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
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaghib et al., (US 2015/0037673 A1) in view of Kim et al., (US 2015/0340730 A1) (hereinafter Kim-730) and in further view of Kim et al., (US 2014/0336975 A1) (hereinafter Kim-975).
Regarding claim 1, Zaghib teaches a positive electrode and positive electrode material comprising a reactive substance ([0013]) (i.e., positive electrode comprising a positive electrode active material layer). Zaghib further teaches that the positive electrode plate may comprise aluminum foil ([0096]) (i.e., positive electrode current collector). Therefore, Zaghib teaches a positive electrode comprising an active material disposed on at least one surface of a positive current collector as claimed.
Zaghib teaches the positive-electrode material comprising a lithium oxide compound as a reactive substance, a type of carbon material, and a binder ([0013]). Zaghib also teaches the lithium oxide compound to be a phosphate ([0018]), the binder to contain fluorine ([0040]), and conductive carbon black ([0034]) (i.e., the positive electrode active material layer includes a lithium transition metal phosphate, a fluorine-based binder, and a conductive material). Zaghib further teaches a carbon material to be coated on the reactive substance particles surface ([0014]) (i.e., the transition metal phosphate includes a carbon coating layer formed on a surface thereof).
Zaghib differs from claim 1 because it is silent to a ratio (B/A) of a total weight (B) of the fluorine-based binder to a total weight (A) of carbon of the conductive material and the carbon of the lithium transition metal phosphate in the positive electrode active material layer to be 0.7 to 1.7.
But Zaghib teaches that a total content of the carbon black and a total content of the fibrous carbon material is not less than about 2 wt.% preferably about 2 to 10 wt.% of a total amount of the lithium phosphate compound coated with carbon material, the carbon black, and the fibrous carbon material ([0087]). Zaghib also teaches that six parts by mass of vinylidene polyfluoride was added to 97 parts by mass of the mixture as a binder ([0100]) (i.e., 5.8 wt. % binder). As the total content of the carbon black and total content of fibrous carbon material is preferably 2 to 10 wt.% (A) and the binder is 5.8 wt. % (B) then the ratio of (B/A) is 0.58-2.9. The ratio of Zaghib overlaps with the claimed ratio of 0.7-1.7 establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Zaghib also differs from claim 1 because it is silent to the positive electrode active material having a porosity in a range 25% to 30%.
But Kim-730 teaches a positive electrode and a positive electrode active material with a porosity of 15% to about 40% ([0096]) and teaches that a porosity of 15% of 40% is beneficial because it results in an excellent impregnation property of electrolyte solution ([0096]). Zaghib also teaches a positive electrode active material which an electrolyte has penetrated ([0067]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the positive electrode active material of Zaghib to have a porosity of 15% to 40% in order to improve electrolyte impregnation. The porosity of 15% to 40% taught by Kim-730 overlaps with the claimed porosity of 25% to 30% establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. It is noted that Kim-730 does not disclose the equation used to measure porosity. Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach porosity being measure with claimed Equation 1.
But Kim-975 teaches that the porosity of an electrode active material of a battery can be calculated using the formula P=(1-D)/Tx100) where, P represents an electrode porosity, D represents an electrode density and T represents a true density of an electrode active material excluding an electrode base material in an electrode ([0057]-[0060]). It would have been obvious for the porosity of Kim-730 to be calculated using the formula of Kim-975 because this method of calculating porosity is conventional for electrode active material layers ([0051]).
Regarding claim 2, Zaghib as modified teaches the use of carbon materials and a fluorine-based binder in the positive electrode active material layer in a ratio of 0.58-2.9 as explained above ([0087], [0100]). The ratio as taught by Zaghib as modified overlaps with the claimed ratio of 0.72-1.3 establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 5, Zaghib as modified teaches a positive electrode and a positive active material with a porosity of 15% to about 40% ([0096]). The porosity of 15% to 40% as taught by Kim-730 overlaps with the claimed porosity of 26% to 29% establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to use Equation 1 as explained above.
Claims 3, 4, 6-9, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaghib et al., (US 2015/0037673 A1) in view of Kim et al., (US 2015/0340730 A1) (Kim-730) in further view of Kim et al., (US 2014/0336975 A1) (Kim-975) and in further view of Kim et al., (US 2019/0260031 A1) (hereinafter Kim-031).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Zaghib as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 as explained above. Zaghib as modified differs from claim 3 because it is silent to the fluorine-based binder included in the positive electrode active material in an amount of 3 wt.% or less and 1.6 wt. % to 2.7 wt. %. But Kim-031 teaches a fluorine-based binder in a cathode in an amount of about 2 wt. % or less ([0047]). The amount of binder as taught by Kim-031 overlaps with the claimed binder range of 3 wt. % or less and 1.6 wt. % to 2.7 wt. % establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the amount of fluorine-based binder of Kim-031 in the active layer of Zaghib to improve the dispersibility of the cathode active material in the cathode as taught by Kim-031 ([0047]).
Regarding claim 6, Zaghib as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Zaghib differs from claim 6 because it is silent to a first fluorine binder and a second fluorine binder.
But Kim-031 teaches a first fluorine-based binder and second fluorine-based binder ([0046]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the first fluorine-based binder and second fluorine-based binder of Kim-031 in the fluorine-based binder of Zaghib as modified to improve dimensional stability of the cathode as taught by Kim-031 ([0046]).
Regarding claim 7, Zaghib as modified teaches that the first fluorine-based binder may be a vinylidene fluoride homopolymer and further teaches that the first fluorine-based binder may be a polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF). See Kim-031 ([0048]). Therefore, Zaghib as modified by Kim-031 teaches a first fluorine binder that is a homopolymer of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) as claimed.
Regarding claim 8, Zaghib as modified teaches that the second fluorine-based binder includes a polar functional group. See Kim-031 Abstract. Kim-031 further teaches that the second fluorine-based binder may be a carboxylic acid group containing polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF). See Kim-031 ([0053]) (i.e., the second fluorine-based binder is polyvinylidene fluoride (PVdf) including polar functional groups).
Regarding claim 9, Zaghib as modified teaches the limitations of claim 6 as explained above. Zaghib in view of Kim-031 teaches a weight ratio of the first fluorine-based binder and second fluorine-based binder to be 90:10 to about 10:90. See Kim-031 ([0056]). The claimed ratio of 2:3 to 3:1 falls within the range taught by Kim-031 establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 14, Zaghib as modified teaches that the conductive material may be a fibrous carbon material including a carbon nanotube ([0083]) (i.e., the conductive material is carbon nanotubes).
Regarding claim 15, Zaghib as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 as explained above. Zaghib as modified differs from claim 15 because it is silent to the positive electrode active material layer including a hydrogenated nitrile-based butadiene rubber. But Kim-031 teaches that the cathode active material layer composition may include a hydrogenated acrylonitrile butadiene rubber ([0079]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the hydrogenated nitrile-based butadiene rubber taught by Kim-031 to the active layer of Zaghib as modified as it is a known technique in the art (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 16, Zaghib as modified teaches the positive electrode limitations of claim 1 as explained above. Zaghib as modified also teaches a separator used in a lithium secondary battery together with the positive electrode material that electrically insulates the positive-electrode and the negative-electrode from one another ([0093]) (i.e., a lithium secondary batter comprising the positive electrode and a negative electrode).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaghib et al., (US 2015/0037673 A1) in view of Kim et al., (US 2015/0340730 A1) (Kim-730) in further view of Kim et al., (US 2014/0336975 A1) (Kim-975) and in further view of Han et al., (US 2021/0036326 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Zaghib as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 as explained above. Zaghib as modified teaches examples of lithium phosphate compounds but is silent to a lithium transition metal phosphate represented by Chemical Formula 1, wherein M1 is selected from the group consisting of Fe, Mn, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, and Mg, M2 is selected from any one of Groups 2 to 15 and is one or more elements excluding element M1, D is one or more selected from the group consisting of F, S, and N, and a, x, y, and b satisfy -0.5≤a≤+0.5,0≤x≤0.5, 3.95≤y≤4.05, and 0≤b≤1. But Han teaches a lithium iron phosphate represented by Li1+aFe1-xMxPO4-bAb wherein M is one or more selected from the group consisting of Mn, Ni, Co, Cu, Sc, Ti, Cr, V and Zn, A is one or more selected from the group consisting of S, Se, F, Cl, I, and -0.5<a<0.5, 0≤x<0.5, 0≤b≤0.1 ([0109]). Han teaches overlapping ranges establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zaghib as modified to include Han’s lithium iron phosphate composition to provide excellent bonding strength and maintain structural stability of the electrode during repeated charge/discharge cycles as taught by Han ([0011]).
Regarding claim 12, Zaghib as modified teaches Fe as the transition metal and M selected from Mn, Co, Cu, Ti, V, and Zn. See Han ([0109]). The elements correspond to M1 and M2 as claimed.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaghib et al., (US 2015/0037673 A1) in view of Kim et al., (US 2015/0340730 A1) (hereinafter Kim-730) in further view of Kim et al., (US 2014/0336975 A1) (Kim-975) in further view of Baek at al, (US 2020/0373559 A1) and in further view of Song et al., (US 2020/0052276 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Zaghib as modified teaches the positive electrode limitations of claim 3 as explained above.
Zaghib differs from claim 13 because it is silent to a loading amount of the positive electrode active material layer in a range of 450 mg/25 cm2 to 650 mg/25 cm2. But Baek teaches a loading amount of a positive active material layer being 680 mg/25 cm2 ([0058]).
Song teaches that increasing the loading amount of electrode active material to achieve a high-capacity electrode affects electrode properties and may result in cracking, non-uniform loading, and separation of the active material layer ([0033]). Thus, Song teaches that loading amount is a result effective variable that affects electrode performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the loading amount taught by Baek to obtain suitable electrode performance with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaghib et al., (US 2015/0037673 A1) in view of Kim et al., (US 2019/0260031 A1) (Kim-031) and in further view of Baek at al, (US 2020/0373559 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Zaghib teaches a positive electrode and positive electrode material comprising a reactive substance ([0013]) (i.e., positive electrode comprising a positive electrode active material layer). Zaghib further teaches that the positive electrode plate may comprise aluminum foil ([0096]) (i.e., positive electrode current collector). Therefore, Zaghib teaches a positive electrode comprising an active material disposed on at least one surface of a positive current collector as claimed.
Zaghib teaches the positive-electrode material comprising a lithium oxide compound as a reactive substance, a type of carbon material, and a binder ([0013]). Zaghib also teaches the lithium oxide compound to be a phosphate ([0018]), the binder to contain fluorine ([0040]), and conductive carbon black ([0034]) (i.e., the positive electrode active material layer includes a lithium transition metal phosphate, a fluorine-based binder, and a conductive material). Zaghib further teaches a carbon material to be coated on the reactive substance particles surface ([0014]) (i.e., the transition metal phosphate includes a carbon coating layer formed on a surface thereof).
Zaghib differs from claim 1 because it is silent to a ratio (B/A) of a total weight (B) of the fluorine-based binder to a total weight (A) of carbon of the conductive material and the carbon of the lithium transition metal phosphate in the positive electrode active material layer to be 0.7 to 1.7.
But Zaghib teaches that a total content of the carbon black and a total content of the fibrous carbon material is not less than about 2 wt.% preferably about 2 to 10 wt.% of a total amount of the lithium phosphate compound coated with carbon material, the carbon black, and the fibrous carbon material ([0087]). Zaghib also teaches that six parts by mass of vinylidene polyfluoride was added to 97 parts by mass of the mixture as a binder ([0100]) (i.e., 5.8 wt. % binder). As the total content of the carbon black and total content of fibrous carbon material is preferably 2 to 10 wt.% (A) and the binder is 5.8 wt. % (B) then the ratio of (B/A) is 0.58-2.9. The ratio of Zaghib overlaps with the claimed ratio of 0.7-1.7 establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 as explained above.
Zaghib differs from claim 18 because it is silent to the fluorine-based binder included in the positive electrode active material in an amount of 3 wt.% or less.
But Kim-031 teaches a fluorine-based binder in a cathode in an amount of about 2 wt. % or less ([0047]). The amount of binder as taught by Kim-031 overlaps with the claimed binder range of 3 wt. % or less establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the amount of fluorine-based binder of Kim-031 in the active layer of Zaghib to improve the dispersibility of the cathode active material in the cathode as taught by Kim-031 ([0047]).
Zaghib as modified differs from claim 18 because it is silent to the adhesion between the positive electrode current collector and the positive electrode active material layer being 20 gf/20 mm or more. But Baek teaches a positive electrode slurry applied onto a positive electrode current collector ([0058]). Baek also teaches the positive electrode adhesiveness to be 22.3 gf/20 mm (Table 2; Example 3) (i.e., adhesion between the positive electrode current collector and the positive electrode active layer is 20 gf/20 mm or more). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the adhesiveness of Baek in the positive electrode current collector and the positive electrode active material layer of Zaghib in order to improve positive electrode conductivity and formation of a uniform positive electrode active material layer as taught by Baek ([0061]).
Regarding claim 19, Zaghib as modified teaches the limitations of claim 18 as explained above.
Zaghib as modified differs from claim 19 because it is silent to the lithium transition metal phosphate included in the positive electrode active material layer in an amount 95 wt.% to 99 wt.%. But Baek teaches a positive electrode active material layer including a positive electrode active material, a carbon nanotube, and a binder ([0019]). Baek also teaches that the positive electrode active material may include a lithium transition metal oxide ([0020]). Baek further teaches that a positive electrode active material may be 95.6 wt. % to 99 wt. % in the positive electrode active material layer. The amount of positive electrode active material of Baek overlaps with the claimed amount establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the amount of positive electrode active material of Baek in the amount of the lithium transition metal phosphate in the positive active material layer of Zaghib as modified to improve the adhesiveness and conductivity of the positive electrode as taught by Baek ([0022]).
Claims 10, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaghib et al., (US 2015/0037673 A1) in view of Kim et al., (US 2015/0340730 A1) (Kim-730) in further view of Kim et al., (US 2014/0336975 A1) (Kim-975) in further view of Kim et al., (US 2019/0260031 A1) (Kim-031) and in further view of Baek at al., (US2020/0373559 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Zaghib as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 as explained above.
Zaghib differs from claim 10 because it is silent to the positive electrode active material layer, a ratio (D/C) of a weight (D) of the lithium transition metal phosphate to a total weight (C) of the fluorine-based binder being 32 to 82. But Baek teaches a
teaches a ratio of positive electrode active material, carbon nanotube, PVdF, and H-NBR of 97.5:0.7:1.66:0.14 (Table 1; [0053]). Therefore, the ratio (D/C) of the positive active material (97.5 wt.%) to the weight of the fluorine-based binder, PVdF (1.66 wt.%) is 58.7, which falls within the claimed range of 32 to 82. Baek also teaches that when the positive electrode active material is within a range of 97.0 wt.% and 98.0 wt.% the adhesiveness of a positive electrode and the conductivity of the positive electrode is improved ([0022]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the ratio of active material and binder of Baek for the lithium transition metal phosphate and binder of Zaghib as modified to improve the adhesiveness and conductivity of the positive electrode.
Regarding claim 17, Zaghib teaches the limitations of claim 3 as explained above.
Zaghib differs from claim 17 because it is silent to a loading amount of the positive electrode active material layer being at least 600 mg/25 cm2. But Baek teaches a loading amount of a positive active material layer being 680 mg/25 cm2 ([0058]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the loading amount of positive electrode active material of Baek to be 680 mg/25 cm2 because it is a suitable value in view of Zaghib as modified
Regarding claim 20, Zaghib as modified teaches the limitations of claim 16 as explained above. Zaghib as modified differs from claim 20 because it is silent to the adhesion between the positive electrode current collector and the positive electrode active material layer being 20 gf/20 mm or more. But Baek teaches a positive electrode slurry applied onto a positive electrode current collector ([0058]). Baek also teaches the positive electrode adhesiveness to be 22.3 gf/20 mm (Table 2; Example 3) (i.e., adhesion between the positive electrode current collector and the positive electrode active layer is 20 gf/20 mm or more). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the adhesiveness of Baek in the positive electrode current collector and the positive electrode active material layer of Zaghib in order to improve positive electrode conductivity and formation of a uniform positive electrode active material layer as taught by Baek ([0061]).
Zaghib as modified differs from claim 20 because it is silent to a direct internal resistance for a voltage drop measured while applying a discharge pulse for 10 seconds at 0.5 C being 1.91 or less. But Kim-031 teaches reducing internal resistance ([0041]-[0042]) and improving the electrical conductivity of the cathode ([0059]-[0059]). Kim-031 also teaches that lithium batteries exhibit reduced impedance and reduced interfacial resistance ([0154]). Kim-031 further teaches charge/discharge testing at a 0.5 C discharge rate ([0161]). Therefore, because Kim-031 recognizes internal resistance, impendence, and electrical conductivity as factors affecting battery performance, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize these variables through routine experimentation to achieve a direct current internal resistance (DCIR) for a voltage from measure while applying a discharge pulse for 20 seconds at 0.5 C to be 1.91 or less as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Oyama et al., US 20190305364 A1; Park et al., US 20150340692 A1; Ichisaka et al., US 20150137028 A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sandra M Arias whose telephone number is (571)438-9468. 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, Insuk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-5954. 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.M.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/T. BENNETT MCKENZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights