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 Objections
Claims 17 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 17, the limitation “CB value” should be first stated as a “cell balance” value before using the acronym in order to improve clarity.
In claim 20, the limitation “1.5 to mg/cm3” should be amended to read “1.5 mg/cm3” to correct grammar.
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 1-20 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, the limitation “on either or both sides of the positive electrode current collector” is indefinite because it is unclear which sides are being referred to or if the limitation intends to require the positive electrode current collector only has two sides.
In claim 1, the limitation “on both sides of the surface” is indefinite because it is unclear what sides are being referred to or if the limitation intends to require that the positive electrode current collector surface only has two sides.
In claims 12 and 15, the limitation “the lithium cobalt oxide” is indefinite because it is unclear whether this limitation refers to a lithium cobalt oxide first active material (recited as one of the Markush group in claim 11), a lithium cobalt oxide second active material, or either lithium cobalt oxide.
In claim 17, the limitations “a first active material” and “a second active material” are indefinite because it is unclear whether these limitations are intended to refer to the first and second active material recited in claim 1 or different active materials.
Claims 2-20 are indefinite by virtue of depending on an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 11-12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Han (US 20220328808 A1). Min (NPL – “A comparative study of structural changes in lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide as a function of Ni content during delithiation process”) is used as evidence of inherency.
Regarding claim 1, Han (US 20220328808 A1) teaches a positive electrode sheet/plate including a positive electrode active material layer (110,, 120) applied on at least one surface of a positive electrode current collector, wherein the positive electrode active material layer includes a first active material layer 110 located in a middle region of a surface of the current collector along a length direction and a second active material layer 120 located at edges on both sides of the first active material layer on the surface of the current collector, wherein the first active material layer includes a first active material of lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide with a nickel content of 70 mol% or more and the second active material layer includes a second active material of lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide with the content of nickel less than 70 mol% (para 0027-0032; Fig. 1).
Han fails to explicitly teach the first active material has a specific capacity greater than that of the second active material. However, Min (NPL), in the analogous art of lithium nickel manganese oxides, teaches that it is well known that an increase in nickel content results in an increase of capacity (Abstract). Therefore, the first active material of Han, which has a higher nickel content than the second active material, would necessarily have a specific capacity greater than the specific capacity of the second active material.
Regarding claim 2, Han teaches a region of the first active material layer 110 is connected to a region of the second active material layer 120 (para 0030; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Han teaches the second active material layer region has a width of 1 to 15% of a width of the first active material layer region and the lengths of each region are equal, so the ratio of areas S2/S1 is equal to W2/W1, or 0.01 to 0.15 (para 0040; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Han teaches the ratio of areas is 0.01 to 0.15 (greater than or equal to 0.005 and less than or equal to 0.15) (para 0040; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Han teaches the first and second positive electrode active material is lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide (nickel cobalt manganese ternary material) (para 0031-0032).
Regarding claim 12, Han teaches the first positive electrode active material is lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide (nickel cobalt manganese ternary material) (para 0031).
Regarding claim 16, Han teaches a lithium secondary battery that comprises the positive electrode plate according to claim 1 (para 0048-57).
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.
Claim(s) 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US 20220328808 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (US 20140342246 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Han teaches a region of the first active material layer 110 is connected to a region of the second active material layer 120 (para 0030; Fig. 1).
Alternatively, Han fails to explicitly teach the specific capacity of the first active material is 125 to 190 mAh/g and the specific capacity of the second active material ranges from 120 to 190 mAh/g. However, Kim (US 20140342246 A1), in the analogous art of positive electrode active material, teaches a lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide varies from 150 to 190 mAh/g specific capacity depending on the nickel content (Abstract, para 0011, 0047). Han teaches that the first active material preferably has 70 mol% or more nickel and the second active material preferably has 45 to 60 mol% (para 0031-0032). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the first active material and second active material of Han with lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide having 75% Ni and a specific capacity of 180 mAh/g (125 to 190 mAh/g) and lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide having 60% Ni and a specific capacity of 170 mAh/g (120 to 190 mAh/g), respectively, as described by Kim, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Han and Kim teaches the first active material has a specific capacity of 180 mAh/g and the second active material has a specific capacity of 170 mAh/g, resulting in the first active material specific capacity being greater by 10 mAh/g (0.1 mAh/g to 240 mAh/g) (Han para 0031-0032; Kim para 0011).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Han and Kim teaches the first active material has a specific capacity of 180 mAh/g and the second active material has a specific capacity of 170 mAh/g, resulting in the first active material specific capacity being greater by 10 mAh/g (0.8 mAh/g to 60 mAh/g) (Han para 0031-0032; Kim para 0011).
Claim(s) 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US 20220328808 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Saka (US 20170162866 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Han fails to explicitly teach the first active material layer and the second active material layer have a same surface density and/or same press density and/or same thickness. However, Saka (US 20170162866 A1), in the analogous art of secondary battery electrodes, teaches a positive electrode composite material layer including a first active material 2 and a second active material 1 may have an even/same thickness (para 0083, 0114; Fig. 4-5). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the thicknesses of Han with the same thicknesses, as described by Saka, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Han and Saka teaches the rolling density (press density) of the first positive electrode mixture layer is 2.5 to 4.3 g/cm3 (a press density of the positive electrode plate ranges from 1 to 5 g/cm3).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Han and Saka teaches the D50 particle size may be 1 to 30 micrometers for both the first and second active material (Han para 0033-0034). Though the aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach the second active material particle size is greater than the median particle size of the first active material, one would have expected the use of any value within the Han range to have yielded similar results. Absent any showing of criticality, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any values within 1 to 30 micrometers for each of the first and second active materials, including values resulting in the second active material having a larger diameter than the first active material, with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Han and Saka teaches the D50 particle size may be 1 to 30 micrometers for both the first and second active material (Han para 0033-0034). Though the aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach the difference between the second active material median particle size and the median particle size of the first active material is greater than or equal to 2 micrometers, one would have expected the use of any value within the Han range to have yielded similar results. Absent any showing of criticality, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any values within 1 to 30 micrometers for each of the first and second active materials, including values resulting in the second active material having a larger diameter than the first active material by 2 or more micrometers, with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US 20220328808 A1) in view of Saka (US 20170162866 A1), as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Leng (US 20230223523 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Han and Saka fails to explicitly teach a surface density of the positive electrode plate ranges from 10 to 30 mg/cm2 and/or a press density of the positive electrode plate ranges from 1 to 5 g/cm3. However, Leng (US 20230223523 A1), in the analogous art of positive electrode plates, teaches that a press density of a positive electrode plate may range from 3.3 to 3.5 g/cm3 (a press density of the positive electrode plate ranges from 1 to 5 g/cm3) to prevent expansion of the battery during charging and discharging and to prevent cracking of particles, where the press density may be controlled by adjusting the weight percentages of metal oxides in the positive electrode plate (para 0008, 0016, 0022, 0059, 0066, 0080-0081). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the press density of the positive electrode plate to 3.3 to 3.5 g/cm3 to improve battery performance.
Claim(s) 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US 20220328808 A1), as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Kang (US 20220085368 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Han teaches the first positive electrode anode material may be lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide (ternary material) with 70% or more nickel (para 0031) but fails to explicitly teach the ternary material is monocrystalline or polycrystalline. However, Kang (US 20220085368 A1), in the analogous art of positive electrode active material, teaches a polycrystalline positive electrode active material formed of nickel cobalt manganese oxide having 80% nickel, wherein the median particle size D50 may be 11 micrometers (para 0057-0061). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the nickel cobalt manganese ternary first active material of Han with the polycrystalline nickel cobalt manganese ternary active material of Kang because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Han and Kang teaches the median particle size D50 of the polycrystalline ternary material is 11 micrometers (from 7 to 20 micrometers) (Kang para 0061).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Han and Kang teaches the median particle size D50 of the polycrystalline ternary material is 11 micrometers (from 8 to 12 micrometers) (Kang para 0061).
Claim(s) 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US 20220328808 A1), as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Kim (US 20140342246 A1), Ogata (US 20200176810 A1), and Park (US 20190288336 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Han teaches a negative electrode including a negative electrode active material facing against the positive electrode (para 0057-0060) but fails to explicitly teach a cell balance (CB) value for the first and second positive electrode active material regions, where CB1>CB2. However, Kim (US 20140342246 A1), in the analogous art of positive electrode active material, teaches a lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide varies from 150 to 190 mAh/g specific capacity depending on the nickel content (Abstract, para 0011, 0047). Han teaches that the first active material preferably has 70 mol% or more nickel and the second active material preferably has 45 to 60 mol% (para 0031-0032). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the first active material and second active material of Han with lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide having 75% Ni and a specific capacity of 180 mAh/g and lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide having 60% Ni and a specific capacity of 170 mAh/g, respectively, as described by Kim, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Furthermore, Ogata (US 20200176810 A1), in the analogous art of active material layers, teaches that a lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide electrode layer can have an areal loading (surface density) of 0.3 to 60 mg/cm2. Han also teaches the loading amount per unit area (surface density) in the second active material layer is 70% to 99% of the loading amount in the first active material layer (para 0020, 0037, 0043). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the loading per unit area of each active layer of Han with the areal loading amount of Ogata because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results.
Furthermore, Park (US 20190288336 A1), in the analogous art of batteries, teaches a negative electrode in a lithium secondary battery may include a Si-C and graphite active material loading (surface density) of 12 to 25 mg/cm2, a specific capacity of 380 to 800 mAh/g, and an active material content of about 98 wt% (para 0112-0114). Han teaches the negative electrode active material may include carbon, such as graphite, and silicon (para 0060). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the negative electrode of Han with the negative electrode of Park because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Additionally, Han teaches the first and second electrode layers may include 96% active material (para 0072-0075). As a result, CB1 is equal to ((12 to 25)*(380 to 800)*(0.98))/((0.3 to 60)*(180)*(0.96)) and CB2 is equal to ((12 to 25)*(380 to 800)*(0.98))/((0.3 to 60)*(170)*(0.96)), where the surface density of 0.3 to 60 is larger in the first active material and the negative electrode values are the same for each cell balance. Therefore, the cell balance of the first positive electrode active material (CB1) is necessarily less than the second cell balance CB2 because the numerator of each balance is the same and the denominator of CB1 is larger.
Regarding claim 18, by solving for the values of CB1 and CB2 listed in the rejection of claim 17, the combination of Han, Kim, Ogata, and Park teaches the value of CB2-CB1 ranges from about 25.4 (when surface density of the positive active materials are near 0.3 mg/cm2 and negative electrode values are at their highest) to 0.03 (when surface density of the first active material is about 60 mg/cm2 and the surface density of the second active material is 99% of the first active material surface density and the negative electrode values are at their lowest). Though the aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach CB2-CB1 is between 0 and 0.15, one skilled in the art would have expected the use of any value within the Han, Ogata, and Park ranges to have yielded similar results. Absent any showing of criticality, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any values within 0.03 to 25.4 as CB2-CB1, including values within the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details.
Regarding claim 19, by solving for the values of CB1 and CB2 listed in the rejection of claim 17, the combination of Han, Kim, Ogata, and Park teaches the value of CB2-CB1 ranges from about 25.4 (when surface density of the positive active materials are near 0.3 mg/cm2 and negative electrode values are at their highest) to 0.03 (when surface density of the first active material is about 60 mg/cm2 and the surface density of the second active material is 99% of the first active material surface density and the negative electrode values are at their lowest). Though the aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach CB2-CB1 is between 0.0008 and 0.06, one skilled in the art would have expected the use of any value within the Han, Ogata, and Park ranges to have yielded similar results. Absent any showing of criticality, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any values within 0.03 to 25.4 as CB2-CB1, including values within the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US 20220328808 A1), as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Park (US 20190288336 A1).
Regarding claim 20,Han teaches a negative electrode plate (para 0057-0060) but fails to explicitly teach a surface density of the negative electrode plate ranges from 4 mg/cm2 to 16 mg/cm2 and/or a press density of the negative electrode plate ranges from 1.5 to 1.9 mg/cm3. However, Park (US 20190288336 A1), in the analogous art of batteries, teaches a negative electrode in a lithium secondary battery may include a Si-C and graphite active material loading (surface density) of 12 to 25 mg/cm2 (para 0112-0114). Han teaches the negative electrode active material may include carbon, such as graphite, and silicon (para 0060). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the negative electrode of Han with the negative electrode of Park because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Though the aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach a surface density of 4 to 16 mg/cm2, one skilled in the art would have expected the use of any value within the Park range to have yielded similar results. Absent any showing of criticality, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any values within 12 to 25 mg/cm2, including values within the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK S OTT whose telephone number is (571)272-2415. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/PATRICK S OTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights