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.
Claims 10-11 are 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the active component layers". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the first layer". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the first active component layer". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the first active component layer". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Further, dependent claim 11 is rendered indefinite due to its dependency on indefinite claim 10.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 8, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “a mass fraction of the two-dimensional conductive material in the conductive component is less than or equal to 30%” which encompasses a mass fraction of the two-dimensional conductive material being 0% and, thus, fails to further limit claim 6 which requires a non-zero amount of the two-dimensional conductive material.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the conductive component comprises the zero-dimensional conductive material” which fails to further limit claim 10 which requires the conductive component comprising the one-dimensional conductive material.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al. (CN112490408A, see English machine translation) in view of Jiang (US 2022/0045325A1).
Regarding claim 1, Xie discloses a positive electrode (positive plate, see Title, p.1, Fig. 1-2), comprising:
a current collector layer and an active component layer, the active component layer covering at least one surface of the current collector layer (positive electrode sheet, the positive electrode sheet comprising a positive electrode current collector, a first positive electrode active material layer and a second positive electrode active material layer, see p.1), the active component layer comprising:
an active material and a conductive component (first and second positive electrode active materials and first and second conductive agents, see p.2), a mass of the active material being of mx+my (unit: g), the conductive component comprising at least one of a one-dimensional conductive material, a zero-dimensional conductive material, and a two-dimensional conductive material, masses of the one-dimensional conductive material, the zero-dimensional conductive material, and the two-dimensional conductive material being sequentially m1, m2, and m3 (unit: g), wherein mx is a mass of an active material whose surface is coated with the two-dimensional conductive material, my is a mass of an active material whose surface is coated with the one-dimensional conductive material or the zero-dimensional conductive material (first conductive agent is selected from at least one of zero-dimensional conductive agents, and the second conductive agent includes at least one of zero-dimensional conductive agents and at least one of one-dimensional conductive agents, see p.2).
Further regarding claim 1, Xie does not expressly disclose “the following formulas are met:
20*3.14*dL*my/[ρL*4/3*3.14(dL/2)3]≤m1/(2.2*3.14*(d1/2)2*L1)*L1+10*m2/(2.2*4/3*3.14*(d2/2)3)*d2≤[30*3.14*dL]*my/[ρL*4/3*3.14(dL/2)3]
(1)
3.14*(dL/2)2*mx/[ρL*4/3*3.14(dL/2)3]≤m3/[(2.2*a*b*c)])*a*b≤1.5*3.14*(dL/2)2*mx/[ρL*4/3*3.14*(dL/2)3]
(2)
wherein dL (unit: μm) is a diameter of the active material, ρL (unit: g/cm3) is true density of the active material, d1 (unit: μm) is a diameter of the one-dimensional conductive material, L1 (unit: μm) is a length of the one-dimensional conductive material, d2 (unit: μm) is a diameter of the zero-dimensional conductive material, and a (unit: μm), b (unit: μm), and c (unit: μm) are a width, a length, and a thickness of the two-dimensional conductive material sequentially”.
The examiner notes the publication of the instant application discloses the active material is lithium iron phosphate, the conductive component is carbon, wherein a mass ratio of the one-dimensional conductive material to the active material is (0.1 to 1.0):100, a diameter of the one-dimensional conductive material ranges from 2 nm to 60 nm, a length of the one-dimensional conductive material ranges from 2 μm to 15 μm ([0029]-[0031]). Assuming, for example, the conductive material comprises only the one-dimensional conductive material, as long as the prior art teaches the active material is lithium iron phosphate, the conductive component is carbon, wherein a mass ratio of the one-dimensional conductive material to the active material is (0.1 to 1.0):100, a diameter of the one-dimensional conductive material ranges from 2 nm to 60 nm, a length of the one-dimensional conductive material ranges from 2 μm to 15 μm as disclosed in paragraphs [0029]-[0031] of the publication of the instant application, the formula is considered to be met.
Jiang discloses a positive electrode material including a one-dimensional conductive agent (see Title, Abstract), wherein a length-to-diameter ratio of the one-dimensional conductive agent is 100 to 6250. By controlling the length-to-diameter ratio to be within the foregoing range, the solution of this application provides more attachment sites for the fast ion conductors, and more fast ion conductors are attached onto the surface of the one-dimensional conductive agent, thereby further improving the ionic conductivity of the material. In an implementation solution of this application, a length of the one-dimensional conductive agent is 300 mn to 50,000 nm, and optionally, 1000 nm to 30,000 nm, and more optionally, 1000 nm to 10,000 nm; and a diameter (outer diameter) of the one-dimensional conductive agent is 8 nm to 50 nm. By controlling the length and diameter of the one-dimensional conductive agent to be within the foregoing range, the positive electrode material according to this application achieves a higher electronic conductivity ([0043]-[0044]).
Xie and Jiang are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely positive electrodes comprising one-dimensional conductive material.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the one-dimensional conductive material of Xie with the one-dimensional conductive material having a length-to-diameter ratio of the one-dimensional conductive agent is 100 to 6250, a length of the one-dimensional conductive agent being 300 nm to 50,000 nm, and a diameter (outer diameter) of the one-dimensional conductive agent is 8 nm to 50 nm of Jiang because Jiang teaches improved ionic conductivity and electronic conductivity.
Further, where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of “50 to 100 Angstroms” considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that “for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms].” The court stated that “by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range.”). see MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 2, modified Xie discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Xie further discloses the conductive component comprises the one-dimensional conductive material, and a mass ratio of the one-dimensional conductive material to the active material is (0.1 to 1.0):100 (second conductive agent accounts for 1-6 wt% of the total mass of the second positive active material layer, see p. 2; In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of “50 to 100 Angstroms” considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that “for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms].” The court stated that “by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range.”). see MPEP 2144.05(I).).
Regarding claim 3, modified Xie discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Although Xie further discloses a one-dimensional conductive material having a diameter of 1-10 nm and a length of 50-100 µm (see p.2), the reference does not disclose the diameter of the one-dimensional conductive material ranges from 2 nm to 60 nm, and the length of the one-dimensional conductive material ranges from 2 μm to 15 μm.
Jiang discloses a positive electrode material including a one-dimensional conductive agent (see Title, Abstract), wherein a length-to-diameter ratio of the one-dimensional conductive agent is 100 to 6250. By controlling the length-to-diameter ratio to be within the foregoing range, the solution of this application provides more attachment sites for the fast ion conductors, and more fast ion conductors are attached onto the surface of the one-dimensional conductive agent, thereby further improving the ionic conductivity of the material. In an implementation solution of this application, a length of the one-dimensional conductive agent is 300 mn to 50,000 nm, and optionally, 1000 nm to 30,000 nm, and more optionally, 1000 nm to 10,000 nm; and a diameter (outer diameter) of the one-dimensional conductive agent is 8 nm to 50 nm. By controlling the length and diameter of the one-dimensional conductive agent to be within the foregoing range, the positive electrode material according to this application achieves a higher electronic conductivity ([0043]-[0044]).
Xie and Jiang are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely positive electrodes comprising one-dimensional conductive material.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the one-dimensional conductive material of Xie with the one-dimensional conductive material having a length-to-diameter ratio of the one-dimensional conductive agent is 100 to 6250, a length of the one-dimensional conductive agent being 300 nm to 50,000 nm, and a diameter (outer diameter) of the one-dimensional conductive agent is 8 nm to 50 nm of Jiang because Jiang teaches improved ionic conductivity and electronic conductivity.
Further, where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of “50 to 100 Angstroms” considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that “for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms].” The court stated that “by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range.”). see MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 4, modified Xie discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Xie further discloses the conductive component comprises the zero-dimensional conductive material, and a mass ratio of the zero-dimensional conductive material to the active material is (0.1 to 3.0):100 (first conductive agent accounts for 0.5-3wt% of the total mass of the first positive active material layer; In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of “50 to 100 Angstroms” considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that “for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms].” The court stated that “by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range.”). see MPEP 2144.05(I).).
Regarding claim 9, modified Xie discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Xie further discloses the positive electrode comprises a single or multiple layers of the active component layer (the first positive electrode active material layer is arranged on the first surface of the positive electrode current collector, the second The positive electrode active material layer is arranged on the surface of the first positive electrode active material layer, see p.1).
Regarding claim 10, modified Xie discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Xie further discloses the conductive component comprises the one-dimensional conductive material, and the positive electrode comprises n layers of the active component layers, counted from the first layer that is the active component layer covering the current collector layer (the second conductive agent includes at least one of zero-dimensional conductive agents and at least one of one-dimensional conductive agents, see p.2),
a mass of the one-dimensional conductive material in the ith active component layer is Mi=M1*(1−i/n),
wherein M1 is a mass of the one-dimensional conductive material in the first active component layer, n is a natural number greater than or equal to 2, and i is a natural number greater than or equal to 2 and less than or equal to n (first positive electrode active material layer is arranged on the first surface of the positive electrode current collector, the second positive electrode active material layer is arranged on the surface of the first positive electrode active material layer, see p.1; the second conductive agent includes at least one of zero-dimensional conductive agents and at least one of one-dimensional conductive agents, see p.2; Thus, the mass of the on-dimensional conductive material in the second positive electrode active material layer Mi is equal to M1 since i=2 and n=2 (second positive electrode active material layer and two positive electrode active material layers, respectively)).
Regarding claim 11, modified Xie discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Xie further discloses the conductive component comprises the zero-dimensional conductive material, and a mass of the zero-dimensional conductive material in the first active component layer is N1 (first conductive agent is selected from at least one of zero-dimensional conductive agents, see p.2); and
a mass of the zero-dimensional conductive material in the ith active component layer is Ni=N1*i/n (the first conductive agent is selected from at least one of zero-dimensional conductive agents, and the second conductive agent includes at least one of zero-dimensional conductive agents and at least one of one-dimensional conductive agents, see p.2; Thus, the mass of the zero-dimensional conductive material in the first positive electrode active material layer is equal to itself.).
Regarding claim 12, modified Xie discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Xie further discloses the active material comprises one of or a combination of more of lithium iron phosphate, lithium cobaltate, lithium nickelate, and a nickel manganese cobalt ternary material (lithium iron phosphate, lithium cobalt oxide, lithium nickel cobalt manganate, lithium manganate, see p.3).
Regarding claim 13, modified Xie discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Xie further discloses a battery, comprising a negative electrode, a separator, and the positive electrode according to claim 1 (lithium ion battery includes the above-mentioned positive electrode sheet, negative electrode sheet and separator; see rejection of claim 1 above),
wherein the negative electrode and the positive electrode are respectively arranged on two sides of the separator (see p.3).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al. (CN112490408A, see English machine translation) in view of Jiang (US 2022/0045325A1), as applied to claims 1-4, 9-13 above, and further in view of Jiang et al. (US 2023/0261201A1, hereinafter Jiang ‘201).
Regarding claim 5, modified Xie discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Although Xie discloses a zero-dimension conductive material, the reference does not disclose the diameter of the zero-dimensional conductive material ranges from 20 nm to 100 nm.
Jiang ‘201 discloses a zero-dimensional conductive agent including at least one of conductive carbon black, acetylene black, superconductive carbon black, grained graphite, or Ketjen black; a median particle size D.sub.v50 of the zero-dimensional conductive agent is 50 nm to 1 μm; wherein the addition of the conductive agent can improve the conductive performance ([0037]).
Xie and Jiang ‘201 are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely positive electrodes comprising zero-dimensional conductive material.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the zero-dimensional conductive material of Xie with the zero-dimensional conductive material having a median particle size of 5 nm to 1 micrometers because Jiang ‘201 teaches improved conductive performance.
Further, where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of “50 to 100 Angstroms” considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that “for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms].” The court stated that “by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range.”). see MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al. (CN112490408A, see English machine translation) in view of Jiang (US 2022/0045325A1), as applied to claims 1-4, 9-13 above, and further in view of Joto et al. (JP2014179176A, refer to English machine translation).
Regarding claim 6, modified Xie discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Xie does not further disclose the conductive component comprises the two-dimensional conductive material, and a mass ratio of the two-dimensional conductive material to the active material is (0.1 to 1.5):100.
Joto discloses an electrode material comprising thin graphite particles obtained by reducing graphene oxide having an average particle diameter of 100 nm or more and an average thickness of 0.4 to 10 nm, the graphite particle is contained in an amount of 0.01 to 1 part by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of LiFePO4. Joto further discloses improved electron conductivity, safety and stability, and an electrode material having excellent properties is obtained (see Title, p.1-3).
Xie and Joto are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely positive electrodes comprising conductive material.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xie by incorporating the graphite particles because Joto teaches improved electron conductivity, safety and stability, and an electrode material having excellent properties is obtained.
Regarding claim 7, modified Xie discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Joto further discloses the thickness of the two-dimensional conductive material ranges from 1 nm to 20 nm, and the length and the width of the two-dimensional conductive material range from 0.2 μm to 10 μm (thin graphite particles obtained by reducing graphene oxide having an average particle diameter of 100 nm or more and an average thickness of 0.4 to 10 nm, see p.2; where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of “50 to 100 Angstroms” considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that “for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms].” The court stated that “by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range.”). see MPEP 2144.05(I).).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM - 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, NICOLE BUIE-HATCHER can be reached at (571)270-3879. 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.
/James Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 7/29/2026
Prosecution Insights