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 § 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 7-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20200403228 A1) in view of Jang et al. (US 20220384780 A1, provided in an IDS filed 28 October, 2024).
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).
Kim et al. do not teach that the second, monocrystalline particles are irregularly shaped.
However, Jang et al. teach a lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide ([0030]-[0035]) positive active material for a rechargeable lithium battery comprising secondary particles including a plurality of primary particles agglomerated together (Abstract)—or an active substance formed of two kinds of particles with different particle sizes and volume ratios—wherein the second positive active material in single crystal form (i.e., monocrystalline) may have an irregular shape ([0039]) and that the positive active material according to the embodiment may exhibit improved cycle-life, high capacity, and high energy density ([0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the second particles of Kim et al. to be in form of irregularly shaped monocrystalline structure to achieve improved cycle life, capacity, and energy density, as taught by Jang et al.
The limitation regarding the breakage rate in rolling pressing process being smaller than or equal to 40% is a product-by-process functional limitation. The cited prior art teaches all the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Regarding Claim 2, Kim modified with Jang teaches 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] of Kim).
Regarding Claim 7, Kim modified with Jang teaches 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] of Kim).
Regarding Claim 8, Kim modified with Jang teaches 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] of Kim).
Regarding Claim 9, Kim modified with Jang teaches FE-SEM analysis, which analyzes the morphology of the material using Scanning Electron Microscopy ([0073] – [0074] of Kim) 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] of Kim). 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 modified with Jang teaches 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] of Kim). Hence, the ratio of said active substance is larger than 80%.
Regarding Claim 11, Kim modified with Jang teaches an electrode plate having the active substance of electrochemical energy storage device of claim 10, wherein said electrode further comprises a binder, and a material of said binder is polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF) ([0087] of Kim). Note: the nomenclature polyvinylidene fluoride indicates the same compound, PVDF.
Regarding Claim 12, Kim modified with Jang teaches the electrode plate of claim 10, wherein a thickness of said electrode is 10-100 microns (less than 50 microns, Kim [0042]).
Regarding Claim 13, Kim modified with Jang teaches commercially available negative electrodes comprised of 96% graphite by mass ([0088] of Kim).
Regarding Claim 14, Kim modified with Jang teaches 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] of Kim)
Regarding Claim 15, Kim modified with Jang teaches 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] of Kim).
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 modified with Jang teaches 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] of Kim).
Regarding Claim 17, Kim modified with Jang teaches the electrode plate having the 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] of Kim). 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.
The limitation regarding the breakage rate is a functional result during the rolling pressing process and thus claim 17 includes a product-by-process functional limitation. The cited prior art teaches all the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
The breakage rate during processing does not impart patentable weight because it is a result of the specific particle types and sizes used in the rolling process and is a characteristic of how the material behaves during manufacturing. The claimed particle sizes are expected to cause lower particle breakage rates. Patentability depends on the physical dimensions or structures of the product and not on breakage rate itself.
Regarding Claim 18, Kim modified by Jang teaches the electrode plate of claim 1, 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] of Kim).
The applicant is reminded that the product-by-process functional limitation of breakage rate does not support patentability. See MPEP 2113 for information regarding product by process claims.
Regarding Claim 19, Kim modified with Jang teaches the electrode plate of claim 1, wherein density of the positive electrode mixture is at least 3.65 g/cm--3 ([0030] of Kim).
The applicant is reminded that the product-by-process functional limitation of breakage rate does not support patentability. See MPEP 2113 for information regarding product by process claims.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20200403228 A1) in view of Jang et al. (US 20220384780 A1), and further in view of Paulsen et al. (US 20150311512 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Kim modified with Jang teaches 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%.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 4, and 7-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Thus, in view of the foregoing, claims 1-2, 4, and 7-19 stand rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANDREW N KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-9169. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-3:30pm.
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
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights