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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the single particle” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Thus, it is unclear what this limitation is referring to. For examination purposes, it is assumed that this limitation is intending to refer to one or both of the “single crystal” of the first active material and/or the “single crystal” of the second active material. However, appropriate correction of the claim is required in order to clarify the meaning of this limitation.
Appropriate correction is required in order to overcome this indefiniteness rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2019/0393479) (Kim) (of record).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a positive electrode of a lithium ion secondary battery (title; abstract) in which a coating film (115) containing a positive electrode active material is pressed against a surface of a positive electrode base material (110) ([0075]; [0039]; see Fig. 1), wherein the positive electrode active material is a mixture of a first active material (referred to as the second cathode active material by Kim) containing a single particle of lithium composite oxide ([0010]; [0017]; [0028]; [0034]) and a second active material (referred to as the first cathode active material by Kim) containing a secondary particle which is aggregated single particles of lithium composite oxide ([0010]; [0013]; [0028]; [0034]).
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Kim further discloses that in the coating film (115), a space among particles of the second active material (first cathode active material) is filled with the first active material (second cathode active material) ([0088]-[0089]).
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Kim further discloses that the single particle in the first active material (second cathode active material) is a single crystal ([0021]; [0072]).
Regarding claim 6, Kim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 2. Kim further discloses that an average particle size of the first active material (second cathode active material) is smaller than an average particle size of the second active material (first cathode active material) ([0023]; [0068]; [0085]-[0089]).
Regarding claim 12, Kim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Kim further discloses that the coating film (115) further contains at least one of a binder or and/or a conductive assistant ([0102]), and in the coating film (115), the at least one of the binder and/or conductive assistant is interposed among particles of the positive electrode active material such that that particles of the positive electrode active material are bound to each other through the at least one of the binder and/or the conductive assistant ([0102]; [0106]).
Regarding claim 14, Kim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Kim further discloses a lithium secondary battery comprising the positive electrode of claim 1 (abstract; [0038]; see Fig. 1).
Claims 9-10, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakajima (JP 2001155728 with English Machine Translation) (of record).
Regarding claim 9, Nakajima discloses a positive electrode of a lithium ion secondary battery in which a coating film containing a positive electrode active material is pressed against a surface of a positive electrode base material ([0008]), wherein the positive electrode active material is a mixture of a first active material (small diameter particles) containing a single crystal (highly crystalline octahedrons) of lithium composite oxide having a small average particle size ([0009]; [0013]; [0023]) and a second active material (large diameter particles) containing a single crystal (highly crystalline octahedrons) of lithium composite oxide having a great particle size ([0009]; [0013]; [0023]), and in the coating film, a space among particles of the second active material (large diameter particles) is filled with the first active material (small diameter particles) ([0009]; [0023]; see Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 10, Nakajima discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 9. Nakajima further discloses that in the coating film, the first active material (small diameter particles) is interposed among the particles of the second active material (large diameter particles) such that the particles of the second active material (large diameter particles) are bound to each other through the first active material (small diameter particles) (see Fig. 1; [0009]; [0023]).
Regarding claim 13, Nakajima discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 9. Nakajima further discloses that the coating film further contains a binder and conductive assistant (2), and in the coating film, the binder and the conductive assistant (2) is interposed among particles (1) of the positive electrode active material such that the particles (1) of the positive electrode active material are bound to each other through the binder and the conductive assistant (2) (see Fig. 2; [0023]).
Regarding claim 15, Nakajima discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 9. Nakajima further discloses a lithium ion secondary battery comprising the positive electrode of claim 9 ([0007]-[0008]; [0016]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2019/0393479) (Kim) (of record).
Regarding claim 8, Kim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 2. Kim fails to disclose a specific value for the standard deviation of a particle size of the first active material (second cathode active material) and the second active material (first cathode active material). However, as set forth above, Kim discloses that an average particle size of the first active material (second cathode active material) is smaller than an average particle size of the second active material (first cathode active material) in order for a space among particles of the second active material (first cathode active material) to be filled with the first active material (second cathode active material) ([0023]; [0068]; [0085]-[0089]). Therefore, since it is necessary that a value obtained by addition of a standard deviation of a particle size of the first active material (second cathode active material) to an average particle size of the first active material (second cathode active material) is smaller than a clearance among the particles of the second active material (first cathode active material) in order for all of the particles of the first active material (second cathode active material) to fit within the spaces among particles of the second active material (first cathode active material), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Kim to have satisfied these claim limitations based on Kim’s own disclosure.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2019/0393479) (Kim) (of record) in view of Choi et al. (US 2006/0257745) (Choi) (of record).
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 2. Kim fails to explicitly disclose that in the coating film (115), the first active material (second cathode active material) is interposed among the particles of the second active material (first cathode active material) such that the particles of the second active material (first cathode active material) are bound to each other through the first active material (second cathode active material). However, Kim does disclose a desire to increase the density of the active material particles in the coating film (115) relative to an amount of binder ([0089]).
Furthermore, this configuration of positive electrode active materials is known in the art. For instance, Choi teaches a similar positive electrode of a lithium ion secondary battery (title; abstract), wherein a positive electrode active material is a mixture of a first active material (small diameter active material) and a second active material (large diameter active material) ([0010]), wherein a space among particles of the second active material (large diameter active material) is filled with the first active material (small diameter active material) ([0027]; [0029]; [0034]). Specifically, Choi teaches that the first active material (small diameter active material) is interposed among the particles of the second active material (large diameter active material) such that the particles of the second active material (large diameter active material) are bound to each other through the first active material (small diameter active material) (see Fig. 2). Choi further teaches that configuring the positive electrode active material in this way improves volume densities, which can lead to an improvement in electric capacity ([0026]-[0029]; [0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the first and second active materials disclosed by Kim such that the particles of the second active material are bound to each other through the first active material, as taught by Choi, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would improve volume densities and electric capacity in the battery.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2019/0393479) (Kim) (of record) in view of Tejima (JP 2016162748 with English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Kim further discloses that the single particle in the first active material (second cathode active material) is a single crystal ([0021]; [0072]). Kim fails to explicitly disclose, however, that the single particle is a crystal synthesized by a flux method.
However, this method is a known method for producing crystal particles in positive electrodes. For instance, Tejima teaches a similar positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery (title; abstract; [0015]) in which a positive electrode active material includes single crystals synthesized by a flex method (abstract; [0009]-[0010]). Tejima further teaches that configuring the crystals using the flux method helps to suppress scattering of the positive electrode active material, thus reducing loss of the positive electrode active material during production ([0078]; [0082]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have synthesized the single crystal particle disclosed by Kim by a flux method, as taught by Tejima, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would suppress scattering of the positive electrode active material and reduce loss of the positive electrode active material during production.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2019/0393479) (Kim) (of record) in view of Nishimura (JP 2012022888 with English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 7, Kim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 6. Kim fails to disclose a specific value for the standard deviation of a particle size of the first active material (second cathode active material) and the second active material (first cathode active material). However, as set forth above, Kim discloses that an average particle size of the first active material (second cathode active material) is smaller than an average particle size of the second active material (first cathode active material) ([0023]; [0068]; [0085]-[0089]). Furthermore, it is known in the art that, generally speaking, a positive electrode active material particle with a larger average diameter has a larger standard deviation than a positive electrode active material particle with a smaller average diameter. For instance, Nishimura teaches a similar positive electrode for a lithium ion secondary battery ([0016]), wherein particles within a positive electrode active material that have a larger average diameter have a larger standard deviation than those with a smaller average diameter (compare [0139], [0147], and [0149]). Therefore, since the average particle size of the first active material (second cathode active material) disclosed by Kim is smaller than the average particle size of the second active material (first cathode active material), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a standard deviation of a particle size of the first active material (second cathode active material) to also be smaller than a standard deviation of a particle size of the second active material (first cathode active material) based on the teachings from Nishimura.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima (JP 2001155728 with English Machine Translation) (of record) in view of Tejima (JP 2016162748 with English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 11, Nakajima discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 9. Nakajima fails to explicitly disclose, however, that the single crystal of the first active material (small diameter particles) and the single crystal of the second active material (large diameter particles) are synthesized by a flux method.
However, this method is a known method for producing crystal particles in positive electrodes. For instance, Tejima teaches a similar positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery (title; abstract; [0015]) in which a positive electrode active material includes single crystals synthesized by a flex method (abstract; [0009]-[0010]). Tejima further teaches that configuring the crystals using the flux method helps to suppress scattering of the positive electrode active material, thus reducing loss of the positive electrode active material during production ([0078]; [0082]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have synthesized the single crystal particles disclosed by Nakajima by a flux method, as taught by Tejima, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would suppress scattering of the positive electrode active material and reduce loss of the positive electrode active material during production.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDON C DARBY whose telephone number is (571)272-1225. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at (571) 270-5545. 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.
/B.C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/BLAINE COPENHEAVER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781