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
Applicant’s amendment and arguments, filed 02/06/26, have been fully considered. Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, and 16–18 is/are amended; claim(s) 3, 4, 6, 9–11,14, 15, and 19 stand(s) as originally or previously presented; and claim(s) 20 is/are added without entering new matter. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous claim objections and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection set forth in the Office Action mailed 11/06/25 has/have been withdrawn. However, the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection as well as non-statutory double-patenting rejection over U.S. 11,121,362 has/have been maintained and altered as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment, as set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claims 12 and 13 are objected to for the following informalities: in lines 3/4 and 4, respectively, each recitation of “Dv50(L)” and “Dv50(S)” should read “Dv50(L)” and “Dv50(S)” to conform to prior recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text forming the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 may be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim(s) 1–6 and 11–19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (CN 108808072 A, from 03/22/23 IDS; citation to English equivalent US 20200006802 A1) (Xu) in view of Kitano et al. (US 20210167374 A1) (Kitano) and Kuroda et al. (WO 2019177032 A1; citation to English equivalent US 20210083286 A1) (Kuroda).
Regarding claims 1, 6, 12, 13, and 19, Xu discloses a secondary battery (Li battery, e.g., Abstract) comprising a positive electrode plate (Abstract), wherein the positive electrode plate comprises a positive electrode current collector and a positive electrode active substance layer located on a surface of the positive electrode current collector (¶ 0006), the positive electrode active substance layer comprises a positive electrode active substance (e.g., ¶ 0006), wherein the positive electrode active substance contains a first lithium-nickel transition metal oxide (lithium-containing compound such as NCM oxide, e.g., ¶ 0023 and Table 1’s examples such as NCM523 in Ex. 6).
Xu discloses that the first lithium-nickel transition metal oxide contains a first matrix (the base particles, absent special definition of “matrix”, in being a reasonably ordered group of particles, reasonably constitute a “matrix”), and a chemical formula of the first matrix is expressed by instant formula I, where a1 = 0, x1 = 0.5, y1 = 0.2, z1 = 0.3, b1 = 0, e1 = 0, x1 + y1 + z1 + b1 = 1, and X and M are absent (NCM523, i.e., LiNi0.5Co0.2Mn0.3O2, Ex. 6).
Xu further discloses that the Li-containing compound may be coated with, e.g., a metal oxide to reduce electrolytic side reactions and improve the material’s electrochemical stability (¶ 0076, 0081, 0082) but appears to fail to explicitly disclose such in Table 1 and, thus, a first coating layer on a surface of the first matrix.
Considering that Xu is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely positive electrode active material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to coat Xu’s active material with a (first) coating layer of a metal oxide with the reasonable expectation of reducing electrolytic side reactions and improving the material’s electrochemical stability, as suggested by Xu.
Xu further discloses that at least part of the active material is non-aggregated single particles to improve pressing density and reduce electrolytic side reactions and gas generation (¶ 0086), which seems to imply that another portion of the active material agglomerates into secondary particles. Thus, Xu appears to disclose that the first lithium-nickel transition metal oxide contains a first matrix of secondary particles (the implied agglomerated portion), and the second lithium-nickel transition metal oxide is single crystal particles (the single crystal portion).
Arguendo, if the above were not necessarily true, Kitano teaches that it is known that positive electrode active material containing secondary particles provide higher output characteristics, while single, i.e., single-crystal, particles compensate for the secondary particles’ cracking from electrode pressurization and/or electrode (dis)charge (¶ 0003). Kitano specifically teaches a D50/DSEM ratio of 1–4, where a lower ratio indicates fewer primary particles in the composite so that the particles are only single particles, while a higher ratio indicates more primary particles—as many as 30—constituting the composite particles (¶ 0023), i.e., aggregating into secondary particles. Kitano teaches that, within this range, both superior initial efficiency and durability are achievable (¶ 0022).
Kitano is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely positive electrode active material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form a mixture of single-particle and secondary-particle lithium-containing-oxide active materials with the reasonable expectation of achieving higher output while reducing cracking and improving durability, as suggested by Kitano.
Thus, modified Xu would disclose a first matrix of secondary particles (the aggregated particles of the active material, via Kitano), as well as a second lithium-nickel transition metal oxide of single crystal particles (the non-aggregated, single particles, via Kitano).
Xu further discloses a D50 of the active substance of, e.g., 3.5 μm (Ex. 6, Table 1) but more generally discloses a D50 of 1~20 μm because, within this range, the electrode’s homogeneity improves, as the too small active material can be prevented from excessively reacting with the electrolyte, while the too large active material may be prevented from hindering Li+ transmission (¶ 0094).
However, in appearing unconcerned with the rest of the particle distribution, Xu fails to explicitly articulate a Dv90 of 10–20 μm, as well as 40 μm < (Dv90 x Dv50)/Dv10 < 90 μm.
Kitano further teaches a Dv90/Dv10 of ≤ 4.5 for more uniform particle diameters (¶ 0028).
It would have been obvious to configure Xu’s particle distribution with a Dv90/Dv10 of ≤ 4.5, as taught by Kitano, with the reasonable expectation of forming more uniform particle diameters, as taught by Kitano and desired by Xu for the above benefits.
Importantly, then, although modified Xu fails to explicitly articulate a Dv90 of 10–20 μm, as well as 40 μm < (Dv90 x Dv50)/Dv10 < 90 μm, modified Xu’s disclosure appears to be able to at least overlap these ranges. For example, if modified Xu’s Dv50 were 10 μm and Dv90/Dv10 were 4.5, such would yield (Dv90 x Dv50)/Dv10 = 45 μm, falling within the recited range. More importantly, though, as discussed above, Xu controls the Dv50 to 1~20 μm to balance electrolytic side reactions with Li+ transmission. Moreover, the skilled artisan would recognize from Xu/Kitano that reducing Dv90 would reduce Dv90/Dv10 and, thus, form more uniform particle diameters, as Xu desires, whereas forming larger particles—and, thus, a larger Dv90 as the size at which 90 vol% of the sample is smaller—would necessarily impart greater ion-intercalation ability and, thus, capacity (as implied from Xu’s energy-density discussion in ¶ 0094). To balance these effects, then, it would have been obvious to reach the respectively recited ranges by routinely optimizing (Dv90 x Dv50)/Dv10, which would have forced the skilled artisan to necessarily account for and, thus, optimize Dv90 (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Xu further discloses that when press density of the positive electrode plate is 3.3 g/cm3—falling within 3.3–3.5 g/cm3—an OI value of the positive electrode plate is, e.g., 16 (OIc in Ex. 6, Table 1), falling within 10–40 (claim 1) and 10–20 (claim 6).
As discussed above, Xu discloses a Dv50 of 1~20 μm, but, in appearing unconcerned with the specific sizes of each active substance as long as the composite material’s Dv50 is maintained, fails to explicitly disclose a first Dv50(L) of 5–18 μm and a second Dv50(S) of 1–5 μm (claim 1), 2 ≤ Dv50(L)/ Dv50(S) ≤ 7 (claim 12), and, more specifically, a Dv50(L) of 7.8–12.3 μm, a Dv50(S) of 2.2–4.4 μm, and 2.9 ≤ Dv50(L)/ Dv50(S) ≤ 5.6 (claim 13).
Kuroda, in teaching a positive electrode material including secondary and single particles of a lithium metal oxide (¶ 0010), teaches a single-particle average diameter, i.e., Dv50, of preferably 1–5 μm for improved active-material handling and improved discharge capacity at high current rate (¶ 0068–0070), as well as an average secondary-particle diameter of preferably 4–16 μm for higher filling and, thus, energy density as well as improved discharge capacity at high current rate (¶ 0072).
Kuroda is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely positive electrode active material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention's effective filing date, that modified Xu's single and secondary particles must each necessarily be incorporated with some size, and, as demonstrated by Kuroda, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to incorporate a single-particle Dv50 of 1–5 μm and a secondary-particle Dv50 of 4–16 μm as appropriate sizes.
The 1–5 μm single particles falls within claim 1’s 1–5 μm and overlaps claim 13’s 2.2–4.4 μm, and the 4–16 μm secondary particles overlaps claim 1’s 5–18 μm as well as claim 13’s 7.8–12.3 μm. Moreover, such yields a Dv50(L)/ Dv50(S) of 1.2–16, and, to balance all of Kuroda’s above effects, it would have been obvious to arrive at a Dv50(L) of 5–18 μm (claim 1), 2 ≤ Dv50(L)/ Dv50(S) ≤ 7 (claim 12), and, more specifically, a Dv50(L) of 7.8–12.3 μm, a Dv50(S) of 2.2–4.4 μm, and 2.9 ≤ Dv50(L)/ Dv50(S) ≤ 5.6 (claim 13) by routinely optimizing both the single-particle and secondary-particle diameters and, thus, within each above overlapping portion (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 2, modified Xu discloses the positive electrode plate according to claim 1, wherein the OI value of the positive electrode plate is a ratio of a diffraction peak area corresponding to a crystal plane (003) to a diffraction peak area corresponding to a crystal plane (110) of the positive electrode active substance in an XRD diffraction pattern of the positive electrode plate (Xu, ¶ 0028).
Regarding claim 3, modified Xu discloses the positive electrode plate according to claim 1, wherein the second lithium-nickel transition metal oxide contains a second matrix (the single particles, which, again, are reasonably ordered in the electrode to constitute a “matrix”, absent special definition), and a chemical formula of the second matrix is expressed by instant formula II, where a2 = 0, x2 = 0.5, y2 = 0.2, z2 = 0.3, b2 = 0, e2 = 0, and M’ and X’ are absent (i.e., the single-particle portion of NCM523 in Xu’s Ex. 6).
Regarding claim 4, modified Xu discloses the positive electrode plate according to claim 3.
Xu further discloses that the NCM oxide active substance may be NCM811 (¶ 0084 and other exs. in Table 1), i.e., LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2, but fails to explicitly disclose such in Ex. 6 and, thus, that the relative Ni contents x1 and x2 in molecular formulas of the first and second matrices satisfy 0.8 ≤ x1 ≤ 0.95, 0.8 ≤ x2 ≤ 0.95, and |x1 – x2| ≤ 0.1.
As Xu recognizes NCM523 and NCM811 as equivalent active substances, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely substitute Xu’s NCM523 for NCM811 in each active substance with a reasonable expectation of forming successful active substances, as suggested by Xu (MPEP 2143 (B.) and 2144.06 (II)).
Thus, x1 would = x2 = 0.8, and |x1 – x2| = 0 ≤ 0.1.
Regarding claim 5, modified Xu discloses the positive electrode plate according to claim 3.
Xu further generally discloses that the NCM oxide may be represented by LiaNixCoyM1–x–yO2, where M is Al and/or Mn, 0.95 ≤ a ≤ 1.2, 0 < x < 1, 0 < y < 1, and 0 < x + y < 1 (¶ 0075) but fails to explicitly recognize that 0 < x1 – x2 < 0.1.
The skilled artisan would recognize, however, that, based on Xu’s general formula, some Ni concentration must necessarily be selected for each active substance to function. The artisan would further recognize, then, that only three solutions for the Ni concentration in each active substance broadly exist: the concentrations must be the same; the first Ni concentration must be higher; or the second Ni concentration must be higher. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, then, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely explore, e.g., a marginally higher first Ni content such that 0 < x1 – x2 < 0.1 with the reasonable expectation of forming successful active substances, as suggested by Xu (MPEP 2143 (E.)).
Regarding claim 11, modified Xu discloses the positive electrode plate according to claim 1 but, in being unconcerned with the single particles’ physical characteristics, fails to explicitly disclose a ratio of a maximum length Lmax to a minimum length Lmin of particles in the second lithium-nickel transition metal oxide satisfies 1 ≤ Lmax/Lmin ≤ 3.
The skilled artisan would recognize, however, that, based on Xu’s general formula, some size of the second active material must necessarily be selected for the active substance to function. The artisan would further recognize, then, that only two solutions for the (individual) single particles’ sizes broadly exist: they may be the same size or different. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, then, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely explore, e.g., incorporating all the single particles at the same size—such that Lmax/Lmin = 1—with the reasonable expectation of forming successful single particles with an appropriate size (MPEP 2143 (E.)).
Regarding claims 14–16, modified Xu discloses the positive electrode plate according to claim 1 but fails to explicitly articulate the weight ratios of the first and second active substances.
As discussed in claim 1, though, Kitano teaches that the secondary particles, i.e., the first substance, provide higher output, while the single-crystal particles, i.e., second substance, compensate for the secondary particles’ cracking based on electrode pressurization or (dis)charge (¶ 0003 and as reflected in Xu’s ¶ 0086). To balance these effects, then, it would have been obvious to reach the recited ratios by routinely optimizing the active substances’ weight percentages (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, modified Xu discloses the positive electrode plate according to claim 1, wherein the second lithium-nickel transition metal oxide further contains a second matrix (again, modified Xu’s ordered/cooperative single particles would reasonably constitute a “matrix” without special definition, as in spec.’s ¶ 0009 and 0111) and a second coating layer of a metal oxide on a surface of the second matrix (i.e., Xu’s single-particle portion of active material coated with the metal oxide that would form when incorporating the active material as a mixture of secondary and single particles, as discussed in claim 1).
Claim(s) 7–10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (CN 108808072 A; citation to English equivalent US 20200006802 A1) (Xu) in view of Kitano et al. (US 20210167374 A1) (Kitano) and Kuroda et al. (WO 2019177032 A1; citation to English equivalent US 20210083286 A1) (Kuroda), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Koshika et al. (EP 3533764 A1) (Koshika).
Regarding claims 7–9, modified Xu discloses the positive electrode plate according to claim 1 but, in being unconcerned with additional physical characteristics of the active substance, fails to explicitly disclose the active substance’s tap density and, thus, 4.4 < (Dv90 – Dv10)/TD < 8 (claim 7), 4.6 < (Dv90 – Dv10)/TD < 6.5 (claim 8), and a tap density of 2.2–2.8 g/cm3 (claim 9).
Koshika, in teaching a positive active material (Abstract) containing secondary particles and that may contain single particles (¶ 0082), teaches a tap density of preferably 2.3–3.6 g/cm3 because this range allows the material to achieve both excellent battery capacity and fillability to improve energy density (¶ 0081).
Koshika is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely positive electrode active material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure modified Xu’s active substance with a tap density of 2.3–3.6 g/cc, as taught by Koshika, with the reasonable expectation of achieving both excellent battery capacity and fillability to improve energy density, as taught by Koshika.
This range overlaps claim 9’s 2.2–2.8 g/cc such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of selecting a suitable density for fillability and energy density (MPEP 2144.05 (I)). Further, to balance proper capacity with particle-diameter uniformity—which is reflected by Dv90–Dv10 as the particle distribution’s width, substantially similar to Kitano’s Dv90/Dv10—as discussed in claim 1, all while considering Koshika’s capacity and fillability from the tap density, it would have been obvious to reach the instant ranges by routinely optimizing the (Dv90 – Dv10)/TD in claims 7 and 8 (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 10, modified Xu discloses the positive electrode plate according to claim 1 but, in being unconcerned with additional physical characteristics of the first lithium-nickel transition metal oxide, fails to explicitly disclose that such are spherical particles with a degree of sphericity of 0.7–1.
Koshika, in teaching a positive electrode material (Abstract) containing secondary particles and that may contain single particles (¶ 0082), teaches a circularity, i.e., sphericity, of 0.95 to less than 1 so that the secondary particles experience less sintering flocculation and exhibit high tap density to obtain a battery with high energy density (¶ 0074).
Koshika is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely positive electrode active material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure Xu’s first active substance as spherical particles with a sphericity of 0.95 to less than 1, as taught by Koshika, with the reasonable expectation of achieving high tap density to obtain high energy density, as taught by Koshika.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (CN 108808072 A; citation to English equivalent US 20200006802 A1) (Xu) in view of Kitano et al. (US 20210167374 A1) (Kitano), Kuroda et al. (WO 2019177032 A1; citation to English equivalent US 20210083286 A1) (Kuroda), and Tokuno et al. (JP 2005251716 A) (Tokuno).
Regarding claim 20, Xu discloses a positive electrode plate for secondary battery (Abstract), wherein the positive electrode plate comprises a positive electrode current collector and a positive electrode active substance layer located on a surface of the positive electrode current collector (¶ 0006), the positive electrode active substance layer comprises a positive electrode active substance (e.g., ¶ 0006), wherein the positive electrode active substance contains a first lithium-nickel transition metal oxide (lithium-containing compound such as NCM oxide, e.g., ¶ 0023 and Table 1’s examples such as NCM523 in Ex. 6).
Xu discloses that the first lithium-nickel transition metal oxide contains a first matrix (the base particles, absent special definition of “matrix”, in being a reasonably ordered group of particles, reasonably constitute a “matrix”), and a chemical formula of the first matrix is expressed by instant formula I, where a1 = 0, x1 = 0.5, y1 = 0.2, z1 = 0.3, b1 = 0, e1 = 0, x1 + y1 + z1 + b1 = 1, and X and M are absent (NCM523, i.e., LiNi0.5Co0.2Mn0.3O2, Ex. 6).
Xu further discloses that the Li-containing compound may be coated with, e.g., a metal oxide to reduce electrolytic side reactions and improve the material’s electrochemical stability (¶ 0076, 0081, 0082) but appears to fail to explicitly disclose such in Table 1 and, thus, a first coating layer on a surface of the first matrix.
Considering that Xu is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely positive electrode active material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to coat Xu’s active material with a (first) coating layer of a metal oxide with the reasonable expectation of reducing electrolytic side reactions and improving the material’s electrochemical stability, as suggested by Xu.
Xu further discloses that at least part of the active material is non-aggregated single particles to improve pressing density and reduce electrolytic side reactions and gas generation (¶ 0086), which seems to imply that another portion of the active material agglomerates into secondary particles. Thus, Xu appears to disclose that the first lithium-nickel transition metal oxide contains a first matrix of secondary particles (the implied agglomerated portion), and the second lithium-nickel transition metal oxide is single crystal particles (the single crystal portion).
Arguendo, if the above were not necessarily true, Kitano teaches that it is known that positive electrode active material containing secondary particles provide higher output characteristics, while single, i.e., single-crystal, particles compensate for the secondary particles’ cracking from electrode pressurization and/or electrode (dis)charge (¶ 0003). Kitano specifically teaches a D50/DSEM ratio of 1–4, where a lower ratio indicates fewer primary particles in the composite so that the particles are only single particles, while a higher ratio indicates more primary particles—as many as 30—constituting the composite particles (¶ 0023), i.e., aggregating into secondary particles. Kitano teaches that, within this range, both superior initial efficiency and durability are achievable (¶ 0022).
Kitano is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely positive electrode active material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form a mixture of single-particle and secondary-particle lithium-containing-oxide active materials, as suggested by Kitano, with the reasonable expectation of achieving higher output while reducing cracking and improving durability, as suggested by Kitano.
Thus, modified Xu would disclose a first matrix of secondary particles (the aggregated particles of the active material, via Kitano), as well as a second lithium-nickel transition metal oxide of single crystal particles (the non-aggregated, single particles, via Kitano).
Xu further discloses a D50 of the active substance of, e.g., 3.5 μm (Ex. 6, Table 1) but more generally discloses a D50 of 1~20 μm because, within this range, the electrode’s homogeneity improves, as the too small active material can be prevented from excessively reacting with the electrolyte, while the too large active material may be prevented from hindering Li+ transmission (¶ 0094).
However, in being unconcerned with the rest of the particle distribution, Xu fails to explicitly articulate a Dv90 of 10–20 μm, as well as 40 μm < (Dv90 x Dv50)/Dv10 < 90 μm.
Kitano further teaches a Dv90/Dv10 of ≤ 4.5 for more uniform particle diameters (¶ 0028).
It would have been obvious to configure Xu’s particle distribution with a Dv90/Dv10 of ≤ 4.5, as taught by Kitano, with the reasonable expectation of forming more uniform particle diameters, as taught by Kitano and desired by Xu for the above benefits.
Importantly, then, although modified Xu fails to explicitly articulate a Dv90 of 10–20 μm, as well as 40 μm < (Dv90 x Dv50)/Dv10 < 90 μm, modified Xu’s disclosure appears to be able to at least overlap these ranges. For example, if modified Xu’s Dv50 were 10 μm and Dv90/Dv10 were 4.5, such would yield (Dv90 x Dv50)/Dv10 = 45 μm, falling within the recited range. More importantly, though, as discussed above, Xu controls the Dv50 to 1~20 μm to balance electrolytic side reactions with Li+ transmission. Moreover, the skilled artisan, when consulting Xu/Kitano, would recognize that reducing Dv90 would reduce Dv90/Dv10 and, thus, form more uniform particle diameters, as Xu desires, whereas forming larger particles—and, thus, a larger Dv90 as the size at which 90 vol% of the sample is smaller—would necessarily impart greater ion-intercalation ability and, thus, capacity (as implied from Xu’s energy-density discussion in ¶ 0094). To balance these effects, then, it would have been obvious to reach the respectively recited ranges by routinely optimizing (Dv90 x Dv50)/Dv10, which would have forced the skilled artisan to necessarily account for and, thus, optimize Dv90 (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Xu further discloses that when press density of the positive electrode plate is 3.3 g/cm3—falling within 3.3–3.5 g/cm3—an OI value of the positive electrode plate is, e.g., 16 (OIc in Ex. 6, Table 1), falling within 10–40.
As discussed above, Xu discloses a Dv50 of 1~20 μm, in being unconcerned with the specific sizes of each active substance as long as the composite material’s Dv50 is maintained, fails to explicitly disclose a first Dv50(L) of 5–18 μm and a second Dv50(S) of 1–5 μm.
Kuroda, in teaching a positive electrode material including secondary and single particles of a lithium metal oxide (¶ 0010), teaches a single-particle average diameter, i.e., Dv50, of preferably 1–5 μm for improved active-material handling and improved discharge capacity at high current rate (¶ 0068–0070), as well as an average secondary-particle diameter of preferably 4–16 μm for higher filling and, thus, energy density as well as improved discharge capacity at high current rate (¶ 0072).
Kuroda is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely positive electrode active material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention's effective filing date, that modified Xu's single and secondary particles must each necessarily be incorporated with some size, and, as demonstrated by Kuroda, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to incorporate a single-particle Dv50 of 1–5 μm and a secondary-particle Dv50 of 4–16 μm as appropriate sizes.
The 1–5 μm single particles falls within 1–5 μm, and the 4–16 μm secondary particles overlaps 5–18 μm. To balance all of Kuroda’s above effects, it would have been obvious to arrive at a Dv50(L) of 5–18 μm by routinely optimizing both the single-particle and secondary-particle diameters and, thus, within each above overlapping portion (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding the instant 1 ≤ Lmax/Lmin ≤ 3 or, specifically, 1.5 ≤ Lmax/Lmin ≤ 2.5 of claim 20, such would seem reflected as the max:min size ratio—e.g., as an aspect ratio such as length:thickness or large-axis diameter:small-axis diameter—within the particles in the second lithium-nickel transition metal oxide, absent special definition of “Lmax/Lmin” or additional recitation. Modified Xu, however, in appearing unconcerned with the second particles’ geometry outside the aforementioned sizes, fails to specify 1 ≤ Lmax/Lmin ≤ 3 or, specifically, 1.5 ≤ Lmax/Lmin ≤ 2.5.
Tokuno teaches a positive electrode active substance including lithium transition metal oxide existing as primary particles—equivalent to Xu’s single crystals—and/or aggregated secondary particles (Abstract), where the primary particles exhibit an aspect ratio of 1–1.8 (Abstract). Tokuno teaches that this aspect ratio makes it less likely for fine particles to be generated even at higher pressing pressures, suppresses oxygen desorption to improve thermal stability, and improves contact between the active material and conductive agent (¶ 0018). Conversely, Tokuno warns that the ratio should not be too large because such generates said fine powder during pressing, degrading thermal stability and load characteristics (¶ 0031).
Tokuno is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely positive electrode active material including primary and secondary particles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Xu’s second/single-crystal particles with an aspect ratio—and, thus, reasonably an Lmax/Lmin—of 1–1.8 with the reasonable expectation of improving thermal stability and contact between the active material and conductive agent without excessive fine-particle generation, as taught by Tokuno.
This range falls within 1 ≤ Lmax/Lmin ≤ 3 and overlaps 1.5 ≤ Lmax/Lmin ≤ 2.5. To balance improving contact between the active and conductive materials while preserving thermal stability by preventing fine-particle generation, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited range by routinely optimizing the aspect ratio or Lmax/Lmin, including within the overlap, as taught by Tokuno (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Double Patenting
The text forming the basis for the double-patenting rejection may be found in a prior Office Action.
Claims 1–20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–11, 14, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,121,362 in view of Park et al. (KR 20220092169 A; citation to English equivalent US 20230290943 A1) (Park).
Ref. claims 1 and 8 together encompass instant claim besides explicitly articulating a Dv90 and, thus, one of 10–20 μm.
Park, in teaching lithium metal oxide positive active material (Abstract, ¶ 0016) that may include aggregated secondary particles alongside single-crystal particles (¶ 0151), teaches a Dv90 of, e.g., 18.77 μm (Ex. 1, Table 6).
Park and the ref. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely lithium metal oxide positive active material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention's effective filing date, that the ref.'s particle distribution, in reciting a relation between Dv10, Dv50, and Dv90, must necessarily include some value for the Dv90, and, as demonstrated by Park, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to employ, e.g., 18.77 μm as an appropriate size.
Further, the ref.’s specification (col. 3, lines 60–63) clearly defines the OI as the area ratio of the peaks in the (003) and (110) planes, and, thus, ref. claims 1 and 14 together encompass instant claim 2. Further, ref. claims 1 and 2 together encompass instant claims 3 and 4. Ref. claim 16 encompasses instant claim 5. Ref. claim 3 encompasses instant claim 6. Ref. claim 4 encompasses instant claim 7. Ref. claim 4’s range overlaps instant claim 8’s such that the skilled artisan could routinely select within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of selecting a successful value for the particle distribution and tap density (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Moreover, ref. claims 5–7 read on instant claims 9–11, respectively. Ref. claim 8 reads on instant claim 12’s ratio and overlaps instant claim 13’s respective ranges such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within each overlap with a reasonable expectation of forming suitably sized active substances (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Ref. claim 9 reads on instant claim 14 and overlaps instant claims 15 and 16’s ranges such that the skilled artisan could routinely select within each overlap with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful active material at appropriate weight ranges for the first and second active substances (MPEP 2144.05 (I)). Ref. claim 10 reads on instant claim 17. Further, in ref. claim 10’s reciting that the second coating layer is a metal oxide and/or non-metal oxide, such encompasses instant claim 18. Ref. claim 11 reads on instant claim 19 and overlaps claim 20’s range such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of forming a suitably sized second active substance (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 20 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive. Examiner initially acknowledges Applicant’s mentioning an “accompanying Declaration” (Remarks, p. 8), though no declaration is included in the file wrapper or attached to the Remarks.
103 Rejection:
Applicant argues that Xu only discloses Dv50 and, thus, cannot provide Dv10 or Dv90, and Kitano only teaches Dv90/Dv10 ratio without values, meaning the prior art fails to render obvious the instant (Dv90 x Dv50)/Dv10. Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons below given the rejection is based on Xu combined with Kitano.
Applicant then argues that Xu’s single particles are not single crystal particles and would still aggregate into secondary particles, meaning Xu discloses no dual morphology. However, Examiner respectfully observes that Xu plainly discloses that at least a portion of the active material is single/non-aggregated particles (¶ 0086), implying two portions, one of aggregated/secondary particles and another of non-aggregated/single particles. Moreover, even if not in the above grounds of rejection, the original version of US 20200006802, CN 108808072 A (see attached document and machine translation), describes these single particles as single-crystal particles (¶ 0036). Thus, absent evidence proving that Xu’s particles are all secondary particles, this argument is unpersuasive (see MPEP 2145 (I), where Applicant’s arguments cannot substitute for evidence).
Moreover, Applicant is yet to rebut the separate finding that Xu’s portion of single/non-aggregated particles at least implies the desire for a mixture of aggregated and non-aggregated/single particles, and Kitano teaches that such mixtures are known to provide higher output while compensating for electrode cracking. Thus, modified Xu discloses or renders obvious dual morphology, making this argument further unpersuasive.
Applicant then argues that Kitano is only concerned with a particle distribution of a single morphology. Examiner respectfully disagrees because Kitano 1) teaches or renders obvious the above mixture of morphologies and 2) teaches, as explained above, a D50/DSEM of 1–4, where a ratio of 1 indicates only single particles, and where a larger ratio entails more aggregated primary particles—as many as 30—and, thus, would reasonably include secondary particles even by Applicant’s preferred scope (spec., ¶ 0048).
Applicant then argues that Kitano is silent to Dv90, and Kitano’s Dv90/Dv10 does not allow inference of Dv10 or Dv90; by extension, the prior art allegedly fails to recognize (Dv90 x Dv50)/Dv10 as result-effective. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the rejection is based on Xu combined with Kitano. Xu controls Dv50 to 1~20 μm for Li+ transmission, energy density, and particle-size homogeneity for battery performance (¶ 0094), while Kitano’s Dv90/Dv10 ≤ 4.5 further provides this desired homogeneity (¶ 0028). Such yields a ratio of (Dv90*Dv50)/Dv10 of 4.5~90 μm, overlapping claim 1’s range, similar to the above discussion.
Importantly, changing Dv50 would reasonably alter other values of the particle distribution like Dv10 and Dv90—the sizes below which 10 vol% and 90 vol% of the sample lies, respectively—by shifting the mean vol%. Moreover, from Xu and Kitano, reducing Dv90 would reduce Dv90/Dv10 and form more uniform particle diameters, as Xu desires, whereas forming larger particles—and, thus, a larger Dv90—would necessarily impart greater ion-intercalation ability and, thus, capacity (as implied from Xu’s ¶ 0094). To balance all these effects, the skilled artisan would have routinely optimized (Dv90 x Dv50)/Dv10, which would have forced the artisan to account for and, thus, optimize Dv90, absent demonstrated criticality (see also MPEP 2145 (IV), where obviousness hinges on the prior art’s suggestions as a whole to one of ordinary skill). Moreover, such analysis implicitly makes (Dv90 x Dv50)/Dv10 result-effective, and, even if not, post-KSR, a result-effective variable is one of but not the only reason to optimize, per MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Applicant next argues, regarding claims 7 and 8, that Xu and Kitano fail to provide the recited 4.4 < (Dv90–Dv10)/TD < 8 based on the above arguments. Examiner first notes that Koshika was combined with Xu and Kitano to meet these claims, and Examiner further applies the above response to the remaining arguments against Xu/Kitano, noting that Dv90–Dv10 is similar to Dv90/Dv10 by reflecting the distribution’s width. To balance proper capacity with particle-diameter uniformity as discussed in claim 1, all while considering Koshika’s capacity and fillability from the tap density, the artisan would have immediately envisaged optimizing (Dv90 – Dv10)/TD in claims 7 and 8.
Regarding new claim 20, see the new grounds of rejection above.
Double-Patenting Rejection:
Applicant argues that the non-statutory double-patenting rejection is improper because secondary reference Park (KR 20220092169 A; citation to English equivalent US 20230290943 A1) is not prior art under 102 given the KR reference was published after Applicant’s alleged effective filing date of 09/22/20, and the U.S. equivalent was effectively filed 12/24/20.
Examiner respectfully notes that foreign priority has not yet been perfected without a certified English translation of record—alongside a statement that such is a certified translation—meaning Applicant is not yet entitled to an EFD of 09/22/20 (see MPEP 213.04 and 37 CFR 1.55(g)(3)). Moreover, such would further appear to apply to the CON of PCT/CN2021/112009 filed 08/11/21 because, in being a “bypass” application, without a certified English translation, it is indeterminable whether the application is a true continuation and provides adequate written support under 112(a). Finally, there appears to be no declaration of record excepting this reference as prior art under 102(b)(2)(A)/(B) or a clear statement and/or declaration excepting this reference under 102(b)(2)(C). Thus, Park appears to remain prior art under 102(a)(2), and the double-patenting rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The cited art made of record but not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
US 20200006801 and US 20200006765 A1: substantially similar to Xu.
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 JOHN S MEDLEY whose telephone number is (703)756-4600. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00–5:00 EST M–Th and 8:00–12:00 EST F.
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, Jonathan Leong, can be reached on 571-270-192. 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.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 5/7/2026
Prosecution Insights