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
Claims 1-9 are rejected.
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.
Claims 1, 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20200075990 A1, “Park”) in view of Zhang et al. (“Dendrite-free lithium metal solid battery with a novel polyester based triblock copolymer solid-state electrolyte.”) in view of Yushin et al. (US 20170018768 A1, “Yushin”) and in view of Yashiro et al. (US 20190260065 A1, “Yashiro”).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Park discloses a lithium secondary battery (see Abstract), comprising: a positive electrode (see FIG. 3 “positive electrode 10”), a negative electrode having no negative electrode active material, prior to initial charging of the lithium secondary battery (see FIG. 3 “negative electrode (20)” & see [0002] “negative electrode free (anode free) structure”), wherein the negative electrode consists of at least one metal selected from the group consisting of Cu, Ni, Ti, and stainless steel (SUS) (see [0039] “copper, stainless steel” & “nickel, titanium”), a separator placed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (see FIG. 3 “separator (30” is between “10” & “20”), a porous buffering function layer formed on a surface of the separator facing the negative electrode and having ionic conductivity (see [0095] “the separator (30, 60) may be formed with a porous substrate” & see [0100] “the separator (30, 60) functions as a resistive layer” & ionic conductivity is a property of the material), wherein: the positive electrode comprises a positive electrode active material (see [0042]) and a lithium-containing compound which causes an oxidation reaction (see [0071] “a chemical reaction may occur between the positive electrode and the lithium metal”).
Regarding the limitation a lithium-containing compound does not substantially cause a reduction reaction in a charge/discharge potential range of the positive electrode active material, Park does not explicitly disclose, however, Park does disclose in [0090] “protective film (55)” & suppressing or preventing production of lithium dendrite”. Park discloses “Accordingly, any material may be used as the protective film (55) as long as it is capable of smoothly transferring lithium ions, and materials used in lithium ion conducting polymers and/or inorganic solid electrolytes may be used, and as necessary, a lithium salt may be further included” (see [0080]).
Zhang teaches in P8 par 2 “the as-decomposed SEI layer is enriched with a high content of LiF, which is stable chemical compound protecting Li metal from further reduction. This gives rise to long term stable performance of LFP//Li cell”. Zhang teaches “LiF” & “this component is favorable to prevent lithium dendrite formation” in P7 col 1 par 3.
Park and Zhang are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely dendrite prevention (see Zhang P7 col 1 par 3).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that lithium salt as disclosed by Park (see [0080], [0087]) would exhibit similar properties as the claimed invention because Park discloses a substantially similar material that would prevent lithium dendrites as suggested by Zhang (see P7 col 1 par 3) and would protect Li metal from further reduction as suggested by Zhang (see P8 par 2).
Regarding the limitation and in a particle size distribution as measured by laser diffraction scattering method, the lithium-containing compound has a particle size D50 (S), which corresponds to a cumulative degree at 50%, of 1.0 µm or more and 20 µm or less, and the lithium-containing compound has a particle size D95 (S), which corresponds to a cumulative degree at 95%, of 1.0 µm or more and 30 µm or less, Park does not explicitly disclose.
Yushin teaches particle size of lithium compound (see [0056] “For many applications, it may be advantageous for the skeleton matrix material to be in the form of individual particles (powders). For significantly improved structural and chemical stability, the skeleton matrix for each composite particle may preferably be in the form of a single monolithic particle (a single-bodied particle). For many applications, it may be advantageous for the skeleton matrix material particles to be of substantially spherical shape (e.g., in order to enhance mechanical properties or the stability of individual particles). For many applications, it may be advantageous for the skeleton matrix material particles to be uniform in size (e.g., with a difference between a so-called “D90” parameter and a so-called “D10” parameter being less than a so-called “D50” or a median particle size; more preferably less than 50% of an average size; even more preferably less than 20% of an average size). In this case the particle architecture may be optimized for enhanced stability and sufficiently high rate, and the electrode-level ionic resistance may be minimized by forming straight channels for electrolyte ion transport within the electrode”; see [0072] “minimizes the size of metal and LiF clusters in the composite”; see [0082] “metal fluoride” & 1 nm to about 50 microns”).
Park and Yushin are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely rechargeable batteries (see Yushin [0005]).
Yushin teaches a range of 1 nm to about 50 microns, which overlaps with the claimed range of 1.0 µm or more and 20 µm or less and the claimed range of 1.0 µm or more and 30 µm or less. MPEP 2144.05 I states 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. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the particles must have a diameter, and a skilled artisan would thus find a range of “1 nm to about 50 microns” as suggested by Yushin (see [0082]) appropriate, and further find it obvious to routinely select from overlapping particle size as suggested by Yushin (see [0082]).
Yashiro teaches particle size can be measured using “methods known to those of skill in the art, for example, using a laser diffraction particle-size analyzer” (see [0142]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate laser diffraction particle size analyzer as suggested by Yashiro into the lithium secondary battery of Park, to obtain particle size measurements because it is a known measurement instrument to measure particle size as suggested by Yashiro (see [0142]).
Regarding claim 5, Park discloses the lithium secondary battery of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose comprising 1.0 mass% or more and 15 mass% or less of the lithium-containing compound based on a total mass of the positive electrode.
Yushin teaches lithium containing compound % (see [0138] “metal fluorides” & “may be added to LiF as “dopants” to improve rate performance” & “3%” which lies within the claimed range.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate 3% into the lithium secondary battery of Park because Yushin suggests doing so improves the rate performance (see [0138]).
Regarding claim 6, Park discloses the lithium secondary battery of claim 1 and further discloses in [0046] “irreversible capacity” & see [0047] “initial irreversibility of 30% or greater as an additive capable of providing a lithium source to the lithium transition metal oxide”).
Park discloses a range of 30% or greater, which overlaps with the claimed range of 1.0% or more and 30% or less. MPEP 2144.05 I states 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. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Yushin teaches in [0049] “irreversible changes within their structure during battery operation (such as irreversible growth of the LiF and metal clusters/nanoparticles), which may also lead to irreversible resistance growth capacity losses”.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the lithium secondary battery disclosed by Park would exhibit a proportion of an irreversible capacity because Park discloses irreversibility of 30% which overlaps the claimed range at an end point & suggested by Yushin (see [0049]) and 20% lies within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 7, Park discloses the lithium secondary battery of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the buffering function layer has a porosity (see [0100] “porosity is preferably from 10% to 95%).
Park discloses a range of 10% to 95% which overlaps with the claimed range of 50% or more. MPEP 2144.05 I states 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. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that 10% to 95% overlaps the claimed range of 50% or more porosity and Park describes a substantially similar buffering function layer would exhibit similar properties including porosity.
Regarding claim 8, Park discloses the lithium secondary battery of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the buffering function layer further has electric conductivity (see [0010] “separator (30, 60) functions as a resistive layer” which reads on electric conductivity & electric conductivity is a property of the material).
Regarding claim 9, Park discloses the lithium secondary battery of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the lithium-containing compound is an Fe-containing compound (see [0044] “lithium-containing transition metal oxides” & “LiFePO4”).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20200075990 A1, “Park”) in view of Yushin et al. (US 20170018768 A1, “Yushin”) and Zhang et al. (Dendrite-free lithium metal solid battery with a novel polyester based triblock copolymer solid-state electrolyte) and in view of Yashiro et al. (US 20190260065 A1, “Yashiro”) and Ju et al. (Improvement of the Cycling Performance of LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 Cathode Active Materials by a Dual-Conductive Polymer Coating).
Further regarding claim 2 and the limitations supposing that in a particle size distribution as determined by a laser diffraction-scattering method, a particle size corresponding to a cumulative degree at 50% is D50, the positive electrode active material has D50 (A) of 5.0 um or more and 20 um or less, and a particle size ratio D50 (A)/D50 (S) of D50 (A) of the positive electrode active material to D50 (S) of the lithium-containing compound is 2.0 or more and 10.0 or less, Park does not explicitly disclose.
Yushin teaches particle size (see [0082] “metal fluoride” & size of particles & “range from about 1 nm to about 50 microns”.
Ju teaches pos. electrode active material particle size (see P2547 col 2 par 2 “LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 particles” & “8-10 µm”).
Park and Ju are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely suppressing dendrite growth (see Ju P2546 col 2 par 1).
Yushin and Ju teach a ratio of 2, which overlaps with the claimed range of 2.0 or more and 10.0 or less. MPEP 2144.05 I states 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. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the metal fluoride particle size suggested by Yushin (see [0082] “range from about 1 nm to about 50 microns”) and the pos. electrode active material suggested by Ju (see P2547 col 2 par 2 “LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 particles” & “8-10 µm”) would read on the limitation particle size ratio of pos. electrode active material to lithium-containing compound is 2.0 because a skilled artisan would recognize that when the pos. electrode active material is 10 µm and the metal compound is 5 µm would result in a ratio of 2 which overlaps the claimed ratio.
Regarding claim 3, Park discloses the lithium secondary battery of claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the lithium-containing compound has D50 (S) of 1.0 µm or more and 10 µm or less.
Yushin teaches lithium-containing compound has particle size (see [0082] “metal fluoride” & size of particles & “range from about 1 nm to about 50 microns” & see [0072] “minimizing the size of the metal and LiF clusters in the composite” & see [0056] describes “the particle architecture can be optimized for improved stability and a sufficiently high rate, and electrode-level ionic resistance can be minimized by forming linear channels for electrolyte ion transport in the electrode”).
Yushin teaches a range of 1 nm to about 50 microns, which overlaps with the claimed range of 1.0 µm or more and 10 µm or less. MPEP 2144.05 I states 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. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the particle architecture as suggested by Yushin and incorporate metal fluoride particle size between the range of 1 nm to about 50 microns as suggested by Yushin (see [0082] because doing so is using a particle size that would improve the stability as suggested by Yushin (see [0056]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20200075990 A1, “Park”) in view of Yushin et al. (US 20170018768 A1, “Yushin”) and Zhang et al. (Dendrite-free lithium metal solid battery with a novel polyester based triblock copolymer solid-state electrolyte) and in view of Yashiro et al. (US 20190260065 A1, “Yashiro”) and Ju et al. (Improvement of the Cycling Performance of LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 Cathode Active Materials by a Dual-Conductive Polymer Coating) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Takiguchi et al. (US 20150140448 A1, “Takiguchi”).
Regarding claim 4, Park discloses the lithium secondary battery of claim 2 and further discloses “high energy density positive electrode (cathode)” in [0077]. Park does not explicitly disclose wherein the positive electrode has an electrode density of 3.0 g/cc or more.
Takiguchi teaches tap density (see [0330]) and “tap density” & “at least 1 g/cm-3” & “With a tap density within this range, it is possible to both ensure the battery capacity and control the increase in resistance between particles” (see [0331]).
Takiguchi teaches a range of at least 1 g/cc, which overlaps with the claimed range of 3.0 g/cc or more. MPEP 2144.05 I states 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. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Takiguchi to include density of at least 1 g/cm3 (see [0331]) because doing so ensures the battery capacity, as suggested by Takiguchi (see [0331]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 SARAH APPLEGATE whose telephone number is (571)270-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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.
/S.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 07/31/2026
Prosecution Insights