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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, drawn to claims 1-19, in the reply filed on 06/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/29/2026.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 4-16, and 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-6, 11, 13, and 16-20 of copending Application No. 18/477,186 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 1 of copending application 18/477,186 claims all of the limitations of instant claim 1.
Claim 4 of copending application 18/477,186 claims all of the limitations of instant claim 4.
Claim 5 of copending application 18/477,186 claims all of the limitations of instant claim 5.
Claim 6 of copending application 18/477,186 claims all of the limitations of instant claim 6.
Claim 16 of copending application 18/477,186 claims all of the limitations of instant claim 7.
Claims 7 and 10 of copending application 18/477,186 claims all of the limitations of instant claim 8.
Claims 8-9 of copending application 18/477,186 claims all of the limitations of instant claim 9.
Claim 11 of copending application 18/477,186 claims all of the limitations of instant claim 10.
Claim 13 of copending application 18/477,186 claims all of the limitations of instant claim 11.
Claim 16 of copending application 18/477,186 claims all of the limitations of instant claim 12.
Claim 16 of copending application 18/477,186 claims all of the limitations of instant claim 16.
Claim 17 of copending application 18/477,186 claims all of the limitations of instant claim 14.
Claim 18 of copending application 18/477,186 claims all of the limitations of instant claim 15.
Claim 19 of copending application 18/477,186 claims all of the limitations of instant claim 16.
Claim 20 of copending application 18/477,186 claims all of the limitations of instant claim 19.
Claims 2-3 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3 of copending Application No. 18/477,186 (reference application) in view of Park et al. (US-20220069289-A1), hereinafter Park 2.
Regarding instant claim 2, claim 1 of copending application 18/477,186 claims all of the limitations of claim 1. Copending application 18/477,186 fails to claim wherein each of the first lithium transition metal oxide and the second lithium transition metal oxide comprises a secondary particle comprising a plurality of primary particles.
Park 2 is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cathode active materials comprising lithium composite oxide cores with a coating layer including a metal oxide ([0045]-[0051]). Park 2 teaches wherein each of the first lithium transition metal oxide and the second lithium transition metal oxide comprises a secondary particle comprising a plurality of primary particles (Park 2[0076] both the first and second lithium composite oxides are composite particles wherein the plurality of primary particles may aggregate to form a secondary particle).
Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified copending application 18/477,186 such that each of the first lithium transition metal oxide and the second lithium transition metal oxide comprises a secondary particle comprising a plurality of primary particles. Doing so allows for the first and second particles to have different grain boundary densities to reduce the difference in occupancy ratio of the coating layers (Park 2 [0078]).
Regarding instant claim 3, Claim 1 of copending application 18/477,186 claims all of the limitations of claim 1. Claim 3 of copending application 18/477,186 also claims that the first lithium transition metal oxide is a large-diameter lithium transition metal oxide having a particle diameter greater than that of the second lithium transition metal oxide, the second lithium transition metal oxide is a small-diameter lithium transition metal oxide having a particle diameter smaller than that of the first lithium transition metal oxide
Copending application 18/477,186 fails to claim the first lithium transition metal oxide and the second lithium transition metal oxide each have a polycrystalline structure.
Park 2 is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cathode active materials comprising lithium composite oxide cores with a coating layer including a metal oxide ([0045]-[0051]). Park 2 teaches the first lithium transition metal oxide and the second lithium transition metal oxide each have a polycrystalline structure (Park 2 [0076]-[0077] the primary particle refers to one grain or crystallite, and the primary particles are aggregated to form the secondary particle, meaning there are multiple crystallites and therefore a polycrystalline structure). Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified copending application 18/477,186 such the first lithium transition metal oxide and the second lithium transition metal oxide each have a polycrystalline structure. Doing so allows for the first and second particles to have different grain boundary densities to reduce the difference in occupancy ratio of the coating layers (Park 2 [0078]).
Claims 17-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of copending Application No. 18/477,186 (reference application) in view of Son et al. (US-20210376314-A1), hereinafter Son.
Regarding instant claims 17-18, claim 19 of copending application 18/477,186 claims all of the limitations of claim 16. Copending application 18/477,186 fails to claim wherein the electrolyte is a liquid electrolyte, a solid electrolyte, a gel electrolyte or a combination thereof (instant claim 17) and the solid electrolyte is an oxide-based solid electrolyte, a sulfide-based solid electrolyte, a polymer solid electrolyte or a combination thereof, and the gel electrolyte comprises a polymer gel electrolyte.
Son is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of composite cathode active materials (Title). Son teaches wherein the electrolyte is a liquid electrolyte ([0099]), a solid electrolyte ([0102]), a gel electrolyte or a combination thereof (instant claim 17) and the solid electrolyte is an oxide-based solid electrolyte, a sulfide-based solid electrolyte, a polymer solid electrolyte or a combination thereof, and the gel electrolyte comprises a polymer gel electrolyte ([0102] boron oxide and/or lithium oxynitride or any suitable solid electrolyte).
Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified copending application 18/477,186 such that the type of electrolyte is defined as a liquid electrolyte, a solid electrolyte, a gel electrolyte or a combination thereof. Doing so is well known in the art.
Claims 1 and 4-16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4-12, and 16-19 of copending Application No. 18/477,003 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 1 of copending application 18/477,003 claims all of the limitations of instant claim 1.
Claim 4 of copending application 18/477,003 claims all of the limitations of instant claim 4.
Claim 5 of copending application 18/477,003 claims all of the limitations of instant claim 5.
Claim 6 of copending application 18/477,003 claims all of the limitations of instant claim 6.
Claim 6 of copending application 18/477,003 claims all of the limitations of instant claim 7.
Claims 10 and 7 of copending application 18/477,003 claims all of the limitations of instant claim 8.
Claims 8 and 9 of copending application 18/477,003 claims all of the limitations of instant claim 9.
Claim 11 of copending application 18/477,003 claims all of the limitations of instant claim 10.
Claim 12 of copending application 18/477,003 claims all of the limitations of instant claim 11.
Claim 16 of copending application 18/477,003 claims all of the limitations of instant claim 12.
Claim 16 of copending application 18/477,003 claims all of the limitations of instant claim 13.
Claim 17 of copending application 18/477,003 claims all of the limitations of instant claim 14.
Claim 18 of copending application 18/477,003 claims all of the limitations of instant claim 15.
Claim 19 of copending application 18/477,003 claims all of the limitations of instant claim 16.
Claims 2-3 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3 of copending Application No. 18/477,003 (reference application) in view of Park et al. (US-20220069289-A1), hereinafter Park 2.
Regarding instant claim 2, claim 1 of copending application 18/477,003 claims all of the limitations of claim 1. Copending application 18/477,003 fails to claim wherein each of the first lithium transition metal oxide and the second lithium transition metal oxide comprises a secondary particle comprising a plurality of primary particles.
Park 2 is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cathode active materials comprising lithium composite oxide cores with a coating layer including a metal oxide ([0045]-[0051]). Park 2 teaches wherein each of the first lithium transition metal oxide and the second lithium transition metal oxide comprises a secondary particle comprising a plurality of primary particles (Park 2[0076] both the first and second lithium composite oxides are composite particles wherein the plurality of primary particles may aggregate to form a secondary particle).
Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified copending application 18/477,003 such that each of the first lithium transition metal oxide and the second lithium transition metal oxide comprises a secondary particle comprising a plurality of primary particles. Doing so allows for the first and second particles to have different grain boundary densities to reduce the difference in occupancy ratio of the coating layers (Park 2 [0078]).
Regarding instant claim 3, Claim 1 of copending application 18/477,003 claims all of the limitations of claim 1. Claim 3 of copending application 18/477,003 also claims that the first lithium transition metal oxide is a large-diameter lithium transition metal oxide having a particle diameter greater than that of the second lithium transition metal oxide, the second lithium transition metal oxide is a small-diameter lithium transition metal oxide having a particle diameter smaller than that of the first lithium transition metal oxide
Copending application 18/477,003 fails to claim the first lithium transition metal oxide and the second lithium transition metal oxide each have a polycrystalline structure.
Park 2 is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cathode active materials comprising lithium composite oxide cores with a coating layer including a metal oxide ([0045]-[0051]). Park 2 teaches the first lithium transition metal oxide and the second lithium transition metal oxide each have a polycrystalline structure (Park 2 [0076]-[0077] the primary particle refers to one grain or crystallite, and the primary particles are aggregated to form the secondary particle, meaning there are multiple crystallites and therefore a polycrystalline structure). Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified copending application 18/477,003 such the first lithium transition metal oxide and the second lithium transition metal oxide each have a polycrystalline structure. Doing so allows for the first and second particles to have different grain boundary densities to reduce the difference in occupancy ratio of the coating layers (Park 2 [0078]).
Claims 17-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of copending Application No. 18/477,003 (reference application) in view of Son et al. (US-20210376314-A1), hereinafter Son.
Regarding instant claims 17-18, claim 19 of copending application 18/477,003 claims all of the limitations of claim 16. Copending application 18/477,003 fails to claim wherein the electrolyte is a liquid electrolyte, a solid electrolyte, a gel electrolyte or a combination thereof (instant claim 17) and the solid electrolyte is an oxide-based solid electrolyte, a sulfide-based solid electrolyte, a polymer solid electrolyte or a combination thereof, and the gel electrolyte comprises a polymer gel electrolyte.
Son is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of composite cathode active materials (Title). Son teaches wherein the electrolyte is a liquid electrolyte ([0099]), a solid electrolyte ([0102]), a gel electrolyte or a combination thereof (instant claim 17) and the solid electrolyte is an oxide-based solid electrolyte, a sulfide-based solid electrolyte, a polymer solid electrolyte or a combination thereof, and the gel electrolyte comprises a polymer gel electrolyte ([0102] boron oxide and/or lithium oxynitride or any suitable solid electrolyte).
Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified copending application 18/477,003 such that the type of electrolyte is defined as a liquid electrolyte, a solid electrolyte, a gel electrolyte or a combination thereof. Doing so is well known in the art.
Claim 19 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of copending Application No. 18/477,003 (reference application) in view of Wang et al. (US-20210305582-A1), hereinafter Wang.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 of copending Application No. 18/477,003 claims all of the limitations of claim 16. Copending Application No. 18/477,003 fails to claim wherein the cathode comprises a cathode current collector, the anode comprises an anode current collector. However, cathodes and anodes including current collectors are well known in the art and would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to add to the cathode and anode of copending Application No. 18/477,003.
Copending Application No. 18/477,003 also fails to claim at least one selected from the cathode current collector and the anode current collector comprises a base film and a metal layer on one surface or opposite surfaces of the base film, the base film comprises a polymer, and the polymer comprises polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polybutylene terephthalate (PBT), polyimide (PI), or a combination thereof, and the metal layer comprises indium (In), copper (Cu), magnesium (Mg), stainless steel, titanium (Ti), iron (Fe), cobalt (Co), nickel (Ni), zinc (Zn), aluminum (Al), germanium (Ge), lithium (Li), or alloys thereof.
Wang is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries ([0002]). Wang teaches at least one selected from the cathode current collector and the anode current collector comprises a base film and a metal layer on one surface or opposite surfaces of the base film ([0006]-[0008]), the base film comprises a polymer, and the polymer comprises polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polybutylene terephthalate (PBT), polyimide (PI), or a combination thereof ([0010] polyethylene, polypropylene, polyethylene terephthalate, polyimide), and the metal layer comprises indium (In), copper (Cu), magnesium (Mg), stainless steel, titanium (Ti), iron (Fe), cobalt (Co), nickel (Ni), zinc (Zn), aluminum (Al), germanium (Ge), lithium (Li), or alloys thereof ([0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified copending Application No. 18/477,003 such that at least one selected from the cathode current collector and the anode current collector comprises a base film and a metal layer on one surface or opposite surfaces of the base film such as in Wang. Doing so prevents a conductive layer from easily peeling off (wang [0005]) while still improving security performance and energy density of the battery (Wang [0006]).
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13 includes the limitation “and milling product of the composite” in line 4 that should be corrected to “and a milling product of the composite”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 8-9 and 13-14 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 8 recites the limitations "the total weight of the composite cathode active material" in lines 2-3 and “the total weight of the first carbon-based material and the second carbon-based material” in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the sake of examination, the limitations are being read as “a total weight of the composite active material” and “a total weight of the first carbon-based material and the second carbon-based material.” Claim 9 is rejected based on its dependency on claim 8.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the total weight of the composite cathode active material" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the sake of examination, the limitations are being read as “a total weight of the composite cathode active material.”
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the lithium transition metal oxide" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 14 is dependent on claim 1. It is unclear whether “the lithium transition metal oxide” in claim 14 is the “first lithium transition metal oxide” of claim 1, the “second lithium transition metal oxide” of claim 1, both the first and second lithium transition metal oxides of claim 1, or some other, separate lithium transition metal oxide. For the sake of examination, any of these interpretations will read on the claim language of claim 14.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son et al. (US-20210376314-A1), hereinafter Son, in view of Mun et al. (US-20140377655-A1), hereinafter Mun, Park et al. (US-20150037680-A1), hereinafter Park, and Park et al. (US-20220069289-A1), hereinafter Park 2.
Regarding claim 1, Son teaches a composite cathode active material comprising: a 1st core comprising a first lithium transition metal oxide; a 2nd core comprising a second lithium transition metal oxide; and a shell over a surface of at least one selected from the 1st core and the 2nd core ([0013]-[0014]; [0041] given that there is no distinction in material between the first and second core, and the cathode active material of Son would comprise multiple particles/cores, it can be said that there are at least two cores of lithium transition metal oxide), wherein: the shell comprises at least one first metal oxide, a first carbon-based material, the at least one first metal oxide is included within a matrix of the first carbon-based material ([0015]-[0016] first metal oxide in a carbonaceous material matrix), the at least one first metal oxide is represented by Formula MaOb (0<a≤3 and 0<b<4, wherein if a is 1, 2, or 3, b is not an integer) ([0015]-[0016]), wherein M is at least one metal selected from Group 2 to Group 13, Group 15, and Group 16 of the Periodic Table of the Elements ([0015]-[0016]).
Son fails to teach that the shell comprises a second carbon-based material, wherein the second carbon-based material comprises a fibrous carbon-based material.
Mun is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of composite cathode active materials ([0003]). Mun teaches that the shell comprises a second carbon-based material, wherein the second carbon-based material comprises a fibrous carbon ([0052] the carbonaceous material may comprise at least one of a carbon nanotube, carbon nanofiber, graphene; Son already teaches graphene, the addition of a second, fibrous carbon based material such as carbon nanotube or carbon nanofiber would be obvious as Mun discloses that multiple carbonaceous materials can be utilized in the shell while still imparting high electronic conductivity).
Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Son and provided a second carbon-based material as doing so is known in the art and would produce the predictable result of improving the electronic conductivity of the shell (Mun [0051]).
Modified Son fails to teach the second carbon-based material comprises a fibrous carbon-based material having an aspect ratio of at least 10.
Park is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of core shell structures for cathode active materials ([0016]). Park teaches wherein the second carbon-based material comprises a fibrous carbon-based material having an aspect ratio of at least 10 ([0035]; [0047]-[0050] carbon nanotube with an aspect ratio of less than 300 in the shell). 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 re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Son and substituted modified Son’s second carbon-based material of an unspecified aspect ratio with the carbon nanotubes with an aspect ratio of at least 10 of Park. Doing so is a substitution of one equivalent component for another (the carbon nanotube of Mun for the carbon nanotube of Park) for the same purpose of being utilized in the shell of a composite cathode active material (Mun [0051]-[0052] and Park [0035]) and improving conductivity (Mun [0051]-[0052] and Park [0050]). Further, the carbon nanotubes with the diameter, and by extension aspect ratio, of Park improves the electric conductivity by distributing the carbon nanotubes uniformly on the core, thereby improving charge and discharge characteristics (Park [0050]).
Son also fails to teach that the first lithium transition metal oxide and the second lithium transition metal oxide have different particle diameters from each other.
Park 2 is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cathode active materials comprising lithium composite oxide cores with a coating layer including a metal oxide ([0045]-[0051]). Park 2 teaches that the first lithium transition metal oxide and the second lithium transition metal oxide have different particle diameters from each other ([0002]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Son such that the first lithium transition metal oxide and the second lithium transition metal oxide have different particle diameters from each other. Doing so allows for voids between the large particles to be filled with the small particles so that integration density may be enhanced and the energy per unit volume may increase (Park 2 [0009]; [0013]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Son teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified Son also teaches wherein each of the first lithium transition metal oxide and the second lithium transition metal oxide comprises a secondary particle comprising a plurality of primary particles (Park 2[0076] both the first and second lithium composite oxides are composite particles wherein the plurality of primary particles may aggregate to form a secondary particle).
Regarding claim 3, modified Son teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified Son also teaches wherein the first lithium transition metal oxide is a large-diameter lithium transition metal oxide having a particle diameter greater than that of the second lithium transition metal oxide, the second lithium transition metal oxide is a small-diameter lithium transition metal oxide having a particle diameter smaller than that of the first lithium transition metal oxide (Park 2 [0002]; [0013]; [0014]; [0037]) includes both a small particle lithium composite oxide, interpreted as the second lithium transition metal oxide, and a large particle lithium composite oxide, interpreted as the first lithium transition metal oxide), and the first lithium transition metal oxide and the second lithium transition metal oxide each have a polycrystalline structure (Park 2 [0076]-[0077] the primary particle refers to one grain or crystallite, and the primary particles are aggregated to form the secondary particle, meaning there are multiple crystallites and therefore a polycrystalline structure).
Regarding claim 4, modified Son teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified Son also teaches wherein the first lithium transition metal oxide and the second lithium transition metal oxide each have a bimodal particle diameter distribution in a particle size distribution (Park 2 [0002]; [0013]-[0014] bimodal-type cathode active materials), and a particle diameter ratio of the first lithium transition metal oxide and the second lithium transition metal oxide is 2.5:1 to 40:1 (Park 2 [0039] the small particle has an average particle diameter of 8 μm or less and the large particle has an average diameter of 8.5 μm to 23 μm; given this range of diameters, the ratio of particle diameters would overlap with the claimed range; for example, the small particle with an average particle diameter of 5 μm, interpreted as the second lithium transition metal oxide, and large particle with an average particle diameter of 15 μm, interpreted as the first lithium transition metal oxide, would have a particle diameter ratio of 15:5, overlapping the claimed range). 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 re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 5, modified Son teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified Son also teaches wherein the particle diameter of the first lithium transition metal oxide is about 3 μm to about 15 μm (Park 2 [0039] the large particle has an average particle diameter of 8.5 μm to 23 μm), and the particle diameter of the second lithium transition metal oxide is at least 1 μm and less than 7 μm (Park 2[0039] small particle has an average particle diameter of 8 μm or less). 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 re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 6, modified Son teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified Son also teaches wherein a weight ratio of the first lithium transition metal oxide and the second lithium transition metal oxide is 92:8 to 60:40 (Park 2 [0040] weight ratio of what is interpreted as the second lithium transition metal oxide to the first lithium transition metal oxide is 5:95 to 50:50 (or 95:5 to 50:50 in the same order as claimed), overlapping the claimed range). 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 re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 7, modified Son teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Son also teaches wherein the shell is only on the 1st core, the shell is only on the 2nd core, or the shell is on both the 1st core and the 2nd core ([0014] shell is on the core), and an amount of the shell is not more than 5 wt% of the total weight of the composite cathode active material ([0170] examples in Table 1 give a coating weight percent at 1 wt% coating or less). 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 re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 8, modified Son teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified Son also teaches wherein an amount of the second carbon-based material is 1 wt% or less, based on the total weight of the composite cathode active material (Park [0055] 0.001 to 10 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the composite cathode active material), the second carbon-based material comprises carbon nanofibers, carbon nanotubes, or a combination thereof, and the second carbon-based material is on a surface of the composite cathode active material (Park [0050] the carbon nanotubes are part of the shell). 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 re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Modified Son does not explicitly teach an amount of the second carbon-based material is about 0.1 wt% to about 50 wt%, based on the total weight of the first carbon-based material and the second carbon-based material. However, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try, for example, equal amounts of weight of graphene and carbon nanotubes without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 9, modified Son teaches all of the limitations of claim 8. Modified Son also teaches wherein the carbon nanotubes (the examiner notes that given an embodiment utilizing the carbon nanofibers of claim 8 rather than the carbon nanotubes as read on by modified Son, the limitations of claim 9 are not limiting as claim 9 does not require that the second carbon-based material comprise carbon nanotubes) comprise a carbon nanotube primary structure, a carbon nanotube secondary structure, which is an aggregate of a plurality of carbon nanotube primary particles, or a combination thereof, the carbon nanotube primary structure is one carbon nanotube unit, the carbon nanotube primary structure comprises a single-walled carbon nanotube (SWCNT), a double-walled carbon nanotube (DWCNT), a multi-walled carbon nanotube (MWCNT), or a combination thereof (Park [0048] single-walled carbon nanotube, multi-walled carbon nanotube, or a combination), a diameter of the carbon nanotube primary structure is about 1 nm to about 20 nm (Park [0050] diameter of 2 nm to 50 nm), a length of the carbon nanotube primary structure is about 100 nm to about 2 μm (Park [0050]; [0048] given an average diameter of 2 nm to 50 nm and an aspect ratio of less than 300, the length of the carbon nanotube primary structure would overlap with the claimed range), the carbon nanotube secondary structure comprises bundle-type carbon nanotubes, rope-type carbon nanotubes, or a combination thereof, and a diameter of the carbon nanotube secondary structure is about 2 nm to about 50 nm, and a length of the carbon nanotube secondary structure is about 500 nm to about 1000 μm (the claim language only requires that the carbon nanotubes comprise a carbon nanotube primary structure, a carbon nanotube secondary structure, or a combination thereof, not both the carbon nanotube primary and secondary structures; the embodiment utilizing the carbon nanotube secondary structure including the carbon nanotube secondary structure type, diameter, and length is not required by the claim language as the embodiment of modified Son utilizes a carbon nanotube primary structure).
Regarding claim 10, modified Son teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Son also teaches wherein a first metal included in the at least one first metal oxide is at least one metal selected from Al, Nb, Mg, Sc, Ti, Zr, V, W, Mn, Fe, Co, Pd, Cu, Ag, Zn, Sb, and Se, and the at least one first metal oxide comprises at least one selected from Al2Oz (0<z<3), NbOx (0<x<2.5), MgOx (0<x<1), Sc2Oz (0<z<3), TiOy (0<y<2), ZrOy (0<y<2), V2Oz (0<z<3), WOy (0<y<2), MnOy (0<y<2), Fe2Oz (0<z<3), Co3Ow (0<w<4), PdOx (0<x<1), CuOx (0<x<1), AgOx (0<x<1), ZnOx (0<x<1), Sb2Oz (0<z<3), and SeOy (0<y<2) ([0045]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Son teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Son also teaches wherein the shell further comprises a second metal oxide represented by MaOc (0<a≤3 and 0<c≤4, wherein if a is 1, 2, or 3, c is an integer) ([0046] MaOc with the same ranges for a and c), the second metal oxide comprises metal which is the same as that included in the first metal oxide, and c/a, which is a ratio of a and c of the second metal oxide, has a greater value than b/a, which is a ratio of a and b of the at least one first metal oxide 9[0046] c/a>b/a), wherein the second metal oxide is selected from Al2O3, NbO, NbO2, Nb2O5, MgO, Sc2O3, TiO2, ZrO2, V2O3, WO2, MnO2, Fe2O3, Co3O4, PdO, CuO, AgO, ZnO, Sb2O3, and SeO2 ([0046]), and the at least one first metal oxide is a reduction product of the second metal oxide ([0046]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Son teaches all of the limitations of claim 11. Son also teaches wherein the shell comprises the first carbon-based material provided in a direction protruding from a surface of at least one selected from the at least one first metal oxide and the second metal oxide, and a thickness of the shell is about 1 nm to about 5 μm ([0049] 1 nm to 5 μm).
Regarding claim 13, modified Son teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Son also teaches wherein the shell comprises at least one selected from: a composite comprising the at least one first metal oxide, the first carbon-based material, and the second carbon-based material ([0051] composite); and milling product of the composite ([0051] product of milling the composite), and an amount of the at least one selected from the composite and milling product of the composite is about 0.01 wt% to about 5 wt%, based on the total weight of the composite cathode active material ([0052] content of the composite cathode active material is 3 wt% or less based on total weight of the composite cathode active material). 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 re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 14, modified Son teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Son also teaches wherein the lithium transition metal oxide is represented by a formula selected from Formulae 1 to 8:
Formula 1
LiaNixMnyM’zO2-bAb
wherein, in Formula 1,
1.0≤a≤1.2, 0≤b≤0.2, 0<x≤0.85, 0.1≤y<0.3, 0<z≤0.1, and x+y+z=1,
M’ is cobalt (Co), niobium (Nb), vanadium (V), magnesium (Mg), gallium (Ga), silicon (Si), tungsten (W), molybdenum (Mo), iron (Fe), chromium ( Cr), copper (Cu), zinc (Zn), titanium (Ti), aluminum (Al), boron (B), or a combination thereof, and A is F, S, Cl, Br, or a combination thereof ([0063] formula 1 wherein M’ is Co; [0067] formula 2),
Formula 2
LiNixCoyMnzO2 ([0063] formula 1; [0067] formula 2),
Formula 3
LiNixCoyAlzO2 ([0063] formula 1; [0067] formula 3),
wherein, in Formulae 2 and 3, 0.8≤x≤0.95, 0≤y≤0.2, 0 <z≤0.2 and x+y+z=1.
Formula 4
LiNixCoyMnzAlwO2 ([0063] formula 1)
wherein, in Formula 4, 0.8≤x≤0.95, 0≤y≤0.2, 0 <z≤0.2, 0<w≤0.2, and x+y+z+w=1,
Formula 6
LiaNixCoyMzO2-bAb ([0063] formula 1)
wherein, in Formula 6,
1.0≤a≤1.2, 0≤b≤0.2, 0.8≤x<1, 0≤y≤0.3, 0<z≤0.3, and x+y+z=1,
M is manganese (Mn), niobium (Nb), vanadium (V), magnesium (Mg), gallium (Ga), silicon (Si), tungsten (W), molybdenum (Mo), iron (Fe), chromium (Cr) ), copper (Cu), zinc (Zn), titanium (Ti), aluminum (Al), boron (B), or a combination thereof, and A is F, S, Cl, Br, or a combination thereof,
Formula 7
LiaM1xM2yPO4-bXb ([0078])
wherein, in Formula 7, 0.90≤a≤1.1, 0≤x≤0.9, 0≤y≤0.5, 0.9<x+y<1.1, and 0≤b≤2,
M1 is chromium (Cr), manganese (Mn), iron (Fe), cobalt (Co), nickel (Ni), copper (Cu), zirconium (Zr), or a combination thereof, M2 is magnesium (Mg), calcium (Ca), strontium (Sr), barium (Ba), titanium (Ti), zinc (Zn), boron (B), niobium (Nb), gallium (Ga), indium (In) ), molybdenum (Mo), tungsten (W), aluminum (Al), silicon (Si), chromium (Cr), vanadium (V), scandium (Sc), yttrium (Y), or a combination thereof, and X is O, F, S, P, or a combination thereof,
Formula 8
LiaM3zPO4 ([0078])
wherein, in Formula 8, 0.90≤a≤1.1, 0.9≤z≤1.1, and
M3 is chromium (Cr), manganese (Mn), iron (Fe), cobalt (Co), nickel (Ni), copper (Cu), zirconium (Zr), or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 15, modified Son teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Son also teaches a cathode comprising the composite cathode active material as claimed in claim 1 ([0070]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Son teaches all of the limitations of claim 15. Son also teaches a lithium battery comprising: the cathode as claimed in claim 15; an anode ([0085]); and an electrolyte between the cathode and the anode ([0102]-[0103]).
Regarding claim 17, modified Son teaches all of the limitations of claim 16. Son also teaches wherein the electrolyte is a liquid electrolyte ([0099]), a solid electrolyte ([0102]), a gel electrolyte or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 18, modified Son teaches all of the limitations of claim 17. Son also teaches wherein the solid electrolyte is an oxide-based solid electrolyte, a sulfide-based solid electrolyte, a polymer solid electrolyte or a combination thereof, and the gel electrolyte comprises a polymer gel electrolyte ([0102] boron oxide and/or lithium oxynitride or any suitable solid electrolyte).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son in view of Park and Park 2 as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US-20210305582-A1), hereinafter Wang.
Regarding claim 19, modified Son teaches all of the limitations of claim 16. Son also teaches wherein the cathode comprises a cathode current collector, the anode comprises an anode current collector ([0103]; [0072]; [0086]),
Son fails to teach at least one selected from the cathode current collector and the anode current collector comprises a base film and a metal layer on one surface or opposite surfaces of the base film, the base film comprises a polymer, and the polymer comprises polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polybutylene terephthalate (PBT), polyimide (PI), or a combination thereof, and the metal layer comprises indium (In), copper (Cu), magnesium (Mg), stainless steel, titanium (Ti), iron (Fe), cobalt (Co), nickel (Ni), zinc (Zn), aluminum (Al), germanium (Ge), lithium (Li), or alloys thereof.
Wang is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries ([0002]). Wang teaches at least one selected from the cathode current collector and the anode current collector comprises a base film and a metal layer on one surface or opposite surfaces of the base film ([0006]-[0008]), the base film comprises a polymer, and the polymer comprises polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polybutylene terephthalate (PBT), polyimide (PI), or a combination thereof ([0010] polyethylene, polypropylene, polyethylene terephthalate, polyimide), and the metal layer comprises indium (In), copper (Cu), magnesium (Mg), stainless steel, titanium (Ti), iron (Fe), cobalt (Co), nickel (Ni), zinc (Zn), aluminum (Al), germanium (Ge), lithium (Li), or alloys thereof ([0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Son such that at least one selected from the cathode current collector and the anode current collector comprises a base film and a metal layer on one surface or opposite surfaces of the base film such as in Wang. Doing so prevents a conductive layer from easily peeling off (wang [0005]) while still improving security performance and energy density of the battery (Wang [0006]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON L KYLE whose telephone number is (571)272-0164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 AM - 5 PM 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/M.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/KOURTNEY R S CARLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721 9/4/2026
Prosecution Insights