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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 05/10/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5 and 7-19 are pending. Applicant's request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 8, 11-13 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita et al. (US 20180287202 A1), hereinafter “Matsushita” in view of Jang et al. (US 20220384780 A1), hereinafter "Jang" and Kadowaki et al. (WO 2021145431 A1 - US 20230048124 A1 cited for reference), hereinafter "Kadowaki". Jang, Matsushita and Kadowaki et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely positive electrode materials.
In regard to Claim 1, Matsushita et al. discloses a lithium-ion battery positive electrode plate, comprising a positive electrode current collector and a positive electrode film layer disposed on at least one surface of the positive electrode current collector (Matsushita, [0046]), wherein the positive electrode film layer comprises the following materials in combinations and amounts that overlap the claimed ranges:
(D1 – Large) aggregated (polycrystalline) particles of a first positive electrode active material with a particle size (Dv50) of 12 μm to 25 μm (Matsushita, [0030]).
(D2 – Middle) aggregated (polycrystalline) particles of a second positive electrode active material with a particle size (Dv50) of 3 μm to 12 μm (Matsushita, [0031]).
(D3 – Small) third positive electrode active material which may comprise aggregated (polycrystalline) or primary (monocrystalline) particles with a particle size (Dv50) of 1 μm to 6 μm (Matsushita, [0030, 0050-0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the active material combinations disclosed in Matsushita and to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.
While Matsushita discloses that the particular embodiments don’t limit the invention and discloses a combination of 3 active materials with 3 different particle sizes that overlap the claimed ranges which may be in combinations of aggregated (polycrystalline) and primary (monocrystalline) particles (Matsushita, [0050-0051]), it is silent as to a combination with two polycrystalline particles in the large and middle particle sizes and one monocrystalline within the smaller particle size.
Jang et al. discloses a lithium-ion battery positive electrode plate, comprising a positive electrode current collector and a positive electrode film layer disposed on at least one surface of the positive electrode current collector (Jang, [0130]), wherein the positive electrode film layer comprises a first active material comprising an aggregated (polycrystalline) particle within the same particle size range as the large particles disclosed in Matsushita (10 μm to about 20 μm, Jang, [0028]) and a second active material comprising monocrystalline particles within the same particle size range as the small particles disclosed in Matsushita (2 μm to 5 μm, Jang, [0049]). Further, Jang discloses the mass ratio of polycrystalline to monocrystalline particles is 7:3 (Jang, [0074]), which anticipates the claimed range.
There is a benefit taught in the combination of active materials with this morphology and with this particle size in that the cycle-life characteristics are improved while implementing high capacity and high energy density (Jang, [0038]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a first active material with polycrystalline morphology and large particle size range (as disclosed in Matsushita and Jang) with another active material with a monocrystalline morphology and a small particle range (as disclosed in Matsushita and Jang), and apply that combination with the second active material with polycrystalline morphology and middle particle size range as disclosed in Matsushita as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Jang and as doing so would amount to nothing more than an obvious variation to try for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Finally, while Matsushita and Jang et al. also disclose the mass ratio of polycrystalline to monocrystalline materials and the Dv50 particle size of the materials, it is silent as to the number of poly or mono crystalline particles in the active material.
Kadowaki et al. discloses a positive electrode with active materials may be a mixture of two or more types of lithium metal composite oxides having different particle diameters (Kadowaki, [0083]). Kadowaki et al. also discloses a combination of single (monocrystalline) particles and secondary (polycrystalline) particles in the positive electrode layer wherein the ratio of the number of polycrystalline particles (A+B) to the number of monocrystalline particles (C) is in a range of 4:1 to 0:1 (mono ≥ 20%) (Kadowaki, [0208-0209]), and wherein that range, the ratio overlaps the claimed range and is well within the realm of routine optimization of the skilled artisan. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.
In regard to Claim 2, Matsushita et al. in view of Jang and Kadowaki disclose the positive electrode plate according to claim 1. Kadowaki et al. also discloses a combination of single (monocrystalline) particles and secondary (polycrystalline) particles in the positive electrode layer wherein the ratio of the number of polycrystalline particles (A+B) to the number of monocrystalline particles (C) is in a range of 4:1 to 0:1 (mono ≥ 20%) (Kadowaki, [0208-0209]), and wherein that range, the ratio overlaps the claimed range and is well within the realm of routine optimization of the skilled artisan. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.
In regard to Claim 3, Matsushita et al. in view of Jang and Kadowaki disclose the positive electrode plate according to claim 1. Matsushita et al. also discloses wherein the polycrystalline particles of the first positive electrode active material, the polycrystalline particles of the second positive electrode active material and the monocrystalline particles of the third positive electrode active material are all ternary positive electrode active materials (Matsushita, [Example 1, Example 11]).
In regard to Claim 8, Matsushita et al. in view of Jang and Kadowaki disclose the positive electrode plate according to claim 1. While Matsushita is silent as to the surface area of the positive active material layer Jang et al. discloses a preferential range of BET specific surface area of 0.3 m.sup.2/g to about 0.6 m.sup.2/g (Jang, [0047]), which overlaps the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.
In regard to Claims 11-13, Matsushita et al. in view of Jang and Kadowaki disclose the positive electrode plate according to claim 1. Kadowaki et al. discloses wherein the SPAN of the particles of the positive active materials is (Dv90-Dv10)/Dv50 and falls within a preferred range of 0.1-1.5 (Kadowaki, [0078-0080]), which overlaps the claimed ranges and amounts to nothing more than a routine variation of material properties selected by the skilled artisan. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.
In regard to Claims 15-18, Matsushita et al. in view of Jang and Kadowaki disclose the positive electrode plate according to claim 1. Matsushita et al. also discloses a lithium ion battery comprising the positive electrode plate according to claim 1 (Matsushita, [0055]). Kadowaki et al. discloses an electrical apparatus, comprising the lithium-ion battery of claim 15 (Kadowaki, [0003]) and further discloses the use of the battery in an electric vehicle which is known to the skilled artisan to provide battery cells in battery modules in battery packs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a lithium ion battery as disclosed in Matsushita in view of Kadowaki in use cases such as a battery module and battery pack for an electric vehicle as doing so would amount to nothing more than choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita et al. (US 20180287202 A1), hereinafter “Matsushita” in view of Jang et al. (US 20220384780 A1), hereinafter "Jang" and Kadowaki et al. (WO 2021145431 A1 - US 20230048124 A1 cited for reference), hereinafter "Kadowaki" as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Inoue et al. (WO2021172509A1 - US 20230078613 A1 referenced for citation), hereinafter "Inoue". Matsushita, Jang, Kadowaki and Inoue et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely positive electrode materials.
In regard to Claim 4, Matsushita et al. in view of Jang and Kadowaki discloses the positive electrode plate according to claim 1. Matsushita et al. is silent as to the pore volume of the positive electrode layer.
Inoue et al. discloses a positive electrode material layer that has a pore volume in the range of 0.0002 cm3/g or more and 0.003 cm3/g or less which is equivalent to 0.2-3 mm3/g (Inoue, [0066]), which overlaps the claimed range and provides a benefit of having high discharge rate characteristics and high cycle characteristics (Inoue, [0030]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a positive electrode layer with pore volume in the range taught in Inoue as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Inoue and as doing so would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.
In regard to Claim 14, Matsushita et al. in view of Jang and Kadowaki disclose the positive electrode plate according to claim 1. Matsushita et al. is silent as to the tap density of the of the monocrystalline particles of the third positive electrode active material satisfies TPD 1.8g/cm3.
Inoue et al. discloses the active materials preferably satisfy a tap density of 1.2-2.5 g/cm3 (Inoue, [0026]), which anticipates the claimed range and providing an active material with a tap density in that range would be an obvious choice for the skilled artisan.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita et al. (US 20180287202 A1), hereinafter “Matsushita” in view of Jang et al. (US 20220384780 A1), hereinafter "Jang" and Kadowaki et al. (WO 2021145431 A1 - US 20230048124 A1 cited for reference), hereinafter "Kadowaki" as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Schreiner et al. (Modelling of the Calendering Process of NMC-622 Cathodes in Battery Production Analyzing Machine/Material–Process–Structure Correlations, Energy Technol., 7: 1900840, 2019), hereinafter "Schreiner". Matsushita, Jang, Kadowaki and Schreiner et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely positive electrode materials.
In regard to Claim 5, Matsushita et al. in view of Jang and Kadowaki disclose the positive electrode plate according to claim 1. While Matsushita et al. is silent as to the shear stress in Mpa, Schreiner et al. discloses shear stress (adhesion strength) using a similar test to the original specification (Original Specification [0061]) to measure values of the positive electrodes in the sub MPa range with data points down to the 0.8MPa range (Schreiner, Section 2.2, Figure 5), which overlaps the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita et al. (US 20180287202 A1), hereinafter “Matsushita” in view of Jang et al. (US 20220384780 A1), hereinafter "Jang" and Kadowaki et al. (WO 2021145431 A1 - US 20230048124 A1 cited for reference), hereinafter "Kadowaki" as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Han et al. (CN-113921782-A - Machine Translation), hereinafter "Han". Matsushita, Jang, Kadowaki and Han et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely positive electrode materials.
In regard to Claim 7, Matsushita et al. in view of Jang and Kadowaki disclose the positive electrode plate according to claim 1. While Matsushita et al. is silent as to the CPD of the active material, Han et al. discloses a CPD of a ternary positive electrode active material comprising polycrystalline and monocrystalline (single particle) wherein the beneficial CPD is in a range of 3.10-3.40 g/cm3 (Han, [24]), which overlaps the claimed range and is within the realm of routine optimization of the skilled artisan and would yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita et al. (US 20180287202 A1), hereinafter “Matsushita” in view of Jang et al. (US 20220384780 A1), hereinafter "Jang" and Kadowaki et al. (WO 2021145431 A1 - US 20230048124 A1 cited for reference), hereinafter "Kadowaki" as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Du 2 et al. (WO 2020134781 A1 - Machine Translation), hereinafter "Du 2". Matsushita, Jang, Kadowaki and Du2 et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely positive electrode materials.
In regard to Claim 9, Matsushita et al. in view of Jang and Kadowaki disclose the positive electrode plate according to claim 1. While Matsushita and Kadowaki et al. discuss the particle size they are silent as to a SPAN value of the positive electrode active material mixture is in a range of 1.70 to 2.20, where SPAN = (Dv90-Dv10)/Dv50. Du 2 et al. discloses a positive electrode material where the SPAN value (PSD) is (Dv90-Dv10)/Dv50 and falls within a preferred range of 1.2-2.5 (Du 2, [30]), which overlaps the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita et al. (US 20180287202 A1), hereinafter “Matsushita” in view of Jang et al. (US 20220384780 A1), hereinafter "Jang" and Kadowaki et al. (WO 2021145431 A1 - US 20230048124 A1 cited for reference), hereinafter "Kadowaki" as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Cao et al. (CN-110970602-A - Machine Translation), hereinafter "Cao". Matsushita, Jang, Kadowaki and Cao et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely positive electrode materials.
In regard to Claim 10, Matsushita et al. in view of Jang and Kadowaki disclose the positive electrode plate according to claim 1. While Matsushita and Kadowaki are silent as to the D99 of the positive active material, Cao et al. discloses a specific example where a beneficial active material has a D99 of 21 µm (Cao, Example A6, Table 1) and other preferred embodiments wherein the d99 is in a range of 8.6-36.1 µm (Cao, A-B materials, Table 1), which overlaps the claimed range and is within the realm of routine optimization of the skilled artisan. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over over Matsushita et al. (US 20180287202 A1), hereinafter “Matsushita” in view of Jang et al. (US 20220384780 A1), hereinafter "Jang" and Kadowaki et al. (WO 2021145431 A1 - US 20230048124 A1 cited for reference), hereinafter "Kadowaki" as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Li et al. (CN-105529457-A- Machine Translation), hereinafter "Li" and Yamamoto et al. (US 20100203387 A1), hereinafter “Yamamoto”. Matsushita, Jang, Kadowaki, Li and Yamamoto et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely positive electrode materials.
In regard to Claim 19, Matsushita et al. in view of Jang and Kadowaki disclose the positive electrode plate according to claim 1. While Matsushita et al. is silent as to the compact density or elongation of the positive electrode, they are known variables to be optimized by the skilled artisan.
Li et al. discloses a beneficial positive electrode wherein the compact density is improved to 3.7g/cm3, (Li, Abstract), which anticipates the claimed range and Yamamoto et al. discloses a beneficial electrode with an elongation in a length direction of the positive electrode plate after cold pressing is 3% or less (Yamamoto, [0196]), which overlaps the claimed range and a specific example of 0.8 (Yamamoto, Electrode 3), which anticipates the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference, as overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/10/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive as for the combination of Du and Zhuang not being obvious variations and Du’s teaching of the mass ratio of polycrystalline particles to monocrystalline particles but they are now moot because the new ground of rejection relies on a primary reference (Matsushita et al.) not previously applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The combination of Matsushita, Jang and Kadowaki et al. teach the limitations of amended claim 1 as discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection above and amount to nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MAX OTERO whose telephone number is (571)272-2559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Generally 7:30-430.
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.
/K.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights