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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in FIG. 4 column #2 size D50 reads 17.3 micrometers however, [0025] of the instant specification states that the value is 7.3 micrometers.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
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.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In [0003], the language "with its conversion of chemical energy" should read "where its conversion of chemical energy"
In [0003], the language “Since its advantages of high energy density, good stability and free of memory effect” should read “Due to its high energy density, good stability, and freedom from memory effect”
In [0003], the language “In order to increase the energy density of lithium ion battery, particles of active substance are added in the electrode to increase the density of coating layer in the electrode” should read “In order to increase the energy density of lithium ion batteries, particles of active substance are added in the electrode to increase the density of the coating layer in the electrode”
In [0003], the redundant language “by a rolling process” should be omitted from “coating layer density of the electrodes by a rolling process”
In [0003], the sentence “Accordingly, those of skilled in the art need to further research and improve the active substance in the electrodes of lithium-ion battery” should read “Accordingly, those skilled in the art need to further research and improve the active substance in the electrodes of lithium-ion batteries”
In [0004], the language “so that particles in the active substance will not break easily in rolling process” should read “so that particles in the active substance will not break easily in the rolling process”
In [0005], the language “and an average particle size of the first particles is larger than or equal to three times of an average particle size of the second particles , and a volume ratio of the first particles in the active substance is greater than a volume ratio of the second particles in the active substance” should read “and the average particle size of the first particles is larger than or equal to three times the average particle size of the second particles, and the volume ratio of the first particles in the active substance is greater than the volume ratio of the second particles in the active substance”
In [0014], the language “These embodiments are described in sufficient details to enable those skilled in the art” should read “These embodiments are described in sufficient detail to enable those skilled in the art”
In [0028], a table of FIG. 4 is referenced, but the table with relevant data that is discussed is the table of FIG. 5, not FIG. 4.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: "first particles in form of polycrystalline powder" should read "first particles are in a form of polycrystalline powder." Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: comma splice; the two independent clauses should be joined by a conjunction. Appropriate correction is required.
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 "binder" in the last line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-11, 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20200403228 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim et al. teach an electrode plate having active substance of electrochemical energy storage device, comprising a current collector; and an electrode formed of active substance on said current collector ([0009] and [0076]).
Kim et al. teach lithium transition metal oxide compounds applied as positive electrode material for rechargeable lithium-ion batteries where the active material comprises a mixture of large spherical polycrystalline lithium transition metal oxide compounds (first particles) and small single crystal lithium transition metal oxide compounds (second particles) ([0002]), wherein an average particle size of said first particles is larger than or equal to three times of an average particle size of said second particles ([0013]). The small single crystal lithium transition metal oxide is added to improve the electrode pressed density, providing a high energy density without causing particle breaking and electrode biting issues during the electrode manufacturing process and particle breaking issues during cycling in a battery ([0011]). In one embodiment, the smaller particles (second powder) are in a weight ratio between 15 and 25 wt. % ([0017]), which would imply the volume ratio of first particles (polycrystalline, large) is greater than the volume ratio of second particles (monocrystalline, small).
As for the breakage rate of said electrode formed by mixed first particles and second particles in rolling process, given the same rolling process, the breakage rate should be inherent due to the physical properties of the crystal structure. Using an SEM and the strategy disclosed by Kim et al. to calculate breakage rate, applied pressure may be adjusted to achieve a breakage rate less than or equal to 40% in an electrode of said mixed first and second particles ([0065]– [0068]). When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02.
Regarding Claim 2, Kim et al. teach a bimodal mixture of lithium transition metal oxide compounds applied as positive electrode material for rechargeable lithium-ion batteries where the active material comprises a mixture of large spherical polycrystalline lithium transition metal oxide compounds and small single crystal lithium transition metal oxide compounds ([0002]).
Regarding Claim 3, Kim et al. teach an embodiment wherein density of the positive electrode mixture is at least 3.65 g/cm--3 ([0030]).
Regarding Claim 5, Kim et al. teach the use of active substance of electrical energy storage device of claim 1, wherein the said volume ratio of the second, smaller monocrystalline particles is between 15 and 60 wt. % ([0015]). This volume ratio implies that the volume ratio of first, larger polycrystalline particles is between 40 and 85 wt. %. The claimed 70:30 ratio falls within the range taught by Kim et al.
As previously described, the electrode biting problem becomes worse as the number of larger particles decreases (Kim et al., [0010]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a larger ratio, such as 70:30 large to small particles, to avoid catastrophic electrode biting during the rolling/pressing process for making the electrode plate.
Regarding Claim 6, wherein the average size of the first particles is 11.1 μm and the average size of second particles is 3.5 μm. Kim et al. teach the bimodal mixture for use as an active substance of the electrode plate of claim 1, wherein the average particle size D50 of the first powder is between 10 and 50 μm and the second powder has an average particle size D50 between 2 and 4 μm ([0015]).
Regarding Claim 7, Kim et al. teach the porosity of the second particles being smaller than 1%, stating that “in order to achieve a high density, the small particles should also be free of internal porosity” ([0046]).
Regarding Claim 8, Kim et al. teach the use of bimodal active substance as claimed, and they further teach the particles containing transition metal elements, such as Ni, Mn, Co, and Ti, W, Zr, or Cr ([0018] and [0022]).
Regarding Claim 9, Kim et al. teach of FE-SEM analysis, which analyzes the morphology of the material using Scanning Electron Microscopy ([0073] – [0074]) and randomly selecting particles to view. They also teach that the particles of positive electrode materials can crack during electrode processing and during cycling, which results in an increase of surface area which is undesirable ([0057]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have calculated the breakage rate of the particles in the electrode to ensure product viability and performance during cycles. Additionally, the breakage rate is intrinsic to the electrode composition, which depends on the lithium transition metal oxides and their crystalline structures, not on the use of this SEM technique.
Regarding Claim 10, Kim et al. teach a positive electrode plate, comprising the bimodal powder mixture of Li1+aM1-aO2, with -0.03≤a≤0.10 and M=NixMnyCozEd, wherein 0.30≤x≤0.92, 0≤y≤0.40, 0.05≤z≤0.40, 0≤d≤0.05 and x+y+z+d=1, and where E is either one or more elements from a group—omitted for brevity ([0018]). Given the variable d=0 within the domain, x+y+z=1. Furthermore, Kim et al. teach a positive electrode prepared with a formulation of 90% electrochemical active material by weight ([0081]). Hence, the ratio of said active substance is larger than 80%.
Regarding Claim 11, Kim et al. teach an electrode plate having the active substance of electrochemical energy storage device of claim 10, wherein a material of said binder is polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF) ([0087]). Note: the nomenclature polyvinylidene fluoride indicates the same compound, PVDF.
Regarding Claim 13, Kim et al. teach of commercially available negative electrodes comprised of 96% graphite by mass ([0088]).
Regarding Claim 14, Kim et al. teach the electrode plate having the active substance of electrochemical energy storage device of claim 1, wherein a material of said current collector is aluminum, and a thickness of said current collector is 15 microns ([0087])
Regarding Claim 15, Kim et al. teach the bimodal mixture for use as an active substance of the electrode plate of claim 1, wherein the D50 of the first powder is between 10 and 50 μm and the D50 of the second powder is between 2 and 4 μm ([0015]).
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) (An excerpt from MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 16, Kim et al. teach a positive electrode prepared by coating the bimodal mixture slurry onto both sides of a positive electrode current collector, which is a 20 μm-thick aluminum foil ([0076]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20200403228 A1) in view of Paulsen et al. (US 20150311512 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Kim et al. teach the use of bimodal active material using a mixture of larger and smaller lithium transition metal oxide particles, wherein said smaller particles have low porosity and provide a “filler effect” ([0041]). Although not explicitly stated, the smaller particles are expected to impart low porosity to the overall structure of the electrode made of the pressed bimodal mixture. They also do not explicitly state the specific porosity of the smaller particles, but they state the remaining 26% of space left unoccupied (pores in large particles) can be filled by Compound B, the small monolithic particles ([0041]).
Paulsen et al. teach a low porosity electrode comprising active material particles with a bimodal size distribution ([0056]), wherein an example demonstrates that electrodes with porosities 11.3%, 11.6%, and 7.6% were achieved ([0139]). “Typical electrode porosities in commercial cells are >12%, often 15-20%” ([00139]), which is less than the claimed 25% porosity.
Both Kim et al. and Paulsen et al. teach the benefits of low porosity, including higher electrode density, less side reactions, better cycle lifetime, and stability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make an electrode with the active material mixture of Kim et al. of porosity lower than 25%.
Claim(s) 12is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20200403228 A1) in view of Arise et al. (US 20180342762 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Kim et al. teach the electrode plate having the active substance of electrochemical energy storage device of claim 10. Kim et al. does not teach the thickness of said electrode being 10-100 microns. However, Arise et al. teach an electrode plate having an active substance of electrochemical energy storage wherein a resultant cut piece of the positive electrode plate has a thickness of 58 μm ([0135]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have made the electrode plate between 10-100 microns thick.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Takeuchi et al. (US 20200266494 A1), which discloses a secondary battery including a positive electrode plate containing active material of specific thickness and porosity.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW N KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-9169. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00am-5pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ANDREW KIM/ Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/Maria Laios/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727