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 1-13 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, is there a unit associated with each phi (Φ)? As claims 2-13 depend either directly or indirectly from claim 1, they are rejected for the same reason.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hays et al. (US 2022/0006090; hereinafter “Hays”).
Regarding claim 1, Hays teaches a positive electrode (see [0081]-[0090]) comprising:
a positive electrode active material layer (see [0081]-[0090]) disposed on at least one surface of a positive electrode current collector (see [0039]-[0041]),
wherein the positive electrode active material layer includes a lithium transition metal phosphate (lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4), see [0082]) and a fluorine-based binder (polyvinylidiene fluoride (pvdf), see [0089]), and
Regarding the limitations “in a flexibility evaluation, in which the positive electrode is lifted after bringing measuring rods for each phi (Φ) into contact with the positive electrode active material layer, a ratio value (=P/D) of a porosity (P) of the positive electrode active material layer calculated by Equation 1 below to a maximum phi value (D) of the measuring rod at which a crack occurs is greater than or equal to 10,
[Equation 1]
Porosity (P)={1−(measured density of positive electrode active material layer/true density of positive electrode active material)}×100”, Applicant is reminded that the process of determining measurements of a product fails to further limit the structure of the product itself. As Hays teaches a positive electrode active material with all the required structural limitations of claim 1, it must follow that the positive electrode active material of Hays would result in the same measurements.
Regarding claims 2 and 7, Applicant is reminded that the process of determining measurements of a product fails to further limit the structure of the product itself.
Regarding claim 8, Hays teaches wherein the lithium transition metal phosphate is represented by Chemical Formula 1 below,
[Chemical Formula 1]
Li1+aM11−xM2x(POy−b)Db
wherein in Chemical Formula 1,
M1 is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Fe, Mn, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, and Mg,
M2 is selected from any one of Groups 2 to 15 and is one or more elements excluding element M1,
D is at least one selected from the group consisting of F, S, and N, and
a, x, y, and b satisfy −0.5≤a≤0.5, 0≤x≤0.8, 3.95≤y≤4.05, and 0≤b≤1 respectively (lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4), see [0082]).
Regarding claim 10, Hays teaches wherein the positive electrode active material layer further includes a conductive material, and the conductive material is a carbon nanotube (see [0055]-[0058], and [0089]).
Regarding claim 13, Hays teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising the positive electrode according to claim 1 (see rejection for claim 1 above) and a negative electrode (see [0042]-[0059]).
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.
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) 3-6, 9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hays (US 2022/0006090).
Regarding claim 3, Applicant is reminded that the process of determining measurements of a product fails to further limit the structure of the product itself. Furthermore, if the porosity of the positive electrode active material layer is too low, then ion diffusion may be restricted. On the other hand, if the porosity of the positive electrode active material layer is too high, then the energy density is lowered and overall capacity of the battery may be reduced. Therefore, there must be some optimum amount of porosity and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to discover through routine experimentation. See MPEP §2144.05(II). The positive electrode of claim 1, wherein the porosity (P) of the positive electrode active material layer, as calculated by Equation 1, is greater than or equal to 27%.
Regarding claim 4, Applicant is reminded that the process of determining measurements of a product fails to further limit the structure of the product itself. Furthermore, if the porosity of the positive electrode active material layer is too low, then ion diffusion may be restricted. On the other hand, if the porosity of the positive electrode active material layer is too high, then the energy density is lowered and overall capacity of the battery may be reduced. Therefore, there must be some optimum amount of porosity and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to discover through routine experimentation. See MPEP §2144.05(II). The positive electrode of claim 1, wherein the porosity (P) of the positive electrode active material layer, as calculated by Equation 1, ranges from 28% to 36%.
Regarding claim 5, Hays is silent to wherein a ratio value (=B/A) of a weight (B) of the lithium transition metal phosphate to a total weight (A) of the fluorine-based binder ranges from 27 to 98. However, if the weight of the lithium transition metal phosphate is much greater than the weight of the fluorine-based binder, then it may be easy for the active material layer to detach from the current collector. On the other hand, if the weight of the fluorine-based binder is much greater than that of the weight of the lithium transition metal phosphate, then the energy density is lowered and overall capacity of the battery may be reduced. Therefore, there must be some optimum amount of a ratio of the weight of the lithium transition metal phosphate to a total weight of the fluorine-based binder and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to discover through routine experimentation. See MPEP §2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 6, Hays is silent to wherein a ratio value (=B/A) of a weight (B) of the lithium transition metal phosphate to a total weight (A) of the fluorine-based binder ranges from 30 to 65. However, if the weight of the lithium transition metal phosphate is much greater than the weight of the fluorine-based binder, then it may be easy for the active material layer to detach from the current collector. On the other hand, if the weight of the fluorine-based binder is much greater than that of the weight of the lithium transition metal phosphate, then the energy density is lowered and overall capacity of the battery may be reduced. Therefore, there must be some optimum amount of a ratio of the weight of the lithium transition metal phosphate to a total weight of the fluorine-based binder and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to discover through routine experimentation. See MPEP §2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 9, Hays teaches wherein a loading amount of the positive electrode active material layer is in a range of 400 mg/25 cm2 (equal to 16 mg/cm2) to 700 mg/25 cm2 (equal to 28 mg/cm2) (10 to about 50 mg/cm2; see [0090]).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 11, Hays is silent to wherein the conductive material is included in the positive electrode active material layer in an amount of 0.5 wt % to 1.3 wt %. However, if the amount of the conductive material included in the positive electrode active material layer is too low, there would be no appreciable effect of the included conductive material. On the other hand, if the conductive material included in the positive electrode active material layer is excessively high, then the energy density is lowered and overall capacity of the battery may be reduced. Therefore, there must be some optimum amount of conductive material is included in the positive electrode active material layer and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to discover through routine experimentation. See MPEP §2144.05(II).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hays as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ahn et al. (US 2020/0028174; hereinafter “Anh”).
Regarding claim 12, Hays is silent to wherein the positive electrode active material layer further includes hydrogenated nitrile-based butadiene rubber.
Anh teaches that since agglomeration of positive electrode active material particles severely occurred as the particle size of the lithium iron phosphate-based positive electrode active material was reduced, dispersion was difficult (see [0029]). However, in Anh’s invention, since the positive electrode active material pre-dispersion composition, in which the lithium iron phosphate-based positive electrode active material is pre-dispersed by using the hydrogenated nitrile butadiene rubber
(HNBR) dispersant, is provided, the dispersibility issues of the lithium iron phosphate-based positive electrode active material with a reduced particle size are addressed (see [0030]).
In view of Anh’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the positive electrode active material layer to include hydrogenated nitrile-based butadiene rubber because it helps to minimize dispersibility issues with a reduced particle size.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN HA whose telephone number is (571)270-5934. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458 . 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.
/S.S.H/Examiner, Art Unit 1735 13 June 2026
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights