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 Interpretation
Claim 1 refers to “bright” regions. Based on the specification and claim 8, the “bright” regions correspond to the second positive electrode active material. However, the “bright” regions can still be changed by the settings of the imaging device, such as detecting “bright” protrusions with darker recesses or simply inverting the black/white image. For the purposes of applying art the examiner interprets the “bright” region to be the area of exposed surface that is the second active material.
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.
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(s) 1-4 and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUN et al. (WO 2024/007319; citations to machine translation).
Regarding claims 1, 7 and 8,
SUN teaches a pole piece (cathode/positive pole) with active material that includes first and second active material abstract. The first and second active material can be a first ternary active material (NCM) and a second phosphate active material which includes a manganese iron phosphate (LMFP) page 8. The first and second active are disposed such that they both have exposed surface areas of the current collector such that the area ratio of the first area to first and second area is 5-90% page 2. The examiner notes that the reference does not analyze the electrode layer with a scanning electrode microscope. However, observing the electrode does not change its composition or structure. Furthermore, the amount of “bright” region can be manipulated by changing the contrast of an image which is independent from the composition and structure of the electrode.
Based on the specification and claim 8, the “bright” regions correspond to the second positive electrode active material. However, the “bright” regions can still be changed by the settings of the imaging device, such as detecting “bright” protrusions with darker recesses or simply inverting the black/white image. For the purposes of applying art the examiner interprets the “bright” region to be the area of exposed surface that is the second active material. SUN teaches the area ratio of first active material to total area is 5-90% page 2 which overlaps the claimed range of 10-70% and is considered prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.I. The examiner notes that the test area size is arbitrary because the ratio of areas should not change, statistically.
Regarding claims 2 and 3,
The first and second active material have atomic ratios further described in the examples which use NCM811 (LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2) and LiMn0.6Fe0.4PO4 page 13. The active materials fall within the generic formulas.
Regarding claim 4,
SUN further teaches the weight of first active material is 5-90% the total weight of first and second active material page 2 which overlaps the claimed range of 5-95% and is considered prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.I.
Regarding claim 9,
Claim 9 describes the image processing that results in the claimed “bright” region. However, again the examiner notes that the manner in which a picture is take of an object does not change the object itself. Regardless of the settings for the image processor, the claim appears to be describing the area of a second positive active electrode material on the surface of the cathode which is rejected for the same reasons as described above for claims 1 and 8.
Regarding claims 10,
SUN teaches forming the electrode into a battery (lithium ion) and battery pack abstract.
Regarding claim 11,
The battery pack can be used in phones, computers, toys, tools, cars, ships, spacecraft, etc. (electronic device) page 6.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUN et al. (WO 2024/007319; citations to machine translation) in view of HOFFERT et al. (US 2022/0069292).
Regarding claims 5 and 6,
The SUN reference teaches using first and second active material but does not teach the particle sizes of either material. Without disclosed particle sizes for the first and second active material one of ordinary skill would look to the art to find operable particle sizes when blending the LFMP and NCM cathode active materials.
HOFFERT similarly teaches using a combination of cathode active materials to improve performance of the cell abstract. The blended cathode active materials similarly include LFMP and NCM [0023], [0032], and [0042]. The D50 particle sizes of both active materials can be about 5µm [0043]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the particle sizes of HOFFERT as a known particle size for a cathode made of both LFMP and NCM.
The reference does not teach a Dv90 (D90) of the particles. However, the Dv90 can be interpreted to be a value higher than the Dv50, because the larger particles (not previously counted in Dv50) bring the average up. The exact increase in size from Dv50 to Dv90 will depend on the standard deviation of the individual particle size distribution. However, regardless of the exact calculation, the Dv90 is implicitly a must necessarily a range larger than the Dv50 and the overlapping ranges are considered prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.I.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
HARADA et al. (US 2024/0105917) more generally discusses particle sizes in terms of D90 by describing particle adhesion to the collector and rapid discharge performance [0039]. The reference generally teaches active materials can include LFP and nickel cobalt and mixtures [0145]. The active materials are slightly different and the reference does not focus on particle sizes specifically in the context of blended active materials. However, the reference does note that the desired size can easily be achieved by milling [0058].
SHANG et al. (WO 2024/164119; citations to machine translation) similarly teaches a cathode active material that includes both NCM and LMFP type active materials abstract. The reference further teaches that the Dv50 of first and second active material is 2.1-6.3 µm and 0.25-1.49µm page 3. As noted above the Dv90 is inherently going to be a higher range than the Dv50. The values in SHANG simply skew lower than the disclosed particle sizes in HOFFERT which offers some insight into the usable particle sizes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN MURATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5596. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571272-1418. 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.
/AUSTIN MURATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights