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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/06/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 10/06/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-2, and 4-5, are amended, Claim 3 is canceled, Claim 7 is newly added and Claims 1-2, and 4-7 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al. (JP 5098954 B2 - Machine Translation), hereinafter “Sasaki” in view of in view of Kim et al. (US 20200075930 A1), hereinafter “Kim”. Sasaki and Kim et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely positive electrode materials.
In regard to Claim 1, Sasaki et al. discloses a positive electrode comprising: a positive electrode current collector; an adhesive layer; and a positive electrode layer (Sasaki, Abstract). Sasaki et al. also discloses the positive electrode current collector, the adhesive layer, and the positive electrode layer are stacked in this order (Sasaki, Paragraph [12]). Further Sasaki et al. discloses the adhesive layer containing a first spherical carbon and a first fibrous carbon as a first electrically conductive material by disclosing the use of either specific combination of carbon black and carbon fiber or carbon black and carbon whisker (Sasaki, Paragraph [15]), which are also disclosed in the original specification as examples of spherical carbon (carbon black, acetylene black and Ketjen black) and fibrous carbon (carbon fibers, carbon nanotubes, and carbon nanofibers) (Original Specification, Paragraph [0022]).
Sasaki et al. also discloses an adhesive layer containing an acrylic binder as an adhesive by disclosing a specific embodiment using n-butyl acrylate and 2-ethylhexyl acrylate (Sasaki, Paragraph [20,22]). Sasaki et al. discloses the positive electrode layer contains a second electrically conductive material comprising a carbon allotrope comprising a preferred list including spherical and fibrous carbon (Sasaki, Paragraphs [54,62]), but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the second electrically conductive material comprises both a second spherical carbon and a second fibrous carbon.
Kim et al. discloses Kim et al. discloses a positive electrode layer comprising a combination of spherical carbon (Particulate carbon with aspect ratio near 1) and a fibrous carbon (linear carbon such as CNT) with a weight ratio of the linear carbon to the particulate carbon of 90:10 based on a total weight of the linear carbon and the particulate carbon (Kim, Paragraphs [0032-0033]).
Kim et al. also discloses a specific example wherein the positive electrode layer comprises a second spherical carbon and a second fibrous carbon as a second electrically conductive material and where a volume fraction of the second electrically conductive material consisting of the second spherical carbon and the second fibrous carbon in the positive electrode layer can be calculated using the mass fractions and known material densities of active material, conductive material and binder which equals Active material 94.23 vol%, Binder 1.12 vol%, fibrous carbon (CNT) 3.27 vol% and spherical carbon (Carbon Black) 1.41 vol%, i.e. the vol% of the second conductive material is 4.68% (Kim, Example 1), which anticipates the claimed range of 3 volume% to 6 volume% when a total volume of the positive electrode layer is taken as 100 volume%. Kim et al. teaches the benefit of the combination of spherical and fibrous carbon in the positive electrode layer as dispersibility of the conductive material is improved and electrical conductivity of the cathode is further improved (Kim, Paragraph [0033]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a fibrous and spherical carbon combination in the positive electrode layer as taught in Kim et al. to the conductive material in the positive electrode layer of Sasaki et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Kim et al. and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al. (JP 5098954 B2 - Machine Translation), hereinafter “Sasaki” in view of Kim et al. (US 20200075930 A1), hereinafter “Kim” as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Jung et al. (WO2021107586A1 - US 20220149350 A1 referenced for citation), hereinafter “Jung”. Sasaki, Kim and Jung et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely positive electrode materials.
In regard to Claim 2, Sasaki et al. in view of Kim et al. discloses the positive electrode according to claim 1. Sasaki et al. also discloses wherein the positive electrode layer contains a positive electrode active material and the positive electrode active material is a lithium-transition metal composite oxide by specifically disclosing LiNiO2 which is LiNixM1-xO2 where x = 1 (Sasaki, Paragraph [49]). In addition, the original specification discloses that “there is no particular limitation on the type of positive electrode active
material, and any material that can be used as an active material for batteries can be used as a positive electrode active material” (Original Specification, Paragraph [0025]). However, Sasaki et al. fails to explicitly disclose the positive electrode active material is a lithium-transition metal composite oxide represented by LiNixM1-xO2; and in the lithium-transition metal composite oxide, x satisfies 0.5 x < 1, and M represents at least one element selected from the group consisting of cobalt (Co), manganese (Mn), and aluminum (Al).
Jung et al. discloses a current collector coated with a first adhesive layer that contains a combination of conductive carbons and an acrylic binder, and a second positive electrode layer that includes an active material (Jung, Abstract). The active material disclosed in Jung is represented by the composition formula LiNiaCobMncO2 (0<a<0.8, 0<b<1, 0<c<1, a+b+c=1), which overlaps the claimed composition formula (Jung, Paragraph [0057]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a positive electrode active material as taught in Jung to the positive electrode disclosed in Sasaki as doing so would be nothing more than a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
In regard to Claim 4, Sasaki et al. in view of Kim and further in view of Jung et al. discloses the positive electrode according to claim 2. Sasaki and Jung et al. both use a combination of spherical and fibrous carbon, but fail to explicitly disclose the mass ratio of each.
Kim et al. discloses a positive electrode layer comprising a combination of spherical carbon (Particulate carbon with aspect ratio near 1) and a fibrous carbon (linear carbon such as CNT) with a weight ratio of the linear carbon to the particulate carbon of 90:10 based on a total weight of the linear carbon and the particulate carbon, which when provided in this range also achieves the benefit of the dispersibility of the conductive material being improved and the electrical conductivity of the cathode being further improved (Kim, Paragraphs [0032-0033]).
The 90:10 ratio is equivalent to 90 mass % fibrous carbon and 10 mass % of spherical carbon and therefore the 10 mass % of spherical carbon disclosed in Kim et al. falls within the claimed range of 7-12 mass % of spherical carbon in the positive electrode layer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a combination of spherical and fibrous carbon conductive additives in the positive electrode layer with the ratio of spherical carbon to fibrous carbon taught in Kim et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan a reasonable expectation of success to achieve the benefit taught in Kim and as doing so is nothing more than the use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al. (JP 5098954 B2 - Machine Translation), hereinafter “Sasaki” in view of Kim et al. (US 20200075930 A1), hereinafter “Kim” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshida et al. (WO 2015146787 A1 - Machine Translation), hereinafter “Yoshida”. Sasaki, Kim and Yoshida et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely positive electrode materials.
In regard to Claim 5, Sasaki et al. in view of Kim et al. discloses the positive electrode according to claim 1. While Sasaki discloses the spherical carbon can include carbon black (Sasaki, Paragraph [15], Example 1) and mentions the choice of acetylene black for a carbon particle (Sasaki, Paragraph [14]) but it fails to explicitly disclose wherein the spherical carbon is acetylene black.
Yoshida et al. discloses a conductive adhesive layer containing a spherical and fibrous carbon and discloses a specific example where acetylene black is used as the spherical carbon (Yoshida, Paragraph [125]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide acetylene black as taught in Yoshida instead of the Super P carbon black taught in Sasaki et al. as doing so would be nothing more than a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
In regard to Claim 7, Sasaki et al. in view of Kim et al. discloses the positive electrode according to claim 1. While Sasaki et al. discloses the adhesive layer containing a first spherical carbon and a first fibrous carbon as a first electrically conductive material by disclosing the use of either specific combination of carbon black and carbon fiber or carbon black and carbon whisker (Sasaki, Paragraph [15]) it is silent as to the volume fraction of the first electrically conductive material, consisting of the first spherical carbon and the first fibrous carbon, in the adhesive layer.
Yoshida et al. discloses a conductive adhesive layer wherein the weight % of the conductive material in the adhesive layer is in a range of 8-38% based on the skilled artisan’s viewpoint of improving the conductivity of the conductive adhesive layer and improving the output characteristics of the obtained electrochemical element (Yoshida, Paragraph [9]). Yoshida et al. also discloses a specific example wherein the conductive adhesive layer comprises a spherical carbon (Graphite/Acetylene black) and fibrous carbon (CNT) wherein the volume fraction of the conductive adhesive layer can be calculated given the mass fractions and known material densities of the conductive carbons, the surfactant and the particulate binder which is equal to 50 volume % when a total volume of the adhesive layer is taken as 100 volume % (Yoshida, Example 1). This is a single embodiment and uses a wt% of conductive carbon of 19.7wt% wherein the range in wt% of the conductive carbon in Yoshida is taught to range between 8-38% and thus would overlap the claimed range of vol%. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to vary the volume % of the conductive carbon in the adhesive layer based on the viewpoint of the skilled artisan to overlap the claimed range as doing so would amount to nothing more than a variation of it for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al. (JP 5098954 B2 - Machine Translation), hereinafter “Sasaki” in view of Kim et al. (US 20200075930 A1), hereinafter “Kim” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oguro et al. (JP6273948B2 - Machine Translation), hereinafter “Oguro”. Sasaki, Kim and Oguro et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely positive electrode materials.
In regard to Claim 6, Sasaki et al. in view of Kim et al. discloses the positive electrode according to claim 1. While Sasaki discloses a wt% of the binder of 0.1-50 wt% and a calculation based on the known densities of the provided binder and conductive carbons yielded a volume % of the binder in the adhesive layer of 44% which fails to explicitly disclose a volume fraction of the acrylic binder in the adhesive layer is 50 volume% to 80 volume% when a total volume of the adhesive layer is taken as 100 volume%.
Oguro et al. discloses an adhesive layer comprising a combination of conductive carbon and a binder (Oguro, Paragraph [5]) wherein the binder is preferably 100 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the total conductive carbon in the adhesive layer (Oguro, Paragraph [44]). Further, Oguro teaches the amount of the particulate binder resin cannot be too large or the electrical resistance of the conductive adhesive layer formed by the adhesive composition becomes too high and if the amount of the binder is too small, the adhesion between the conductive adhesive layer formed by the adhesive composition and the current collector made of aluminum or the like is lowered (Oguro, Paragraph [44]).
Given the value of 100 parts by mass of binder and 100 parts by mass of conductive carbon, the weight percent of the binder is 50wt% and then substituting the commonly known densities of the provided binder and conductive carbon materials disclosed in the adhesive layer in examples 1-6 and comparative examples 1-2 in Oguro, the calculation of the volume % of the binder in the adhesive layer computes to 62.5 vol% given a 50wt% of the binder. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a conductive adhesive layer with a binder in a range of 50 volume% to 80 volume% as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefit taught in Oguro and would be nothing more than a variation of its use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces since the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection was changed from a 35 U.S.C 102 (a)(1) rejection to a 35 U.S.C 103 rejection and a reference previously cited in the office action. Kim et al. (US 20200075930 A1) discloses the new “first” and “second” limitations of amended claim 1 as well as teaching the spherical and fibrous carbon in the positive electrode layer in a range of volume % as discussed in the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection of Claim 1 above.
Further, Applicant's arguments filed 10/06/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. While Example 1 of Sasaki et al. does not provide a spherical and fibrous carbon in the adhesive layer, that is but one embodiment and Sasaki et al. also discloses a preferred combination of spherical and fibrous carbon for use in the conductive adhesive layer (Sasaki, Paragraph [15]). Therefore, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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 KENNETH MAX OTERO whose telephone number is (571)272-2559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Generally 7:30-430.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/K.M.O./ Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725