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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
In this instance, the abstract recites the phrase that can be implied “The present invention relates to…” in the 1st line.
The use of the term “Ketjen black”, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application (in the 20th line on page 23, and in the last line on page 27 of the specification). The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term. Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
Regarding independent claim 1, the phrase "or the like" (in this instance, the term “type” of “bimodal-type”) renders the claims indefinite because the claims include elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claims unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Since claims 2-20 depend from independent claim 1, these claims are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for the same reason.
The term “small” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “small” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Since claims 2-20 depend from independent claim 1, these claims are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for the same reason.
The term “large” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “large” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Since claims 2-20 depend from independent claim 1, these claims are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for the same reason.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the number" in the 6th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the major axis length (r1)" in the 8th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the minor axis length (r2)" in the 8th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
The terms “non-aggregated” and “aggregated” in claim 2 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “non-aggregated” and “aggregated” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the major axis direction" in the 2nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the crystal structure" bridging the 3rd and 4th lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the major axis direction" in the 8th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the second crystal plane" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the second crystal plane” with “the at least one second crystal plane” to obtain proper antecedent basis with “at least one second crystal plane” bridging the first two lines of claim 5.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the second crystal plane" bridging the first two lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the second crystal plane” with “the at least one second crystal plane” to obtain proper antecedent basis with “at least one second crystal plane” bridging the first two lines of claim 5.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the ratio" in the 1st line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the ratio" in the 1st line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the surface" in the 2nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the surface" in the 2nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the wt%" in the 1st line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the wt%" bridging the last two lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
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.
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.
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 1-6, 9-13, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0005877), cited in the Information Disclosure Statement dated November 13, 2024.
Regarding independent claim 1 and claim 20, Kim et al. disclose a bimodal positive electrode active material of a positive electrode (abstract; and paragraphs [0009]-[0041], [0052], and [0053]), in which the positive electrode material comprises the following components:
a first lithium composite oxide of “small” particle size (lithium transition metal composite oxide powder disclosed as a “second powder” having an average particle size D50 between 2 µm and 4 µm (abstract; and paragraphs [0014] and [0031]); and
a second lithium composite oxide of “large” particle size (lithium transition metal composite oxide powder disclosed as a “first powder” having an average particle size D50 between 10 µm and 40 µm (abstract; and paragraphs [0014] and [0031]),
wherein the first lithium transition metal composite oxide and the second lithium transition metal composite oxide are each independently at least one unit particle, and a number of unit particles constituting the first lithium transition metal composite oxide is smaller than that of the second lithium composite oxide, on the basis of a weight ratio of the second powder (corresponding to the first lithium composite oxide of “small” particle size) being between 15 and 60 wt% (abstract; and paragraphs [0014] and [0031]).
Although Kim et al. disclose the above limitations, Kim et al. fail to explicitly teach wherein a ratio of a major axis length and a minor axis length of the unit particles constituting the first lithium transition metal composite oxide is within the claimed range of 1.3 to 2.1. However, since the disclosure of Kim et al. provides the claimed ranges of the average particle sizes (also in referring to applicants’ claims 9 and 10 below) and comparative weight ratios discussed above, while also addressing that control and optimization of particle size distribution is important regarding optimum flowability and compaction properties in order to achieve high electrode density (see paragraph [0053]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to glean information from the above parameters disclosed by Kim et al. to conduct routine experimentation pertaining to the unit particles to obtain values within the claimed ratio of major axis length and minor axis length of the unit particles to be within the claimed range, in order to obtain further improvement in attaining a high electrode density (Kim et al.; paragraph [0053]). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980).
Regarding claim 2, although Kim et al. disclose and/or suggest the features of independent claim 1 above, Kim et al. do not explicitly disclose that the first lithium composite oxide would be present as a single unit (primary) particle and can be in a “non-aggregated” form, and the second lithium composite oxide would be present as a secondary particle in which a plurality of unit particles can be “aggregated”, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the degree of aggregation (being a relative term in the above 35 USC 112(b) rejection is considered as a functional property depending on amounts of particles relative to one another (values/ranges of “small” particle compared to “large” particle), such that degrees of “aggregation” or “non-aggregation” would be subject to routine optimization, for the purpose of controlling particle size distribution to obtain optimum flowability and compaction properties, thus achieving higher electrode density (see paragraph [0053] of Kim et al.).
Regarding claim 3, and although not explicitly disclosed by Kim et al. in the discussion of major axis length and minor axis length of the unit particles of independent claim 1 above, a lithium ion diffusion path would be formed along a major axis direction of the unit particle that constitutes the first lithium composite oxide, since a major axis direction (along a major axis length) would include a higher aspect ratio (as suggested in above independent claim 1 per optimization of the ratio of 1.3 to 2.1) for forming a lithium ion diffusion path, in order to obtain further improvement in attaining a high electrode density (Kim et al.; paragraph [0053]).
Regarding claims 4-6, and in referring to the rejection of independent claim 1 above per the discussion of the ratio of major axis length (r1) and minor axis length (r2), Kim et al. disclose and/or suggest that the unit particle can have a major axis length and a minor axis length depending on the optimization of average particle sizes (also in referring to applicants’ claims 9 and 10 below) and comparative weight ratios, as discussed above. With regard to a first crystal plane corresponding to the (003) plane in the crystal structure, at least one second crystal plane different from the (003) plane directing the lithium ion diffusion path (being at least one crystal plane selected from the (012) plane and the (104) plane, as well as where and how such measurements pertaining to orientations “corresponding to” and “perpendicular to” the major axis direction along which a lithium ion diffusion path is formed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that measurement and determination of crystal planes would lead to the lithium ion diffusion path along a major axis direction of the unit particle being optimized (and further in view of the discussion of the lithium ion diffusion path set forth in claim 3 above), in order to obtain further improvement in attaining a high electrode density (Kim et al.; paragraph [0053]). Moreover, the lithium ion diffusion path can be directed to either or both of the first crystal plane and/or the (at least one) second crystal plane (i.e. any intended crystal plane indicated as (003), (012), (104) etc.), since this limitation does not pertain to a product or composition of the positive electrode active material, but merely a function thereof. With regard how the lithium ion diffusion path is directed with any one or more of the above crystal planes, selection among these crystal plane(s) would have been obvious to try with a finite number of predictable solutions under a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of attaining a high electrode density (Kim et al.; paragraph [0053]).
Regarding claims 9-11, Kim et al. disclose that the average particle diameter of the first lithium transition metal composite oxide (“second powder” of Kim et al.) is between 2 µm and 4 µm, which has substantial overlap with the claimed range of “2.5 to 5.0 µm”, and that the average particle diameter of the second lithium transition metal composite oxide (“first powder” of Kim et al.) is between 10 µm and 40 µm, which has overlap with the claimed range of “10 to 18 µm”, wherein the average particle diameter of the unit particles that constitute the second lithium transition metal composite oxide is 0.1 to 5.0 µm (see abstract; and paragraphs [0014] and [0031]). With regard to the ranges of the average particle diameters, these ranges would be anticipated and/or obvious since these ranges would be readily contemplated by one of ordinary skill in the art. In this instance, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the obviousness of the ranges of the average particle diameters in view of Kim et al., as set forth in MPEP 2144.05. “In the case where 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). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, although Kim et al. disclose and/or suggest the claimed features of independent claim 1, Kim et al. do not explicitly disclose respective ratios of peak intensities attributed to the (003) and (012) planes (satisfying Relationship 1) and attributed to the (003) and (104) planes (satisfying Relationship 2) through X ray diffraction analysis using Cu-Kα rays for the unit particle constituting the first lithium composite oxide, wherein Relationship 1 is 0.090≤I(012)/I(003)≤0.120 and Relationship 2 is 0.420≤I(104)/I(003)≤0.540. However, given the average particle sizes (also in referring to applicants’ claims 9 and 10 above) and comparative weight ratios discussed above in independent claim 1, while also addressing that control and optimization of particle size distribution is important regarding optimum flowability and compaction properties in order to achieve high electrode density (see paragraph [0053]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to conduct routine experimentation to obtain values from X ray diffraction analysis to be within the claimed Relationships 1 and 2 above, in order to obtain further improvement in attaining a high electrode density (Kim et al.; paragraph [0053]). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980).
Regarding claim 19, Kim et al. disclose that a wt% of the second powder (corresponding to the first lithium composite oxide of “small” particle size in the positive electrode active material is w1), and a wt% of the first powder (corresponding to the second lithium composite oxide of “large” particle size in the positive electrode active material therein is w2, wherein w2/w1 is between 15 and 60 wt% (abstract; and paragraphs [0014] and [0031]), which overlaps with the claimed limitation of w2/w1 being between 1.5 and 9.0. With regard to the ranges covered by w2/w1, these ranges would be anticipated and/or obvious since these ranges would be readily contemplated by one of ordinary skill in the art. In this instance, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the obviousness of the ranges covered by w2/w1 in view of Kim et al., as set forth in MPEP 2144.05. “In the case where 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). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 8, and 14-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to teach or suggest a positive electrode active material that includes all limitations of independent claim 1, and further includes the following:
wherein the first lithium composite oxide and the second lithium composite oxide are each independently represented by Formula 1 as follows:
[Formula 1] = LiwNi1-(x+y+z)CoxM1yM2zO2, wherein
M1 is at least one of Mn and Al,
M2 is at least one of P, Sr, Ba, B, Ce, Cr, Mn, Mo, Na, Ca, K, Ti, Zr, Al, Hf, Ta, Mg, V, Zn, Si, Y, Sn, Ge, Nb, W, and Cu,
wherein M1 and M2 are different, and
0.5≤w≤1.5, 0≤x≤0.20, 0≤y≤0.20, and 0≤z≤0.20
(of dependent claim 7, from which claim 8 further depends);
a first coating layer that covers at least a part of the surface of the unit particle constituting the first lithium composite oxide, wherein the first coating layer comprises at least one metal oxide represented by Formula 2 as follows:
[Formula 2] = LiaAbOc, wherein
A is at least one of Ni, Mn, Co, Fe, Cu, Nb, Mo, Ti, Al, Cr, Zr, Zn, Na, K, Ca, Mg, Pt, Au, B, P, Eu, Sm, W, V, Ba, Ta, Sn, Hf, Ce, Gd, and Nd, and
0≤a≤10, 0≤b≤8, 2≤c≤15, and a and b are not 0 at the same time
(of dependent claim 14, from which claim 15 further depends); and
a second coating layer that covers at least a part of the surface of the unit particle constituting the second lithium composite oxide, wherein the second coating layer comprises at least one metal oxide represented by Formula 2 as follows:
[Formula 2] = LiaAbOc, wherein
A is at least one of Ni, Mn, Co, Fe, Cu, Nb, Mo, Ti, Al, Cr, Zr, Zn, Na, K, Ca, Mg, Pt, Au, B, P, Eu, Sm, W, V, Ba, Ta, Sn, Hf, Ce, Gd, and Nd, and
0≤a≤10, 0≤b≤8, 2≤c≤15, and a and b are not 0 at the same time
(of dependent claim 16, from which claims 17 and 18 further depend).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN P KERNS whose telephone number is (571)272-1178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached at (571)272-3458. 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.
/KEVIN P KERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735 February 4, 2026