su discloses ranges that either lie within or overlap with the ranges claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses ranges that either lie within or overlap with the claimed ranges, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 5, Su in view of Nagata discloses the positive electrode sheet according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above). Su further discloses that the positive electrode current collector further comprises an uncoated area (see annotated figure below), the single-sided coated area has one side connected to the double-sided coated area, and has the other side connected to the uncoated area (see annotated figure below), and the uncoated area has a length from 0 mm to 83 mm (see e.g. "the first distance is from about 0 mm to about 83 mm" in paragraph [0044]).
Su discloses a range that overlaps with the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range that overlaps with a claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
PNG
media_image2.png
547
1272
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Su, figure 2, annotated for illustration)
Regarding Claim 6, Su in view of Nagata discloses the positive electrode sheet according to claim 2 (see claim 2 rejection above). Su further discloses that the positive electrode current collector further comprises an uncoated area (see annotated figure below), the single-sided coated area has one side connected to the double-sided coated area, and has the other side connected to the uncoated area (see annotated figure below), and the uncoated area has a length from 0 mm to 83 mm (see e.g. "the first distance is from about 0 mm to about 83 mm" in paragraph [0044]).
Su discloses a range that overlaps with the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range that overlaps with a claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
PNG
media_image2.png
547
1272
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Su, figure 2, annotated for illustration)
Regarding Claim 7, Su in view of Nagata discloses the positive electrode sheet according to claim 3 (see claim 3 rejection above). Su further discloses that the positive electrode current collector further comprises an uncoated area (see annotated figure below), the single-sided coated area has one side connected to the double-sided coated area, and has the other side connected to the uncoated area (see annotated figure below), and the uncoated area has a length from 0 mm to 83 mm (see e.g. "the first distance is from about 0 mm to about 83 mm" in paragraph [0044]).
Su discloses a range that overlaps with the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range that overlaps with a claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
PNG
media_image2.png
547
1272
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Su, figure 2, annotated for illustration)
Regarding Claim 12, Su in view of Nagata disclose the positive electrode sheet according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above). Su further discloses that the first positive electrode active material layer (top layer) comprises a first conductive agent and a first binder (see e.g. "a layer of lithium cobaltate slurry (slurry of a second cathode active material layer) was coated on the dried first cathode active material layer, and the lithium cobaltate slurry, composed of 97.8 wt % of lithium cobaltate (LCO) (where the lithium cobaltate had a particle size of Dv50: 13 μm and Dv90: 38 μm), 0.8 wt % of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) and 1.4 wt % of conductive carbon black" in Embodiment 1 paragraph [0084]), mass percentages of components each in the first positive electrode active material layer are: 97.8 wt% of the first positive electrode active material (see e.g. " 97.8 wt % of lithium cobaltate (LCO)" in paragraph [0084], 1.4 wt% of the first conductive agent (see e.g. "1.4 wt % of conductive carbon black," in paragraph [0084]), and 0.8 wt% of the first binder (see e.g. " 0.8 wt % of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF)" in paragraph [0084]).
Su further discloses that the first positive electrode active material (referred to herein as the “top layer”) forming the first positive electrode active material layer on top of the second positive electrode active material layer (referred to herein as the "surface layer") has a particle size distribution of 0.2 µm - 8 µm < D50 < 15 µm - 600 µm and D90 ≤ 40 µm - 1600 µm (see e.g. " the particle diameter cumulated to 50% by volume of the small particle diameter (Dv50), i.e., the average particle diameter, in a range of from about 0.2 μm to about 15 μm, and in the volume-based particle size distribution of the first cathode active material (surface layer), the particle diameter cumulated to 90% by volume of the small particle diameter (Dv90) in a range of less than or equal to about 40 μm." and "In some embodiments of the present application, the average particle diameter (Dv50) of the second cathode active material (top layer): the average particle diameter (Dv50) of the first cathode active material is from about 1:1 to about 40:1." in paragraph [0046]; Su discloses the particle distribution of the surface layer and further discloses the particle distribution ratio between the surface layer and the top layer is 1:1 to 40:1, the disclosed range can then be multiplied by the ratio to find the range of the top layer as shown above).
Su discloses points and ranges that lie within or overlap the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses points and ranges that lie within or overlap with the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Su is silent as to first positive electrode active material having a particle size distribution of 5 µm<D10<8 µm.
Nagata, however, in the same field of endeavor, layered positive electrode sheets for wound type batteries, discloses positive active material with a D50 particle distribution values of 14.2 μm (see e.g. Example 1 in Table 1 of Nagata) and 17.6 μm (see e.g. Example 2 in Table 2 of Nagata). Furthermore, Nagata discloses that D10 is 5 to 10 μm and D90 is 22 to 30 μm (see e.g. "For example, D10 is 5 to 10 μm and D90 is 22 to 30 μm." in paragraph [0023]).
Nagata discloses points and ranges that lie within or overlap with the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses points and ranges that lie within or overlap with claimed ranges, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). This further reinforces the obviousness of selecting particle distributions in the claimed ranges.
Moreover, Nagata explicitly discloses a reason to use larger particle diameters, namely, that increasing the particle size increases the voids between the positive electrode active material particles which forms a continuous flow path leading to a greater number of positive electrode active material particles being packed at a high density and also contains interparticle voids through which electrolyte solutions easily flow (see e.g. paragraph [0022] of Nagata). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and use the teachings of Nagata to utilize active material particles with larger diameters in order to increase active material particle density and increase interparticle voids so that electrolyte solution can flow easily as disclosed by Nagata.
Regarding Claim 13, Su in view of Nagata disclose the positive electrode sheet according to claim 12 (see claim 12 rejection above). Su further discloses that the mass percentages of the components each in the first positive electrode active material layer (top layer) are: 0.5 wt % to about 5 wt % of the first conductive agent (see e.g. "the content of the conductive agent of the second cathode active material layer is from about 0.5 wt % to about 5 wt % based on the total weight of the second cathode active material layer. (Top layer)" in paragraph [0052]) and 0.5 wt % to about 4 wt% of the first binder (see e.g. "the content of the binder of the second cathode active material layer 13 is from about 0.5 wt % to about 4 wt % based on the total weight of the second cathode active material layer 13. (Top Layer)" in paragraph [0051]). It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that if the amount of conductive agent is 0.5 wt% to 5 wt% and the amount of binder is 0.5 wt% to 4 wt% then the amount of positive electrode active materials would have to be between 91 wt% and 99 wt%.
Su discloses ranges that overlap with the ranges claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses ranges that overlap with the claimed ranges, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 14, Su in view of Nagata disclose the positive electrode sheet according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above) Su further discloses that the second positive electrode active material layer (surface layer) further comprises a second conductive agent and a second binder (see e.g. " The lithium iron phosphate slurry, composed of 95.8 wt % of lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4), 2.8 wt % of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) and 1.4 wt % of conductive carbon black, was dried at 85° C. to form a first cathode active material layer" (on the current collector) in paragraph [0084]); mass percentages of components each in the second positive electrode active material layer are: 95.8 wt % of the second positive electrode active material (see e.g. "95.8 wt % of lithium iron phosphate" in paragraph [0084]), 1.4 wt% of the second conductive agent (see e.g. "1.4 wt % of conductive carbon black" in paragraph [0084]), and 2.8 wt% of the second binder (see e.g. "2.8 wt % of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF)" in paragraph [0084]).
Su further discloses the second positive electrode active material (surface layer) forming the second positive electrode active material layer (surface layer) has a particle size distribution of 0.2 µm < D50 < 15 µm and D90 ≤ 40 µm (see e.g. " the particle diameter cumulated to 50% by volume of the small particle diameter (Dv50), i.e., the average particle diameter, in a range of from about 0.2 μm to about 15 μm, and in the volume-based particle size distribution of the first cathode active material (surface layer), the particle diameter cumulated to 90% by volume of the small particle diameter (Dv90) in a range of less than or equal to about 40 μm." in paragraph [0046]).
Su discloses points and ranges that either lie within or overlap with the ranges claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses points and ranges that either lie within or overlap with the claimed ranges, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Su is silent as to second positive electrode active material having a particle size distribution of 4 µm<D10<6 µm.
Nagata, however, in the same field of endeavor, layered positive electrode sheets for wound type batteries, discloses positive active material with a D50 particle distribution values of 14.2 μm (see e.g. Example 1 in Table 1 of Nagata) and 17.6 μm (see e.g. Example 2 in Table 2 of Nagata). Furthermore, Nagata discloses that D10 is 5 to 10 μm and D90 is 22 to 30 μm (see e.g. "For example, D10 is 5 to 10 μm and D90 is 22 to 30 μm." in paragraph [0023]).
Nagata discloses points and ranges that lie within or overlap with the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses points and ranges that lie within or overlap with claimed ranges, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). This further reinforces the obviousness of selecting particle distributions in the claimed ranges.
Moreover, Nagata explicitly discloses a reason to use larger particle diameters, namely, that increasing the particle size increases the voids between the positive electrode active material particles which forms a continuous flow path leading to a greater number of positive electrode active material particles being packed at a high density and also contains interparticle voids through which electrolyte solutions easily flow (see e.g. paragraph [0022] of Nagata). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and use the teachings of Nagata to utilize active material particles with larger diameters in order to increase active material particle density and increase interparticle voids so that electrolyte solution can flow easily as disclosed by Nagata.
Regarding Claim 15, Su in view of Nagata discloses the positive electrode sheet according to claim 14 (see claim 14 rejection above). Su further discloses that the mass percentages of the components each in the second positive electrode active material layer (surface layer) are: 95.8 wt% of the second positive electrode active material (see e.g. "95.8 wt % of lithium iron phosphate" in Embodiment 1 paragraph [0084]), 1.4 wt% of the second conductive agent (see e.g. "1.4 wt % of conductive carbon black" in Embodiment 1 paragraph [0084]), and 2.8 wt% of the second binder (see e.g. "2.8 wt % of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF)" in Embodiment 1 paragraph [0084]).
Su discloses points that lie within the ranges claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 16, Su in view of Nagata discloses a lithium-ion battery (see e.g. "lithium-ion battery" in paragraph [0036] of Su) comprising the positive electrode sheet (see e.g. " the lithium-ion battery includes a cathode" in paragraph [0036 of Su) of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding Claim 17, Su in view of Nagata discloses the positive electrode sheet of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above). Su is silent as to the first positive electrode active material layer having a D10 particle distribution of 5 µm<D10<8 µm and a second positive electrode active material having a D10 particle distribution of 4 µm<D10<6 µm.
Nagata, however, in the same field of endeavor, layered positive electrode sheets for wound type batteries, discloses positive active material with a D50 particle distribution values of 14.2 μm (see e.g. Example 1 in Table 1 of Nagata) and 17.6 μm (see e.g. Example 2 in Table 2 of Nagata). Furthermore, Nagata discloses that D10 is 5 to 10 μm and D90 is 22 to 30 μm (see e.g. "For example, D10 is 5 to 10 μm and D90 is 22 to 30 μm." in paragraph [0023]).
Nagata discloses points and ranges that lie within or overlap with the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses points and ranges that lie within or overlap with claimed ranges, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). This further reinforces the obviousness of selecting particle distributions in the claimed ranges.
Moreover, Nagata explicitly discloses a reason to use larger particle diameters, namely, that increasing the particle size increases the voids between the positive electrode active material particles which forms a continuous flow path leading to a greater number of positive electrode active material particles being packed at a high density and also contains interparticle voids through which electrolyte solutions easily flow (see e.g. paragraph [0022] of Nagata). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and use the teachings of Nagata to utilize active material particles with larger diameters in order to increase active material particle density and increase interparticle voids so that electrolyte solution can flow easily as disclosed by Nagata.
Regarding Claim 18, Su in view of Nagata disclose the positive electrode sheet of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above). Su does not explicitly disclose that a length of the first coating layer is 8–10 mm longer than a length of the third coating layer. However, Su expressly teaches that the coating layer lengths are adjustable parameters selected to achieve predictable functional outcomes (see e.g. First Distance and Second Distance in Table 1 of Su). Su further discloses that the length of the first coating layer ranges broadly from 3 mm to 20 mm (see e.g. First Distance in Table 1 of Su) and FIG. 2 of Su depicts the third coating layer as shorter relative to the first coating layer. Because Su teaches that these coating layer lengths are variable and intentionally adjusted, the difference between the first and third coating layer lengths constitutes a result effective variable. See MPEP 2144.05(II). The prior art recognizes a variable as suitable for adjustment to achieve a desired result, merely discovering an optimum or workable range, thus selecting a differential of 8–10 mm would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Su’s disclosed 3–20 mm range inherently encompasses values that exceed the third layer length by 8–10 mm, and selecting such values represents routine optimization of known parameters to obtain predictable mechanical and electrical advantages already identified by Su.
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al. (US-20200144605-A1) in view of Nagata et al. (US-20190067677-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US-20200127276-A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Su in view of Nagata discloses the positive electrode sheet according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above). Su in view of Nagata does not disclose that the single-sided coated area, a thickness of the first positive electrode active material layer in the first coating layer is 5-15 µm, a thickness of the second positive electrode active material layer in the first coating layer is 55-75 µm, and a sum of the thickness of the first positive electrode active material layer and the thickness of the second positive electrode active material layer is 60-80 µm.
Kim, however, in the same field of endeavor, positive electrode assemblies for jelly roll shape batteries, discloses a positive electrode sheet with a first positive electrode active material layer (top layer) thickness in a range of about 10 μm to about 100 μm (see e.g. "The thickness of the second cathode active material layer 114 may be in a range from about 10 μm to about 100 μm." in paragraph [0105] of Kim; the second cathode active material layer is the top layer equivalent to the claimed first positive electrode active material layer) and a thickness of the second positive electrode active material (surface layer) is in the range from about 50 μm to about 200 μm (see e.g. "For example, the thickness of the first cathode active layer 112 may be in a range from about 50 μm to about 200 μm, " in paragraph [105] of Kim; the first cathode active material layer is the surface layer equivalent to the claimed second positive electrode active material layer). It would then be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the sum of the thickness of the first positive electrode active material layer and the thickness of the second positive electrode active material layer is 60 μm to about 300 μm.
Kim discloses ranges that overlap with the ranges claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range that overlaps with the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Kim also teaches that creating a positive electrode sheet in these manner leads to greater penetration stability and increased battery lifespan (see e.g. paragraph [0158] of Kim). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the teachings of Kim in combination with Su in view of Nagata and tailor the layer thicknesses in order to increase penetration stability and battery lifespan as taught by Kim.
Regarding Claim 9, Su in view of Nagata discloses the positive electrode sheet according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above). Su in view of Nagata does not disclose that in the double-sided coated area, a thickness of the first positive electrode active material layer in the second coating layer is 5-15 µm, a thickness of the second positive electrode active material layer in the second coating layer is 55-75 µm, and a sum of the thickness of the first positive electrode active material layer and the thickness of the second positive electrode active material layer is 60-80 µm.
Kim, however, discloses a positive electrode sheet with a first positive electrode active material layer (top layer) thickness in a range of about 10 μm to about 100 μm (see e.g. "The thickness of the second cathode active material layer 114 may be in a range from about 10 μm to about 100 μm." in paragraph [0105] of Kim; the second cathode active material layer is the top layer equivalent to the claimed first positive electrode active material layer) and a thickness of the second positive electrode active material (surface layer) is in the range from about 50 μm to about 200 μm (see e.g. "For example, the thickness of the first cathode active layer 112 may be in a range from about 50 μm to about 200 μm, " in paragraph [105] of Kim; the first cathode active material layer is the surface layer equivalent to the claimed second positive electrode active material layer). It would then be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the sum of the thickness of the first positive electrode active material layer and the thickness of the second positive electrode active material layer is 60 μm to about 300 μm.
Kim discloses ranges that overlap with the ranges claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range that overlaps with the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Kim also teaches that creating a positive electrode sheet in these manner leads to greater penetration stability and increased battery lifespan (see e.g. paragraph [0158] of Kim). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the teachings of Kim in combination with Su in view of Nagata and tailor the layer thicknesses in order to increase penetration stability and battery lifespan as taught by Kim.
Regarding Claim 10, Su in view of Nagata discloses the positive electrode sheet according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above). Su in view of Nagata does not discloses that in the double-sided coated area, a thickness of the first positive electrode active material layer in the third coating layer is 60-80 µm.
Kim, however, discloses a positive electrode sheet with a first positive electrode active material layer (top layer) thickness in a range of about 10 μm to about 100 μm (see e.g. "The thickness of the second cathode active material layer 114 may be in a range from about 10 μm to about 100 μm." in paragraph [0105] of Kim; the second cathode active material layer is the top layer equivalent to the claimed first positive electrode active material layer).
Kim discloses ranges that overlap with the ranges claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range that overlaps with the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Kim also teaches that creating a positive electrode sheet in these manner leads to greater penetration stability and increased battery lifespan (see e.g. paragraph [0158] of Kim). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the teachings of Kim in combination with Su in view of Nagata and tailor the layer thicknesses in order to increase penetration stability and battery lifespan as taught by Kim.
Regarding Claim 11, Su in view of Nagata discloses the positive electrode sheet according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above). Su in view of Nagata does not discloses that in the double-sided coated area, a thickness of the first positive electrode active material layer in the fourth coating layer is 5-15 µm, a thickness of the second positive electrode active material layer in the fourth coating layer is 55-75 µm, and a sum of the thickness of the first positive electrode active material layer and the thickness of the second positive electrode active material layer is 60-80 µm.
Kim, however, discloses a positive electrode sheet with a first positive electrode active material layer (top layer) thickness in a range of about 10 μm to about 100 μm (see e.g. "The thickness of the second cathode active material layer 114 may be in a range from about 10 μm to about 100 μm." in paragraph [0105] of Kim; the second cathode active material layer is the top layer equivalent to the claimed first positive electrode active material layer) and a thickness of the second positive electrode active material (surface layer) is in the range from about 50 μm to about 200 μm (see e.g. "For example, the thickness of the first cathode active layer 112 may be in a range from about 50 μm to about 200 μm, " in paragraph [105] of Kim; the first cathode active material layer is the surface layer equivalent to the claimed second positive electrode active material layer). It would then be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the sum of the thickness of the first positive electrode active material layer and the thickness of the second positive electrode active material layer is 60 μm to about 300 μm.
Kim discloses ranges that overlap with the ranges claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range that overlaps with the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Kim also teaches that creating a positive electrode sheet in these manner leads to greater penetration stability and increased battery lifespan (see e.g. paragraph [0158] of Kim). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the teachings of Kim in combination with Su in view of Nagata and tailor the layer thicknesses in order to increase penetration stability and battery lifespan as taught by Kim.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSE EFYMOW whose telephone number is (571)270-0795. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 10:30 am - 8:30 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.J.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights