DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Comments
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element 1” should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the dependency, ‘claim9’ should be ‘claim 9’ (i.e. space between ‘claim’ and ‘9’). Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 10 – 13 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 (other than the 112 rejections on claims 12 and 13, below).
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 2, 4, 5, 12 and 13 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
All of these claims recite ‘optionally’ added limitations. Regarding the phrase "optionally”, the Examiner has interpreted along the lines of “for example, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of evaluating the prior art, the Examiner has taken these limitations as not required, i.e. “optional”.
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 of this title, 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Regarding numbers (1), (2) and (4), see the rejection(s) provided below. Regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, the general level of skill is taken as a highly skilled technician having at least a BS, MS, or PhD in the relevant field and 3-5 years experience.
Claims 1 – 9 and 14 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (U.S. Patent App. No. 2013/0260244 A1) as evidenced by one or both of Zhang et al. (U.S. Patent App. No. 2023/0118023 A1) and IDS reference CN 111224063.
Regarding claim 1, Choi et al. disclose a positive electrode active material composition (Title; Abstract), comprising a first positive electrode active material, a second positive electrode active material, and a third positive electrode active material, wherein the first positive electrode active material has an average particle size denoted as A1 in µm, with A1 satisfying 0.2 ≤ A1 ≤ 0.8 (taken as the taught ‘third type’ particles); the second positive electrode active material has an average particle size denoted as A2 in µm, with A2 satisfying 1.0 ≤ A2 ≤ 2.5 (taken as the taught ‘second type’ particles); and the third positive electrode active material has an average particle size denoted as A3 in µm, with A3 satisfying 3.0 ≤ A3 ≤ 6.0 (taken as the taught ‘first type’ particles; see also Title; Abstract; and at least Paragraphs 0033 – 0034).
Choi et al. fails to disclose wherein the particles are characterized by the volume average particle size, Dv50, instead referencing the three sized particles as average particle diameters/widths.
However, similar to the present invention, Choi et al. teach that the use of the particles of three different sizes; four if you consider their alternative embodiment; of “large”, “medium”, “small” and “smallest” allows for excellent pore filling (packing) of the electrode material (at least Paragraph 0036).
As such, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the average particle volume Dv50 of the first positive electrode active material, the second positive electrode active material, and the third positive electrode active material through routine experimentation, especially given the teaching in Choi et al. regarding the desire to use three, similar positive electrode active material particles of three distinct sizes, just like as recited in claim 1. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicants’ invention to modify the device of Choi et al. to optimize the particles around the Dv50 values instead of the average particle diameters/widths as taught by Choi et al., since the same concept of improved pore filling/packing would be applicable as the medium particles (by Dv50 or average particle diameter/width) will fill the pores of the large particles, and the smallest particles will fill the pores left by the medium particles.
Regarding claim 2, similar to the above, optimization of the sizes to achieve excellent pore filling/packing would have been routine for a person of ordinary skill in the art given the teaching in Choi et al. and, as such, the ratios of the different Dv50 sizes are deemed routine optimizations for the same reasoning as set forth above.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, the exact amounts of each particle by mass would have been within the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art given that Choi et al. broadly discloses wide number average ranges for the mixture (at least Paragraph 0037). The Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the various mass percentages of the particles through routine experimentation, especially given the teaching in Choi et al. regarding the desire to use three different particles and the broad number average ranges that can be used to achieve good packing/properties (examples). In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 5, Choi et al. teaches one or more of the claimed conditions (see at least Paragraphs 0029 – 0041).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, while Choi et al. does not explicitly recite using water as a solvent in forming the positive electrode active material composition, nor explicitly reciting a ‘water-based binder’, Choi et al. does disclose binders that are art recognized as being ‘water-based binders’ (Paragraph 0056; cellulose, starch, etc.). The Examiner takes Official Notice that a skilled artisan, if selecting these water-based binders, would have clearly recognized that one would use water as the solvent in forming a water-based positive electrode active material composition, as evidenced by IDS reference CN ‘063 (Title; Abstract; and at least claims 1 – 6) and/or Zhang et al. (Paragraph 0100, which clearly illustrates that one uses water as the solvent for cellulose binders, albeit for the negative electrode in Zhang et al., but the binder is what controls the solvent as clearly illustrated in CN ‘063 above). As such, the Examiner deems that Choi et al. renders obvious the limitations of claims 6 and 7 when viewed by a skilled artisan, as the binders disclosed in Choi et al. clearly encompass ‘water-based binders’ which would necessarily result in a skilled artisan using water as a solvent.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Choi et al. disclose the claimed current collector and structure for the reasons set forth above and in view of at least Paragraph 0054 and examples.
Regarding claims 14 – 17, these limitations are nominal device limitations that are met by the Choi et al. disclose (see citations above).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claims 10 and 11, require, in addition to the three particles having distinct Dv50 sizes, but specific structural arrangements of the three types of particles in cross-sectional imaging from SEM. The prior art of record fails to teach or render obvious the combined limitations of claim 10 or 11.
Claims 12 and 13 require a specific compaction density and water content which is neither taught nor rendered obvious by the prior art of record. While Choi et al. is directed to compact/dense positive electrode plates, the highest density achieved by Choi et al. is still significantly lower than 2.5 g/cc and Choi et al. fails to provide any evidence or suggestion of controlling the water content to meet the claimed limitations after heating for 90 C for 6 hours. As such, other than the outstanding 112(b) rejections on these claims, the Examiner deems that these claims distinguish over the art of record as the prior art of record fails to teach or render obvious a means to achieve the claimed properties.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN M BERNATZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1505. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (variable: ~0600 - 1500 ET).
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
/KEVIN M BERNATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
June 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights