ELECTRODE FOR RECHARGEABLE LITHIUM BATTERY AND RECHARGEABLE LITHIUM BATTERY INCLUDING THE SAME
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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to communication filed on 5/12/2026:
Claims 4, 16, and 19 have been amended; claim 21 has been added. No new matter has been entered.
Previous claim objections have been withdrawn due to amendment.
Previous rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(1)/(a)(2), 102(a)(1)/103, and 103 have been upheld.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant discloses: “While Tang discusses a "PTC coating layer" (or thermosensitive coating layer) and a "composite fusion layer," the reference does not disclose a functional layer structure that specifically encompasses the combination of a PTC resin layer and a lithium transition metal phosphate layer in the manner and context claimed in claim 1. Tang focuses on thermosensitive polymer microspheres and general composite fusion layers containing active materials, but the reference fails to teach or suggest the specific configuration of a second functional layer consisting of a lithium transition metal phosphate as recited in claim 1.”
The Examiner respectfully traverses. The claims do not disclose or imply the two layers being in a combination. This is not even implied from the drawings which show them as being layers and separate from each other.
The Applicant discloses: “Furthermore, as noted by the Examiner in the Office Action, the reference does not even provide specific definitions or limiting ranges for various compositions within its layers. An anticipation rejection cannot be sustained where the prior art only provides general or broad teachings that do not meet the specific structural and compositional requirements of the claim. Therefore, Tang does not identically disclose the claimed electrode, and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 should be withdrawn.”
The Examiner respectfully traverses. The Examiner is unclear as to where this is noted in the Office Action.
The Applicant discloses: “For example, Tang describes a "composite fusion layer" formed by mutual permeation of a thermosensitive coating layer and a positive electrode active material layer during drying/pressing. Accordingly, Tang's composite fusion layer is an interfacial region, not a separately composition-controlled second functional layer.”
The Examiner respectfully traverses. The process used in Tang is not commensurate within the scope of the claims as they are product claims.
The Applicant discloses: “In addition, Zhang fails to rectify the failure of Tang to disclose the above features. Zhang appears to disclose an underlying positive active material layer in contact with the current collector, comprising a first positive active material, a first polymer material, and a first conductive material. However, the structure taught by Zhang is fundamentally different from the claimed embodiments. Zhang combines the binder and PTC effect within a single underlying layer. In contrast, claim 1 recites a distinct two-layer functional structure (a first functional layer comprising a PTC resin and a second functional layer comprising a lithium transition metal phosphate) between the current collector and the active material layer.”
The Examiner respectfully traverses: Zhang was not used as a 102 reference. Therefore, arguments related to its lack of anticipation are not commensurate in scope. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
The Applicant discloses: “Zhang addresses an underlying positive active material layer containing polymer and conductive material for penetration safety. Zhang does not disclose or suggest Applicant's second functional layer comprising 50-99 wt% LTMP based on that layer's total mass. Accordingly, Zhang does not cure Tang's deficiencies with respect to amended claim 1.
Further, Zhang's cited particle-size teachings pertain to its own materials and layers, not to LTMP in Applicant's second functional layer. There is no apparent reason why a person of ordinary skill would combine Tang and Zhang to arrive at the amended claim language.”
The Examiner respectfully traverses. Zhang discloses the upper positive active material layer (14) which reads on the second functional layer. Further, paragraph 85 discloses it can also comprise lithium iron phosphate.
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 1-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tang et al. (US 2023/0089391 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9-11, 13, 18, and 19, Tang et al. teach an electrode for a rechargeable lithium battery (Abstract discloses a positive electrode for a lithium-ion battery.), the electrode comprising:
a current collector (Fig. 1; Example 1 discloses an aluminum foil current collector.);
an active material layer on the current collector (Fig. 1; paragraphs 0053; 0095 disclose a positive electrode active material layer which can comprise 80-99 wt.% a second positive electrode active material, 0.5-10 wt.% a second conductive agent and 0.5-10 wt.% a second binder.); and
a functional layer between the current collector and the active material layer wherein the functional layer comprises a first functional layer and a second functional layer (Fig. 1 discloses a PTC coating layer, or thermosensitive coating layer, coupled with a composite fusion layer. These two layers are between the current collector and the positive electrode active layer. The PTC/thermosensitive coating layer is in contact with the current collector and the composite fusion layer is in contact with the positive electrode active material layer.),
the first functional layer comprises a positive temperature coefficient (PTC) resin (Paragraphs 0052; 0081 disclose the thermosensitive coating layer comprises 20-90 wt.% thermosensitive polymer microspheres, 2.9-48.9 wt.% a first conductive agent, and 2-40 wt.% a first binder. Paragraph 0109 discloses the first binder can comprise PVDF. Paragraph 0106 discloses the thermosensitive polymer microspheres may be selected from one or more of polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene, and polyvinyl chloride.), and
the second functional layer comprises a lithium transition metal phosphate (Paragraphs 0054 discloses the composite fusion layer includes a second conductive agent, a second binder, and a second positive electrode active material with option first positive electrode active material. Paragraph 0107 discloses either the first and/or second positive electrode active material can comprise LiFePO4.).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Tang et al. teach the electrode of claim 1, wherein a thickness ratio of the first functional layer and the second functional layer is about 3:7 to about 7:3 (Paragraph 0114 discloses the thickness of the thermosensitive coating layer may range from 0.1 μm to 5 μm. Paragraph 0115 discloses the thickness of the composite fusion layer may range from 0.001 μm to 0.5 μm. These ranges overlap with the claimed thickness ratio.), wherein a thickness ratio of an entire functional layer comprising the first functional layer and the second functional layer; and the active material layer is about 1:1 to about 1:1,000 (Paragraph 0116 discloses the thickness of the positive electrode active material layer may range from 5 μm to 175 μm.).
Regarding claim 20, Tang et al. teach a rechargeable lithium battery, comprising: a positive electrode; a negative electrode; and an electrolyte, wherein at least one of the positive electrode or the negative electrode is the electrode of claim 1 (Paragraph 0149).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tang et al. (US 2023/0089391 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Tang et al. teach the electrode of claim 1. However, they do not teach wherein the positive temperature coefficient resin expands in a temperature range of about 60°C to about 200°C.
However, the thermosensitive polymer microspheres can comprise and overlap with the claimed PTC materials (Paragraph 0106 discloses the thermosensitive polymer microspheres may be selected from one or more of polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene, and polyvinyl chloride.).
MPEP 2112.01 Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims
II. COMPOSITION CLAIMS — IF THE COMPOSITION IS PHYSICALLY THE SAME, IT MUST HAVE THE SAME PROPERTIES
"Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
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.
Claims 8 and 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (US 2023/0089391 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2020/0161639 A1).
Regarding claims 8 and 12, Tang et al. teach the electrode of claim 1. However, they do not teach wherein a D50 particle diameter of the first conductive material is about 1 nm to about 100 nm and wherein a D50 particle diameter of the lithium transition metal phosphate is less than or equal to about 2 μm and greater than 0 μm.
Zhang et al. teach a positive electrode plate having a current collector (Fig. 1, element 10), an upper positive active material layer (Fig. 1, element 14), and an underlying positive active material layer (Fig. 1, element 12). The underlying positive layer has a PTC effect (Paragraph 0019) and can comprise a first positive active material and a first conductive agent (Paragraph 0013). Further, the first conductive agent can have a particle size of 5 to 500 nm (Paragraph 0075). Further, the positive active material layer can comprise a particle size of 100 nm- 10 μm (Paragraph 0065).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tang with Zhang in order to improve safety and electrical properties.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-17 and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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 subject matter of claims 14-17 and 21 is not disclosed in the prior art of record.
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 DANIEL S GATEWOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-7958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
Daniel S. Gatewood, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1729
/DANIEL S GATEWOOD, Ph. D/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729 June 5th, 2026
Prosecution Insights