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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed August 12, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Based on applicant’s amendments the rejection below has been updated to address the amendments.
Applicant first argues that neither Kash nor Mitsumoto discloses or suggests a number of primary particles of the first positive electrode active material is from 6 to 30, wherein the number of the primary particles is measured in a cross-sectional SEM image of secondary particles having an average particle diameter (D50).
Applicant further notes that the Office Action itself acknowledged that Kash fails to expressly teach this limitation.
The argument has been considered. The rejection does not rely on Kash as expressly teaching the 6-to-30 limitation. Rather, Kash teaches positive electrode active materials having controlled particle characteristics, while Mitsumoto teaches SEM-based characterization of constituent primary particles. The combination would have suggested characterization and selection of the aggregation state of primary particles making up secondary active-material particles.
Applicant additionally argues that Mitsumoto paragraphs [0065]-[0067] merely select thirty primary particles in an SEM image, determine the particle diameter of each selected particle, and average the particle diameters, which is distinct from counting the number of primary particles contained in a particular secondary particle having the claimed D50.
This argument has been considered. Mitsumoto is relied upon for teaching SEM-based observation and characterization of the primary particles of positive electrode active materials. Mitsumoto is not relied upon as expressly disclosing the claimed numerical range of 6 to 30 primary particles.
Applicant further argues that the Office's reliance on a result-effective-variable rationale is unsupported because the Office has not established that the number of primary particles was recognized in the prior art as affecting a relevant result or property.
This argument has been considered. The rejection is clarified such that it does not depend solely upon treating the number of primary particles as a previously recognized result-effective variable. Rather, the rejection is based upon the combined teachings of Kash concerning control of positive-electrode particle characteristics and Mitsumoto concerning observation and characterization of constituent primary particles. Selection of an aggregation state having a number of constituent primary particles within the claimed range would have constituted optimization of known particle morphology.
With respect to claims 3 and 17, Applicant argues that Kwak fails to remedy the alleged deficiencies of Kash and Mitsumoto.
This argument has been considered but is not persuasive because the rejection of the underlying limitation of claim 1 is maintained for the reasons discussed above. Kwak is relied upon for the additional coating limitation of claim 3 and the lithium secondary battery limitations of claim 17.
With respect to claim 4, Applicant argues that Lee fails to remedy the alleged deficiencies of Kash and Mitsumoto.
This argument has been considered but is not persuasive because the rejection of the underlying limitations of claim 1 is maintained for the reasons discussed above. Lee is relied upon for the additional second-positive-electrode-active-material composition recited in claim 4.
Applicant further argues that the prior rejection identified claim 16 while discussing the particle size change amount calculated by Equation 1, which is not a feature of claim 16 but was instead a feature of cancelled claim 8 and is now recited in new claim 18.
This argument is persuasive to the extent that the prior Office Action incorrectly associated the particle-size-change limitation with claim 16.
Accordingly, the rejection has been corrected in this Office Action. Claim 16 is rejected over Kash in view of Mitsumoto based upon its actual dependent limitation, while the particle-size-change limitation is addressed under new independent claim 18. Applicant expressly notes that claim 18 is cancelled claim 8 rewritten in independent form.
Applicant argues that Blangero's particle hardness and crushability techniques merely provide a reason to perform a measurement and do not establish that the resulting particle size change amount calculated according to Equation 1 would be 6.0 or less.
Applicant further argues that the prior inherency rationale is improper because substantially the same positive electrode material may or may not possess the claimed particle-size-change property depending on its manufacturing conditions. Applicant relies upon its Example 1 and Comparative Examples 1-3 and states that the secondary sintering temperature affects both the number of primary particles and the particle-size-change amount.
This argument has been considered.
The rejection no longer relies upon the position that a particle size change amount of 6.0 or less is necessarily inherent merely because Kash allegedly teaches substantially the same positive electrode material.
Instead, Blangero is relied upon as teaching evaluation of particle hardness, crushability, and compression resistance. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to select particles resistant to breakage during compression when evaluating a powder intended to undergo densification. Thus, the rejection is maintained on an obviousness rationale directed to selection and optimization of mechanical robustness under compression rather than solely upon inherency.
Applicant's evidence regarding Example 1 and Comparative Examples 1-3 has also been considered. Applicant states that Example 1 satisfies both the claimed primary-particle range and the claimed particle-size-change range and exhibits improved capacity retention and resistance increase characteristics relative to the comparative examples. However, the evidence does not establish that the recited numerical boundary of 6.0 itself produces a result that would have been unexpected throughout the scope of claim 18.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashimura (JP 2016122626) in view of Mitsumoto et al. (US 20210159496), hereinafter Mitsumoto.
Regarding claim 1, Kash teaches:
A positive electrode material having a bimodal particle size distribution comprising a first positive electrode active material and a second positive electrode active material;
The first and second positive electrode active materials having different average particle diameters (D50);
The first positive electrode active material comprising a lithium composite transition metal oxide represented by Formula 1; and
The compositional limitations set forth in Formula 1.
Kash fails to teach:
A number of primary particles of the first positive electrode active material is from 6 to 30, wherein the number of primary particles is measured in a cross-sectional SEM image of secondary particles having an average particle diameter (D50); and
The average particle diameter (D50) is a particle diameter measured through a laser diffraction particle size measurement instrument where a maximum peak of a cumulative area particle size distribution of the first positive electrode active material appears.
The prior Office Action similarly recognized that Kash did not teach the claimed 6-to-30 primary-particle limitation.
Mitsumoto teaches that the number and dimensions of primary particles may be evaluated using SEM imaging of positive electrode active material particles and further teaches determination of average particle diameter using particle-size measurement techniques, as discussed in paragraphs [0065]-[0067].
Kash and Mitsumoto are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of positive electrode materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to utilize the characterization and measurement techniques taught by Mitsumoto when evaluating the positive electrode active materials of Kash because such techniques were conventionally employed in the art to characterize particle morphology and particle-size distributions.
Regarding the limitation that the number of primary particles constituting the first positive electrode material is from 6 to 30, it would have been obvious to select a value within the claimed range when optimizing the morphology of the secondary positive electrode active-material particles taught by Kash. Kash teaches control of the particle characteristics of the positive electrode active materials, while Mitsumoto teaches observation and characterization of the primary particles constituting positive electrode active-material particles. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to select and characterize the aggregation state and number of constituent primary particles when optimizing the known secondary-particle morphology.
Regarding the claimed numerical ranges recited in Formula 1, Kash teaches values that overlap or otherwise encompass the claimed ranges. Therefore, it would have been obvious to select values within the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 2, Kash and Mitsumoto teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Kash further teaches the lithium composite transition metal oxide represented by Formula 1-1 and compositional ranges overlapping the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 5, Kash and Mitsumoto teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Kash further teaches the average particle diameter (D50) of the first positive electrode active material is smaller than the average particle diameter (D50) of the second positive electrode active material.
Regarding claim 6, Kash and Mitsumoto teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Kash further teaches the first positive electrode active material has an average particle diameter (D50) within or overlapping the claimed range of 2 μm or more and 7 μm or less.
Regarding claim 7, Kash and Mitsumoto teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Kash further teaches the second positive electrode active material has an average particle diameter (D50) within or overlapping the claimed range of greater than 7 μm and 20 μm or less.
Regarding claim 16, Kash and Mitsumoto teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Kash further teaches a positive electrode comprising the positive electrode material.
Claims 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashimura and Mitsumoto, as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, in further view of Kwak et al. (US 20160254546), hereinafter Kwak.
Regarding claim 3, Kash and Mitsumoto teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Kash fails to teach the first positive electrode active material comprises a coating layer formed on a surface of the lithium composite transition metal oxide and including at least one of the claimed coating elements.
Kwak teaches a positive electrode active material comprising a coating layer formed on a surface of a lithium composite transition metal oxide and containing at least one of the claimed elements.
Kash and Kwak are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of positive electrode materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to add a coating to the electrode material as taught by Kwak in order to prevent degradation and extend the lifetime of the positive electrode material.
Regarding claim 17, Kash and Mitsumoto teach the limitations of claim 16, as stated above.
Kwak teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, a separator disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, and an electrolyte. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to incorporate the positive electrode taught by Kash into the lithium secondary battery taught by Kwak to obtain a lithium secondary battery having a known positive electrode structure.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashimura and Mitsumoto, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Lee et al. (US20210135216), hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claim 4, Kash and Mitsumoto teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above.
Kash further teaches a second positive electrode active material but fails to teach the claimed second positive electrode active material represented by Formula 2.
Lee teaches a positive electrode active material comprising a lithium composite transition metal oxide represented by Formula 2, including the claimed transition-metal constituents and compositional ranges.
Kash and Lee are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrode materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to substitute the second positive electrode active material taught by Kash with the positive electrode active material taught by Lee because Lee teaches that its material composition is suitable for use as a positive electrode active material in a lithium-ion battery. Such modification would have involved the substitution of one known positive electrode active material for another known positive electrode active material to obtain predictable results.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashimura in view of Mitsumoto, and further in view of Blangero et al. (US20210005891), hereinafter Blangero.
Regarding claim 18, Kash and Mitsumoto teach the limitations corresponding to claim 1, as stated above.
Kash fails to expressly teach that the positive electrode material has a particle size change amount calculated according to Equation 1 of 6.0 or less, wherein:
Particle size change amount = P0 − P1,
P0 is an intensity of a maximum peak in a cumulative area particle size distribution graph of the positive electrode material; and
P1 is an intensity of a peak in a region corresponding to a particle diameter of the P0 peak in a cumulative area particle size distribution graph measured after pressurizing the positive electrode material to 9 tons.
Blangero teaches evaluating powder and particle mechanical properties, including particle hardness and crushability under applied pressure, and teaches evaluating changes in particle characteristics resulting from compression. The prior Office Action relied on Blangero paragraphs [0100]-[0112] for evaluating powder and particle mechanical properties under compression.
Kash and Blangero are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they concern particulate materials whose mechanical integrity under compression is relevant to material processing and densification.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to evaluate the positive electrode material of Kash using the powder crushability and particle-hardness evaluation techniques taught by Blangero in order to characterize the mechanical strength and compression resistance of the positive electrode material. Such characterization techniques would have been useful for evaluating positive electrode materials subjected to compression and densification during battery manufacture.
It would further have been obvious to select a positive electrode material exhibiting limited particle-size change during compression because resistance to particle breakage is a desirable property when selecting a powder that will be subjected to compression and densification. Accordingly, selection of a material exhibiting a particle size change amount within the claimed range would have been within the ordinary skill in the art when optimizing mechanical robustness under compression.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Tamara Orduna whose telephone number is (571) 431-1457. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/TAMARA ORDUNA/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
