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 13 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.
Regarding Claim 13,
It is not clear to the examiner what the applicant intends through, ‘and the current collector is 10 gf/2_cm or more’, whether this is referring to 10 grams-force/cm^2 or 10 grams-force/ 2 centimeters. The former interpretation is applied based on the specification and for the sake of examination.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by (US-20220200000-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Mesuda’
Regarding Claim 1,
Mesuda teaches a manufacturing method of a positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery, the manufacturing method comprising: the positive electrode forming a positive electrode active material layer (Mesuda, “A slurry for a positive electrode mixed material layer was obtained by mixing 100 parts of an active material… further gradually adding NMP,” see [0216]) including a lithium iron phosphate on a current collector (Mesuda, “A positive electrode active material that forms positive electrode active material particles may be …olivine-type lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4)”, see [0139]); and adsorbing an organic solvent into the positive electrode active material layer (Mesuda, “further gradually adding NMP,” see [0216]).
Regarding Claim 2,
Mesuda teaches the manufacturing method of the positive electrode for the lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the organic solvent comprises one or more of N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP), dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), isopropyl alcohol, acetone,or ethanol (Mesuda, “A slurry for a positive electrode mixed material layer was obtained by mixing 100 parts of an active material… further gradually adding NMP,” see [0216]).
Regarding Claim 3,
Mesuda teaches the manufacturing method of positive electrode for the lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the organic solvent comprises one or more of dimethylcarbonate (DMC), diethylcarbonate (DEC), methylethylcarbonate (MEC), ethylmethylcarbonate (EMC), ethylene carbonate (EC) propylene carbonate (PC) (Mesuda, “Examples of suitable organic solvents include carbonates such as dimethyl carbonate (DMC), ethylene carbonate (EC), diethyl carbonate (DEC), propylene carbonate (PC), butylene carbonate (BC), and methyl ethyl carbonate (EMC)”, see [0169]).
Regarding Claim 4,
Mesuda teaches the manufacturing method of the positive electrode for the lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the lithium iron phosphate is a compound represented by Formula 1 below:
Li1+aFe1-xMx(PO-4-b)Xb--
Wherein the formula 1, M is one of more elements selected from a group consisting of Al, Mg, Ni, Co, Mn, Ti, Ga, Cu, V, Nb, Ze, Ce, In, Zn, and Y, Z is one or more elements selected from the group consisting of F, S, and N, and each of a,b, and x is -0.5≤a≤ 0.5, 0≤b≤0.1, and 0≤x≤0.5 respectively (Mesuda, “lithium-containing complex oxide of Ni—Co—Al, olivine-type lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4)”, see [0139]).
Regarding Claim 5,
Mesuda teaches the manufacturing method of the positive electrode for the lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the lithium iron phosphate is LiFePO4 having an olivine crystal structure Mesuda, “lithium-containing complex oxide of Ni—Co—Al, olivine-type lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4)”, see [0139]).’
Regarding Claim 7,
Mesuda teaches the manufacturing method of the positive electrode for the lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the positive electrode active material layer further comprises the binder (Mesuda, “A slurry for a positive electrode mixed material layer was obtained by mixing 100 parts of an active material NMC532 based on a lithium complex oxide of Co—Ni—Mn (LiNi0.5Mn0.3Co0.2O2) as positive electrode active material particles, 3.75 parts in terms of solid content of the conductive material paste produced as described above, and 2.0 parts in terms of solid content of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF)”, see [0216]).
Regarding Claim 8,
Mesuda teaches the manufacturing method of the positive electrode for the lithium secondary battery of claim 7, wherein the binder comprises one or more of polyvinylidene fluoride styrene butadiene rubber or carboxy methyl cellulose (Mesuda, “A slurry for a positive electrode mixed material layer was obtained by mixing 100 parts of an active material NMC532 based on a lithium complex oxide of Co—Ni—Mn (LiNi0.5Mn0.3Co0.2O2) as positive electrode active material particles, 3.75 parts in terms of solid content of the conductive material paste produced as described above, and 2.0 parts in terms of solid content of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF)”, see [0216]).
Regarding Claim 9,
Mesuda teaches the manufacturing method of the positive electrode for the lithium secondary battery of claim 7,wherein a binder content with respect to a total weight of the positive electrode active material layer is 5% by weight or less (Mesuda, “A slurry for a positive electrode mixed material layer was obtained by mixing 100 parts of an active material NMC532 based on a lithium complex oxide of Co—Ni—Mn (LiNi0.5Mn0.3Co0.2O2) as positive electrode active material particles, 3.75 parts in terms of solid content of the conductive material paste produced as described above, and 2.0 parts in terms of solid content of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF)”, see [0216]).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by (US-20220200000-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Mesuda’, in view of (US-20100102270-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Jia’
Regarding Claim 6,
Mesuda does not teach the manufacturing method of the positive electrode for the lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein an average particle diameter (D50) of the lithium iron phosphate is 0.5 to 3 µm
Jia teaches a diameter of the lithium iron phosphate of an average particle diameter (D50) of the lithium iron phosphate is 0.5 to 3 µm (see Table 2, D50, Example 1-)
Jia teaches that a small particle sizes are favorable as large particles lead to worse cycling (Jia, “aforementioned method has large particle size, and nonuniform particle size distribution. Therefore, when the aforementioned lithium iron phosphate is used as positive electrode active material, the obtained battery has low initial discharge specific capacity, and poor large-current discharge performance and cycle performance.”, see [0007])
Mesuda and Jia are both of the same field of battery assemblies.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cathode as taught in Mesuda to particle size as taught in Jia in order to improve cycling.
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by (US-20220200000-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Mesuda’, in view of ‘Electrostatically Sprayed Nanostructured Electrodes for Energy Conversion and Storage Devices’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Joshi’
Regarding Claim 10,
Mesuda does not teach the manufacturing method of the positive electrode for the lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the adsorbing the organic solvent into the positive electrode active material layer is a process of directly spraying the organic solvent onto the positive electrode or sealing the positive electrode with the organic solvent in an airtight container to adsorb the organic solvent.
Joshi teaches wherein the adsorbing the organic solvent into the positive electrode active material layer is a process of directly spraying the organic solvent onto the positive electrode (Joshi, “Other than cathode deposition, E-spray was also used to deposit surface modifying layers.”, see 4.2 Energy Storage )(See Table. 7, Row 7).
Joshi teaches that electro spraying allows for precise control and deposit layers which improve performance of the cathode (Joshi, “Other than cathode deposition, E-spray was also used to deposit surface modifying layers. For example, a layer of LiMn2O4 was deposited on the LiCoO2 cathode, which improved the thermal stability of LiCoO2. Similarly, in another study, an inert material, such as Nafion, was deposited on LiV3O8 to suppress crack formation during volume expansion and prevent the dissolution of vanadium in the electrolyte” 4.2 Energy Storage).
Mesuda and Joshi are both of the same field of battery assemblies.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cathode as taught in Mesuda to add the sprayed layer as taught in Joshi in order to improve the stability and performance of the cell and allow for precise deposition.
Claims 11-14, and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by (US-20220200000-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Mesuda’, in view of (JP-2015060670-A) hereinafter referred to as ‘Saito’
Regarding Claim 11,
Mesuda does not teach wherein the organic solvent is adsorbed in a ratio of 2,000 to 20,000 ppm with respect to a total weight of the positive electrode active material layer.
Saito teaches wherein the organic solvent is adsorbed in a ratio of 2,000 to 20,000 ppm with respect to a total weight of the positive electrode active material layer (Saito, “For example, the porous heat-resistant layer 80 in which the NMP content X satisfies 500 ppm ≦ X ≦ 10000 ppm (particularly 2000 ppm ≦ X ≦ 8000 ppm) is suitable from the viewpoint of achieving both a high internal pressure increase assist effect and manufacturability.”, see pg. 5 par. 2)(Saito, “the NMP in the positive electrode active material layer is adsorbed to the porous heat-resistant layer by heat-treating the battery case containing the electrode body in a temperature range of 60 ° C. or higher, a predetermined amount (for example, 2000 ppm or higher)”, pg. 6 par. 2).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 2,000pm or higher broadly overlaps the claimed range of 2,000 to 20,000 ppm. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Saito teaches that this ppm allows for the indication of a high heat event and allows for ease in manufacturing (Saito, “For example, the porous heat-resistant layer 80 in which the NMP content X satisfies 500 ppm ≦ X ≦ 10000 ppm (particularly 2000 ppm ≦ X ≦ 8000 ppm) is suitable from the viewpoint of achieving both a high internal pressure increase assist effect and manufacturability.”, see see pg. 5 par. 2).
Mesuda and Saito are both of the same field of battery assemblies.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cathode as taught in Mesuda to NMP concentration as taught in Saito in order to indicate a high temperature event and to improve manufacturing.
Regarding Claim 12,
Mesuda teaches a positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery, comprising: a positive electrode current collector; and a positive electrode active material layer comprising a lithium iron phosphate disposed on at least one side of-a the positive electrode current collectors (Mesuda, “A slurry for a positive electrode mixed material layer was obtained by mixing 100 parts of an active material… further gradually adding NMP,” see [0216]) Mesuda, “A positive electrode active material that forms positive electrode active material particles may be …olivine-type lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4)”, see [0139]).
Mesuda does not teach electrode active material layer comprises an organic solvent at a ratio of 2,000 to 20,000 ppm with respect to the total weight of the positive electrode active material layer.
Saito teaches wherein the organic solvent is adsorbed in a ratio of 2,000 to 20,000 ppm with respect to a total weight of the positive electrode active material layer (Saito, “For example, the porous heat-resistant layer 80 in which the NMP content X satisfies 500 ppm ≦ X ≦ 10000 ppm (particularly 2000 ppm ≦ X ≦ 8000 ppm) is suitable from the viewpoint of achieving both a high internal pressure increase assist effect and manufacturability.”, see see pg. 5 par. 2 )(Saito, “the NMP in the positive electrode active material layer is adsorbed to the porous heat-resistant layer by heat-treating the battery case containing the electrode body in a temperature range of 60 ° C. or higher, a predetermined amount (for example, 2000 ppm or higher)”,see pg. 6 par. 2).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 2,000pm or higher broadly overlaps the claimed range of 2,000 to 20,000 ppm. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Saito teaches that this ppm allows for the indication of a high heat event and allows for ease in manufacturing (Saito, “For example, the porous heat-resistant layer 80 in which the NMP content X satisfies 500 ppm ≦ X ≦ 10000 ppm (particularly 2000 ppm ≦ X ≦ 8000 ppm) is suitable from the viewpoint of achieving both a high internal pressure increase assist effect and manufacturability.”, see see pg. 5 par. 2).
Mesuda and Saito are both of the same field of battery assemblies.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cathode as taught in Mesuda to NMP concentration as taught in Saito in order to indicate a high temperature event and to improve manufacturing.
Regarding Claim 13,
Modified Mesuda teaches the positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery of claim 12, wherein an electrode adhesion strength measured by a 90 degree peel test between the positive electrode active material layer and the current collector is 10 gf/2_cm or more (Mesuda, “A larger value for the positive electrode peel strength indicates that the positive electrode mixed material layer has better adhesiveness and has strong close adherence to the current collector.”, see [0187]) (Mesuda, “SA: Positive electrode peel strength of 35 N/m or more”, see [0188]).
Regarding Claim 14,
Modified Mesuda teaches the positive electrode for the lithium secondary battery of claim 12, wherein the positive electrode active layer is in direct contact with the positive electrode current collector (Mesuda, “positive electrode web having a positive electrode mixed material layer formed on the current collector.”, see [0218]).
Regarding Claim 16,
Modified Mesuda teaches the lithium secondary battery comprising the positive electrode of claim 12, a negative electrode, a separator interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, and a non-aqueous electrolyte (Mesuda, “The positive electrode, the negative electrode, and the separator were used to produce a single-layer laminate cell (initial design discharge capacity: equivalent to 30 mAh) and were arranged inside aluminum packing. The aluminum packing was subsequently filled with LiPF6 solution of 1.0 M in concentration (solvent: mixed solvent of ethylene carbonate (EC)/diethyl carbonate (DEC)=3/7 (mass ratio)”, see [0225]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by (US-20220200000-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Mesuda’, in view of (JP-2015060670-A) hereinafter referred to as ‘Saito’ in further view of (US-20100102270-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Jia’
Regarding Claim 15,
Modified Mesuda does not teach the manufacturing method of the positive electrode for the lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein an average particle diameter (D50) of the lithium iron phosphate is 0.5 to 3 µm
Jia teaches a diameter of the lithium iron phosphate of an average particle diameter (D50) of the lithium iron phosphate is 0.5 to 3 µm (see Table 2, D50, Example 1-).
Jia teaches that a small particle sizes are favorable as large particles lead to worse cycling (Jia, “aforementioned method has large particle size, and nonuniform particle size distribution. Therefore, when the aforementioned lithium iron phosphate is used as positive electrode active material, the obtained battery has low initial discharge specific capacity, and poor large-current discharge performance and cycle performance.”, see [0007]).
Mesuda and Jia are both of the same field of battery assemblies.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cathode as taught in Mesuda to particle size as taught in Jia in order to improve cycling.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAMUS PATRICK MCNULTY whose telephone number is (703)756-1909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00am to 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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/S.P.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752