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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/21/26 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments, filed 05/21/26, have been fully considered. Claim(s) 1, 16, 17, 19, and 20 is/are amended; claim(s) 3–14 stand(s) as originally or previously presented; and claim(s) 15 and 18 is/are canceled; no new matter is entered. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection set forth in the Office Action mailed 03/18/26 has/have been withdrawn. However, each of the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections has/have been maintained and altered as necessitated by amendment, as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text forming the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 may be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim(s) 1–7, 12, 16, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US 20130171524 A1, from 12/15/23 IDS) (Cho) in view of Hwang et al. (WO 2020106024 A1; citations to English equivalent US 20210408537 A1) (Hwang), taken alone or, alternatively, further in view of Zhang et al. (CN 110224114 A) (Zhang).
Regarding claims 1, 6, 7, and 12, Cho discloses a cylindrical lithium secondary battery (e.g., ¶ 0107 and Ex. 1, ¶ 0113) comprising a positive electrode comprising a positive electrode active material layer on a positive electrode current collector (¶ 0087 and 0111), a negative electrode active material layer on a negative electrode current collector (¶ 0100, 0112); a separator between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (e.g., ¶ 0105, 0113); and an electrolyte (¶ 0113); the positive electrode active material layer comprising a composition comprising a positive electrode active material comprising a lithium composite transition metal compound (lithiated intercalation compound, e.g., ¶ 0021 and 0073; see also LCO in ¶ 0110).
Cho discloses that there is no particular limit on the active material (¶ 0073) but fails to explicitly articulate an active material containing Li, Ni, Co, and Mn, with at least 80 mol% and less than 100 mol% Ni among the metals except Li. Further, in being unconcerned with the particle morphology, Cho fails to explicitly disclose that such active material is in the form of a single particle.
Hwang, in teaching a positive electrode active material (Abstract), teaches a lithium transition metal oxide including Ni, Co, and Mn, with Ni content of preferably 85–90 mol% with respect to the total transition-metal content, for high capacity (¶ 0032, 0033). Hwang further teaches that as the active material is in single-particle form, particle strength increases, and, thus, active-material cracking may be reduced during (dis)charge (¶ 0039).
Hwang and Cho are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely positive electrode active material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to employ Hwang’s material containing Li, Ni, Co, and Mn, with Ni content of preferably 85–90 mol% with respect to the total transition-metal content, as Cho’s active material with the reasonable expectation of achieving high capacity, as taught by Hwang. It would have been further obvious to incorporate the active material as single particles with the reasonable expectation of strengthening the particles to reduce active-material cracking during (dis)charge, as taught by Hwang.
Cho further discloses that the composition comprises an additive (Formula 1 compound, e.g., ¶ 0021 and Ex. 1’s Li6CoO4 in ¶ 0109 and 0110).
Cho generally discloses that the additive may be represented by LixMyM’1–yO4, where M is Co, Ni, Mn, and/or Fe; M’ is Co, Ni, Mn, Fe, Al, Mg, Zn, and/or Ti; M and M′ are different from each other, 5.00 ≦ x ≦ 6.05, and 0 ≦ y ≦ 1 (¶ 0021–0023), further embodying, e.g., Li6Co0.9Al0.1O4 (¶ 0024). Although this formula and molar ratios appear to overlap or encompass the recited formula, Cho fails to explicitly embody the recited additive of Chemical Formula A containing both Zn and Al.
Considering that Cho is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely tetroxide-based positive electrode additives, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely employ a Li-Co-Al-based additive co-doped with a non-zero amount of Zn (such as co-doping Cho’s Li6Co0.9Al0.1O4 with Zn) as the additive with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful positive electrode additive.
Additionally or alternatively, Zhang, in teaching a Li-rich, tetroxide-based positive electrode material (Abstract), teaches a co-doped oxide of, e.g., Li6Co0.97Ti0.01Al0.01Zn0.01O4 (Ex. 5, ¶ 0077 and 0078).
Zhang is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely tetroxide-based positive electrode material.
As Zhang generally recognizes that Al and Zn are compatible at relatively low amounts in tetroxide-based positive-electrode material, it would have been further obvious to incorporate a Li-Co-Al-based additive co-doped with a non-zero amount of Zn as the additive with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful positive electrode additive.
Thus, regarding Chemical Formula A, x = 6, and the Co content would be controlled by Zn and Al’s content (as in base Al doping), and M is absent because m = 0.
Although modified Cho may not explicitly embody a y of 0.25–0.5, the M’ content of 1–y is able to overlap this range (by being controlled by M’s content, as seen in the formula and exs.; e.g., if M were Co, with a molar content y of 0.5 (note exemplified, similar Li6Co0.5Fe0.5 in ¶ 0062), such would leave the molar content M’ (e.g., Zn and Al) as 0.5, which would make the instant y (Zn content) capable of being 0.25–0.5) such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful additive, absent demonstrated criticality to 0.25–0.5 (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Alternatively, as just explained, Cho’s general formula allows the Zn content to encompass the instant y-value. Importantly, the skilled artisan would recognize that some molar content must necessarily be chosen for each of Al and Zn if co-doped, further understanding that a finite number of molar combinations exist given Cho’s formula, the number of which would further narrow if Co’s content were 0.5. In determining the proper Zn content, then, it would have been obvious to routinely investigate an instant y of, e.g., 0.3 or 0.4—satisfying 0.25 ≤ y ≤ 0.5—with the reasonable expectation of forming a successful additive, absent demonstrated criticality (MPEP 2143 (E.)).
Cho further discloses that the additive may be included at an active material:additive ratio of 80:20 to about 97:3 (¶ 0083) but fails to explicitly disclose 0.3–2 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the positive electrode active material.
Although slightly outside 0.3–2 wt%, Cho’s range is approximate and, thus, appears to allow values below 3%—i.e., relatively close to or encompassing 2%. Alternatively, the skilled artisan would recognize that 3% is so close to 2% that the two values would be expected to yield substantially similar results, absent additional evidence of criticality (MPEP 2144.05 (I)). Specifically, Cho never appears to test below ~ 3 wt% additive to isolate inferior performance to such values, and the instant specification never appears to assert criticality of 0.3–2 wt% because, as seen on p. 18, lines 5–10, the additive “may be included in an amount of 10 parts by weight or less, 8 parts by weight or less … or 0.8 parts by weight or less,” meaning the skilled artisan would have reasonably expected equal success selecting any of these values.
More importantly, though, Cho discloses that the additive may increase charge capacity, reduce irreversible capacity, and improve cycle life by supplying lithium during the negative active material’s initial, irreversible reaction (¶ 0039). Moreover, the skilled artisan would recognize that the active material should account for the bulk of the composition for proper ion (de)intercalation (as seen in Cho’s ¶ 0006, 0007, and 0083). The artisan would further recognize that each material should be included in an amount sufficient to perform its respective function without detracting from the other’s function, all while accounting for the negative electrode’s irreversible capacity and resistance depending on the negative active material used (¶ 0083). To balance these effects, then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited range by routinely optimizing the active material:additive ratio (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 2, modified Cho discloses the composition of claim 1.
As noted in claim 1, Cho’s range is approximate and, thus, appears to allow values below 3%, particularly in optimizing the above effects. Alternatively, as noted above, the skilled artisan would recognize that 3% is so close to the upper limit of the instant 0.3–1 wt% that the two values would be expected to yield substantially similar results given no apparent criticality of 0.3–1 wt% either from Cho’s comparative examples or the instant specification’s evidence (MPEP 2144.05 (I)). Moreover, as further established above, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited range by routinely optimizing the additive’s wt% in balancing the additive’s effects with the active material’s ion intercalation (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 3, modified Cho discloses the composition of claim 1, comprising the lithium composition transition metal compound in an amount of 100 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the entire positive electrode active material (i.e., the “active material” consists of Cho’s lithiated intercalation compound, as seen in, e.g., ¶ 0083 and exs.), falling within 90–100 pats by weight.
Regarding claim 4, modified Cho discloses the composition of claim 1, further comprising a positive electrode binder and a conductive material (e.g., ¶ 0089, 0111).
Regarding claim 5, modified Cho discloses the composition of claim 1 but is silent to the recited viscosity during storage at 40°C and RH 10% for 3 days.
However, the instant specification notes that this viscosity stems from mixing the Formula A additive with the active material when forming the electrode slurry (e.g., Table 1’s Ex. 1 vs. Comp. Ex. 1; see also p. 53, lines 8–19, and p. 54, lines 1–10). As Cho discloses a substantially similar slurry-preparation method (simple mixing of active material and additive, followed by further mixing with binder, conductive material, and organic solvent at weight ratios substantially similar to the instant disclosure, e.g., Ex. 1, ¶ 0109–0111) compared to the instant specification (e.g., Ex. 1, pp. 49–51), the skilled artisan would have reasonably expected modified Cho’s viscosity to fall within or at least overlap the recited viscosity under the recited conditions (MPEP 2112.01 (I)) such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful slurry with suitable viscosity (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Assuming, arguendo, that the above were not necessarily true, the skilled artisan would recognize that Cho’s slurry would necessarily possess a minimum viscosity due to the dispersed active material, conductive material, and binder (¶ 0111), understanding that each material must necessarily be included at a concentration sufficient to perform its respective function—i.e., active material provides ion intercalation/capacity, additive provides lithium during initial irreversible reaction of negative active material to increase charge capacity (Cho, ¶ 0038), conductive material provides conductivity, and binder adheres active and conductive materials together and to collector—without detracting from the other materials’ functions. The artisan would further recognize, meanwhile, that making the slurry too thick—i.e., a too high viscosity—would necessarily make the slurry harder to coat on the collector. To balance these effects, then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited range by routinely optimizing the composition’s viscosity (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 16, modified Cho discloses the composition of claim 1.
As addressed in claim 1, Cho discloses that the additive may be included at an active material:additive ratio of 80:20 to about 97:3 (¶ 0083) but fails to explicitly disclose 0.4–2 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the positive electrode active material.
Although slightly outside 0.4–2%, Cho’s range is approximate and, thus, appears to allow values below 3%—i.e., relatively close to or encompassing 2%. As noted above, absent additional evidence, the skilled artisan would have expected substantially similar performance at 2% as at Cho’s ~ 3% due to the apparent lack of criticality in 0.4–2 wt% (MPEP 2144.05 (I). More importantly, as further submitted above, it would have been obvious to arrive at the instant range by balancing factors such as the additive and active material’s effects, as well as controlling the negative electrode’s irreversible capacity and resistance (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Modified Cho is silent to the recited viscosity during storage at 40°C and RH 10% for 3 days.
However, the instant specification notes that this viscosity stems from mixing the Formula A additive with the active material when forming the electrode slurry (e.g., Table 1’s Ex. 1 vs. Comp. Ex. 1; see also p. 53, lines 8–19, and p. 54, lines 1–10). As Cho discloses a substantially similar slurry-preparation method (simple mixing of active material and additive, followed by further mixing with binder, conductive material, and organic solvent at weight ratios substantially similar to the instant disclosure, e.g., Ex. 1, ¶ 0109–0111) compared to the instant specification (e.g., Ex. 1, pp. 49–51), the skilled artisan would have reasonably expected modified Cho’s viscosity to fall within or at least overlap the recited viscosity under the recited conditions (MPEP 2112.01 (I)) such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful slurry with suitable viscosity (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Assuming, arguendo, that the above were not necessarily true, the skilled artisan would recognize that Cho’s slurry would necessarily possess a minimum viscosity due to the dispersed active material, conductive material, and binder (¶ 0111), understanding that each material must necessarily be included at a concentration sufficient to perform its respective function—i.e., active material provides ion intercalation/capacity, additive provides lithium during initial irreversible reaction of negative active material to increase charge capacity (Cho, ¶ 0038), conductive material provides conductivity, and binder adheres active and conductive materials together and to collector—without detracting from the other materials’ functions. The artisan would further recognize, meanwhile, that making the slurry too thick—i.e., a too high viscosity—would necessarily make the slurry harder to coat on the collector. To balance these effects, then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited range by routinely optimizing the composition’s viscosity (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding the lithium composite transition metal compound’s including a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1, Hwang further teaches a general formula of Li1+aNixCoyMnzM1wO2, where preferably 0 ≤ a ≤ 0.5, 0.8 ≤ x ≤ 1, 0 < y ≤ 0.2, 0 < z ≤ 0.2, 0 < w ≤ 0.01, and M1 is B, Zr, Mg, Ti, Sr, W, and/or Al for high capacity and stability (¶ 0040–0042). Such Li, Ni, Co, Mn, M1, and O contents fall within claim 16’s respective ranges.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to specifically employ Hwang’s active-material formula with the reasonable expectation of achieving high capacity and stability, as taught by Hwang.
Regarding claim 17, modified Cho discloses the composition of claim 1.
Regarding the additive’s constituting 0.4–1 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the positive electrode active material, as noted in claim 1, Cho’s range is approximate and, thus, appears to allow values below 3%, particularly in optimizing the above effects. Further, as noted above, absent additional evidence, the skilled artisan would have expected substantially similar performance at 1% as at Cho’s ~ 3% due to the apparent lack of criticality of 0.4–1 wt% (MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding the lithium composite transition metal compound’s including a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1, Hwang further teaches a general formula of Li1+aNixCoyMnzM1wO2, where preferably 0 ≤ a ≤ 0.5, 0.8 ≤ x ≤ 1, 0 < y ≤ 0.2, 0 < z ≤ 0.2, 0 < w ≤ 0.01, and M1 is B, Zr, Mg, Ti, Sr, W, and/or Al for high capacity and stability (¶ 0040–0042). Such Li, Ni, Co, Mn, M1, and O contents fall within claim 17’s respective ranges, and the M1’s w-content overlaps or is capable of satisfying claim 17’s d = 0.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to specifically employ Hwang’s active-material formula—while routinely selecting molar values of the metals that satisfy the instant b–d ranges (MPEP 2144.05 (I))—with the reasonable expectation of achieving high capacity and stability, as taught by Hwang.
Regarding claim 20, modified Cho discloses the lithium secondary battery of claim 7.
Cho further discloses that the negative electrode active material layer may contain carbon-based active materials such as artificial graphite (¶ 0098) but fails to explicitly embody such.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely incorporate artificial graphite into Cho’s negative electrode active material with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful negative electrode (e.g., MPEP 2143 (A.), 2144.07).
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Cho et al. (US 20130171524 A1) (Cho) in view of Hwang et al. (WO 2020106024 A1; citations to English equivalent US 20210408537 A1) (Hwang), taken alone or, alternatively, further in view of Zhang et al. (CN 110224114 A) (Zhang), as applied to claim 7, further in view of Han et al. (US 20200185714 A1) (Han).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, modified Cho discloses the lithium secondary battery according to claim 7.
Cho further discloses that lithium rechargeable batteries generate electric power (¶ 0005, 0006) but fails to explicitly articulate a battery module comprising the lithium secondary battery according to claim 7 and a battery pack comprising the module.
Han, in teaching a lithium secondary battery including single-particle positive electrode material (Abstract, Title), teaches incorporating the battery into a battery module and incorporating the module into a battery pack to power medium- or large-sized devices such as EVs (¶ 0113, 0114).
Han is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery modules/packs.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely incorporate Cho’s battery into a battery module and incorporate the module into a pack with the reasonable expectation of powering medium- or large-sized devices, as suggested by Han.
Claim(s) 1–9, 11, 12, 16, 17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura et al. (US 20160351905 A1, from 12/15/23 IDS) (Kawamura) in view of Hwang et al. (WO 2020106024 A1; citations to English equivalent US 20210408537 A1) (Hwang), taken alone or, alternatively, further in view of Zhang et al. (CN 110224114 A) (Zhang).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 12, Kawamura discloses a cylindrical lithium secondary battery (e.g., fig. 1, ¶ 0036–0039) comprising a positive electrode comprising a positive electrode active material layer on a positive electrode current collector (e.g., ¶ 0036), a negative electrode active material layer on a negative electrode current collector (e.g., ¶ 0037); a separator between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (e.g., ¶ 0039); and an electrolyte (¶ 0038, 0039); the positive electrode active material layer comprising a composition comprising a positive electrode active material comprising a lithium composite transition metal compound (e.g., ¶ 0017, 0018, 0034, 0036).
Kawamura discloses that the active material is preferably one with high volumetric energy density, such as LiNiCoMnO2 (¶ 0019) but, in appearing unconcerned with the specific content or morphology of such, fails to explicitly disclose that the lithium composite transition metal compound is in a form of a single particle comprising Li, Co, Mn, and Ni, wherein the Ni constitutes 80 mol% or more and less than 100 mol% among the metals except Li.
Hwang, in teaching a positive electrode active material (Abstract), teaches a lithium transition metal oxide including Ni, Co, and Mn, with Ni content of preferably 85–90 mol% with respect to the total transition-metal content, for high capacity (¶ 0032, 0033). Hwang further teaches that, as the active material is in single-particle form, particle strength increases, and, thus, active-material cracking may be reduced during (dis)charge (¶ 0039).
Hwang and Kawamura are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely positive electrode active material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to employ Hwang’s material containing Li, Ni, Co, and Mn, with Ni content of preferably 85–90 mol% with respect to the total transition-metal content, as Kawamura’s active material with the reasonable expectation of achieving high capacity, as taught by Hwang. It would have been further obvious to incorporate the active material as single particles with the reasonable expectation of strengthening the particles to reduce active-material cracking during (dis)charge, as taught by Hwang.
Kawamura further discloses that the composition comprises an additive (¶ 0021).
Kawamura discloses that the additive is represented by general formula LixAyBzO4, where x = 4–7, y = 0.5–1.5, z = 0.01–1.5, A is Co and/or Fe, and B is Mn, Zn, Al, Ga, Ge, Ti, Si, Sn, Ce, Y, Zr, S, and/or Na (claim 2). Further, Kawamura embodies Li6Co0.9Zn0.1O4, Li6Co0.7Zn0.3O4, Li6Co0.9Al0.1O4, and Li6Co0.7Al0.3O4 (Table 1, Exs. 1-9 through 1-12, respectively), as well as co-doped additives (e.g., Li5Fe0.99Ce0.008Zr0.002O4 in Table 1’s Ex. 5). Such A and B identities and values, as well as the ability for co-doping, appear to overlap or encompass the instant Co, Zn, and Al contents.
Though Kawamura fails to explicitly disclose an additive represented by Chemical Formula A, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely employ a Li-Co-Al-based additive co-doped with a non-zero amount of Zn (such as co-doping Kawamura’s Li6Co0.9Al0.1O4 or Li6Co0.7Al0.3O4 with Zn) as the additive with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful positive electrode additive.
Alternatively, Zhang, in teaching a Li-rich, tetroxide-based positive electrode material (Abstract), teaches a co-doped oxide of, e.g., Li6Co0.97Ti0.01Al0.01Zn0.01O4 (Ex. 5, ¶ 0077 and 0078).
Zhang is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely positive electrode active material.
As Zhang generally recognizes that relatively low Zn content is compatible alongside Al-doped, tetroxide-based positive electrode material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely employ an additive co-doped with a non-zero amount of Zn alongside Kawamura’s Li-Co-Al-based additive such as Li6Co0.7Al0.3O4 with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful material for a positive electrode.
Thus, regarding Chemical Formula A, x = 6, and the Co content would be controlled by Zn and Al’s content (as in base Al doping), and M is absent because m = 0.
Although Kawamura may not explicitly embody a y of 0.25–0.5, the B content of 0.01–1.5 is able to overlap or encompass this range (by being controlled by A’s content, as seen in exs.; e.g., if M were Co, with a molar content y of 0.7 (as in Kawamura’s Li6Co0.7Zn0.3O4), such would allow the y content to be 0.3 minus [Al content] and, thus, capable of satisfying 0.25–0.5) such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful additive, absent demonstrated criticality to 0.25–0.5 (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Alternatively, as just discussed, Kawamura’s general formula allows the Zn content to encompass the instant y-value. Importantly, the skilled artisan would recognize that some molar content must necessarily be chosen for each of Al and Zn if co-doped, further understanding that a finite number of molar combinations exist given Cho’s formula, the number of which would further narrow if Co’s content were 0.7. In determining the proper Zn content, then, it would have been obvious to routinely investigate an instant y of, e.g., 0.25—satisfying 0.25 ≤ y ≤ 0.5—with the reasonable expectation of forming a successful additive, absent demonstrated criticality (MPEP 2143 (E.)).
Kawamura further discloses that the additive is preferably 0.1–10 wt% relative to 100 wt% of the active material (¶ 0021; see also exs. with, e.g., 0.1% in ¶ 0064 and 0068), overlapping 0.3–2% (claim 1) and 0.3–1% (claim 2). Importantly, Kawamura discloses that the additive improves charge capacity (¶ 0021), while including too much additive the positive electrode’s initial efficiency may be lower than the negative electrode’s (¶ 0021). To balance these effects, then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited 0.3–2% (claim 1) or 0.3–1% (claim 2) by routinely optimizing the additive’s wt%, including within each overlap (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 3, modified Kawamura discloses the composition of claim 1, comprising the lithium composite transition metal compound in an amount of 100 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the entire positive electrode active material (by the active material’s consisting of the lithium composite metal compound, as seen throughout Kawamura’s disclosure and exs.).
Regarding claim 4, modified Kawamura discloses the composition of claim 1, further comprising a positive electrode binder and a conductive material (Kawamura, ¶ 0022 and 0036).
Regarding claim 5, modified Kawamura discloses the composition of claim 1.
Kawamura further desires to use a highly alkaline-resistant binder to keep the positive-electrode slurry from gelling (¶ 0022)—and, thus, seems to desire relatively low viscosity—but is silent to the recited viscosity during storage at 40°C and RH 10% for 3 days.
However, the instant specification notes that this viscosity stems from mixing the Formula A additive with the active material when forming the electrode slurry (e.g., Table 1’s Ex. 1 vs. Comp. Ex. 1; see also p. 53, lines 8–19, and p. 54, lines 1–10). As Kawamura discloses a substantially similar slurry-preparation method (simple mixing of active material and additive, followed by further mixing with binder, conductive material, and organic solvent at weight ratios substantially similar to the instant disclosure, e.g., Ex. 1, ¶ 0034–0036) compared to the instant specification (e.g., Ex. 1, pp. 49–51), the skilled artisan would have reasonably expected modified Kawamura’s viscosity to fall within or at least overlap the recited viscosity under the recited conditions (MPEP 2112.01 (I)) such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful slurry with suitable viscosity (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Assuming, arguendo, that the above were not necessarily true, the skilled artisan would recognize that Kawamura’s slurry would necessarily possess a minimum viscosity due to the dispersed active material, conductive material, and binder (¶ 0036), understanding that each material must necessarily be included at a concentration sufficient to perform its respective function—i.e., active material provides ion intercalation/capacity, additive increases charge capacity (¶ 0021), conductive material provides conductivity, and binder adheres active and conductive materials together and to collector—without detracting from the other materials’ functions. The artisan would further recognize, meanwhile, that making the slurry too thick—i.e., a too high viscosity—would necessarily make the slurry harder to coat on the collector. To balance these effects, then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited range by routinely optimizing the composition’s viscosity (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, modified Kawamura discloses the lithium secondary battery of claim 7.
Kawamura further discloses, in separate embodiments (Ref. Ex. 4, ¶ 0071), employing SiO and graphite at ratios of 5–50:95–50 (¶ 0071), where the highest initial discharge capacity and initial efficiency were achieved at the highest SiO content, while the highest initial efficiency was achieved at the highest C content (Table 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate a mixture of 5–50:95–50 of SiO as silicon oxide and graphite as carbon-based active material into Kawamura’s negative electrode active material layer with the reasonable expectation of achieving high initial (dis)charge capacity and initial efficiency, as suggested by Kawamura. Further, to balance these factors, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited silicon-oxide content by routinely optimizing the SiO:graphite ratio, including within the overlap (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 11, modified Kawamura discloses the lithium secondary battery of claim 9, wherein the negative electrode active material layer further comprises a negative electrode binder (Kawamura, ¶ 0037).
Kawamura further discloses that the negative active layer preferably further contains a conductive material (¶ 0027) but fails to embody such above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate a conductive material into Kawamura’s negative active layer with the reasonable expectation of achieving suitable conductivity, as suggested by Kawamura (e.g., MPEP 2143 (A.)).
Regarding claim 16, modified Kawamura discloses the composition of claim 1.
Similar to claim 1’s discussion, Kawamura’s 0.1–10 wt% additive overlaps the instant 0.4–2%, and, in balancing including the additive at a content sufficient to increase charge capacity without reducing the positive electrode’s initial efficiency (Kawamura’s ¶ 0021), it would have been obvious to arrive at the instant range by routinely optimizing the additive’s wt%, including within the overlap (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Kawamura further desires to use a highly alkaline-resistant binder to keep the positive-electrode slurry from gelling (¶ 0022)—and, thus, seems to desire relatively low viscosity—but is silent to the recited viscosity during storage at 40°C and RH 10% for 3 days.
However, the instant specification notes that this viscosity stems from mixing the Formula A additive with the active material when forming the electrode slurry (e.g., Table 1’s Ex. 1 vs. Comp. Ex. 1; see also p. 53, lines 8–19, and p. 54, lines 1–10). As Kawamura discloses a substantially similar slurry-preparation method (simple mixing of active material and additive, followed by further mixing with binder, conductive material, and organic solvent at weight ratios substantially similar to the instant disclosure, e.g., Ex. 1, ¶ 0034–0036) compared to the instant specification (e.g., Ex. 1, pp. 49–51), the skilled artisan would have reasonably expected modified Kawamura’s viscosity to fall within or at least overlap the recited viscosity under the recited conditions (MPEP 2112.01 (I)) such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful slurry with suitable viscosity (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Assuming, arguendo, that the above were not necessarily true, the skilled artisan would recognize that Kawamura’s slurry would necessarily possess a minimum viscosity due to the dispersed active material, conductive material, and binder (¶ 0036), understanding that each material must necessarily be included at a concentration sufficient to perform its respective function—i.e., active material provides ion intercalation/capacity, additive increases charge capacity (¶ 0021), conductive material provides conductivity, and binder adheres active and conductive materials together and to collector—without detracting from the other materials’ functions. The artisan would further recognize, meanwhile, that making the slurry too thick—i.e., a too high viscosity—would necessarily make the slurry harder to coat on the collector. To balance these effects, then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited range by routinely optimizing the composition’s viscosity (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding the lithium composite transition metal compound’s including a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1, Hwang further teaches a general formula of Li1+aNixCoyMnzM1wO2, where preferably 0 ≤ a ≤ 0.5, 0.8 ≤ x ≤ 1, 0 < y ≤ 0.2, 0 < z ≤ 0.2, 0 < w ≤ 0.01, and M1 is B, Zr, Mg, Ti, Sr, W, and/or Al for high capacity and stability (¶ 0040–0042). Such Li, Ni, Co, Mn, M1, and O contents fall within claim 16’s respective ranges.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to specifically employ Hwang’s active-material formula with the reasonable expectation of achieving high capacity and stability, as taught by Hwang.
Regarding claim 17, modified Cho discloses the composition of claim 1.
Similar to claim 1’s discussion, Kawamura’s 0.1–10 wt% additive overlaps the instant 0.4–1%, and, in balancing including the additive at a content sufficient to increase charge capacity without reducing the positive electrode’s initial efficiency (Kawamura’s ¶ 0021), it would have been obvious to arrive at the instant range by routinely optimizing the additive’s wt%, including within the overlap (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding the lithium composite transition metal compound’s including a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1, Hwang further teaches a general formula of Li1+aNixCoyMnzM1wO2, where preferably 0 ≤ a ≤ 0.5, 0.8 ≤ x ≤ 1, 0 < y ≤ 0.2, 0 < z ≤ 0.2, 0 < w ≤ 0.01, and M1 is B, Zr, Mg, Ti, Sr, W, and/or Al for high capacity and stability (¶ 0040–0042). Such Li, Ni, Co, Mn, M1, and O contents fall within claim 17’s respective ranges, and the M1’s w-content overlaps or is capable of satisfying claim 17’s d = 0.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to specifically employ Hwang’s active-material formula—while routinely selecting molar values of the metals that satisfy the instant b–d ranges (MPEP 2144.05 (I))—with the reasonable expectation of achieving high capacity and stability, as taught by Hwang.
Regarding claim 19, modified Cho discloses the lithium secondary battery of claim 7.
Kawamura further discloses, in separate embodiments (Ref. Ex. 4, ¶ 0071), employing SiO and graphite at ratios of 5–50:95–50 (¶ 0071), where the highest initial discharge capacity and initial efficiency were achieved at the highest SiO content, while the highest initial efficiency was achieved at the highest C content (Table 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate a mixture of 5–50:95–50 of SiO as silicon oxide and graphite as carbon-based active material into Kawamura’s negative electrode active material layer with the reasonable expectation of achieving high initial (dis)charge capacity and initial efficiency, as suggested by Kawamura. Further, to balance these factors, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited silicon-oxide content by routinely optimizing the SiO:graphite ratio, including within the overlap (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 20, modified Kawamura discloses the lithium secondary battery of claim 7.
Kawamura further embodies graphite in the negative active layer (¶ 0036) yet, while further specifying that the graphite may be artificial (¶ 0026), fails to explicitly disclose such in the above embodiment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely use artificial graphite in Kawamura’s negative electrode active material with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful negative electrode (e.g., MPEP 2143 (A.), 2144.07).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura et al. (US 20160351905 A1) (Kawamura) in view of Hwang et al. (WO 2020106024 A1; citations to English equivalent US 20210408537 A1) (Hwang), taken alone or, alternatively, further in view of Zhang et al. (CN 110224114 A) (Zhang), as applied to claim 8, further in view of Matsuno et al. (US 20190341602 A1) (Matsuno).
Regarding claim 10, modified Kawamura discloses the lithium secondary battery of claim 8.
As discussed above, Kawamura exemplarily discloses the SiO as the negative active material and, though further desiring a Li-alloying active material (¶ 0026), fails to explicitly disclose that the silicon-based oxide comprises Mg and/or Li.
Matsuno, in teaching a negative electrode material including a silicon compound particle containing SiOx (Abstract), teaches inserting Li so that that the particle further contains Li2SiO3 and/or Li4SiO4 (Abstract, ¶ 0052). Matsuno teaches that such silicates reduce irreversible capacity from charging to improve the battery’s capacity and cycle characteristics (¶ 0067).
Matsuno is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely negative electrode active material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to insert Li into Kawamura’s SiOx to form a silicate, as taught by Matsuno, with the reasonable expectation of reducing irreversible capacity from charging to improve the battery’s capacity and cycle characteristics, as taught by Matsuno.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura et al. (US 20160351905 A1) (Kawamura) in view of Hwang et al. (WO 2020106024 A1; citations to English equivalent US 20210408537 A1) (Hwang), taken alone or, alternatively, further in view of Zhang et al. (CN 110224114 A) (Zhang), as applied to claim 7, further in view of Han et al. (US 20200185714 A1) (Han).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, modified Kawamura discloses the lithium secondary battery according to claim 7.
Kawamura further discloses that lithium rechargeable batteries generate electric power (¶ 0002) but fails to explicitly articulate a battery module comprising the lithium secondary battery according to claim 7 and a battery pack comprising the module.
Han, in teaching a lithium secondary battery including single-particle positive electrode material (Abstract, Title), teaches incorporating the battery into a battery module and incorporating the module into a battery pack to power medium- or large-sized devices such as EVs (¶ 0113, 0114).
Han is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery modules/packs.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely incorporate Kawamura’s battery into a battery module and incorporate the module into a pack with the reasonable expectation of powering medium- or large-sized devices, as suggested by Han.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Cho includes no examples with both Al and Zn; Zhang’s Ex. 5 of Li6Co0.97Ti0.01Al0.01Zn0.01O4 and Kawamura’s embodied Li5Fe0.9Al0.1O4 are each outside 0.25 ≤ y ≤ 0.5; and Hwang does not disclose the Formula A composition. Examiner respectfully submits that Applicant’s argument appears piecemeal. Although Examiner agrees that Cho and Kawamura include no examples with both Al and Zn, Examiner cited Cho and Kawamura’s general formulae, each of which allows a combination of dopants such as Al and Zn (¶ 0021–0023 of Cho, claim 2 of Kawamura), so it would have been within the skilled artisan’s ambit to co-dope Al and Zn. Though Zhang’s exemplified Zn content may be outside the recited range, Zhang was only used to generally demonstrate that Al and Zn are compatible as co-dopants at relatively low concentrations, so the artisan would have applied this concept of co-doping and worked within Cho or Kawamura to determine suitable contents of Zn and Al (see MPEP 2145 (IV), where obviousness is based not on individual teachings but on the prior art’s combined suggestions).
As Examiner further observes no criticality to 0.25 ≤ y ≤ 0.5 in the instant disclosure, the skilled artisan would have routinely selected values within the broader overlaps of Zn and Al contents and/or routinely investigated a y content of 0.25–0.5 as a sub-set of values of the finite, possible set of values from Cho and Kawamura’s broader ranges and reasonably expected to achieve a successful additive (MPEP 2144.05 (I), 2143 (E.)), so each case of obviousness appears to remain proper.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN S MEDLEY whose telephone number is (703)756-4600. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00–5:00 EST M–Th and 8:00–12:00 EST F.
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, Jonathan Leong, can be reached on 571-270-192. 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.
/J.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 7/10/2026
Prosecution Insights