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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 9/11/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I: claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 9/11/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is a lack of a serious search burden. This is not found persuasive because the inventions require a different field of search (e.g. searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries), thus requiring a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required. For example, Group 1: claims 1-14 are drawn to a vehicle comprising a battery cell, which requires a search in H2220/20 and search there is not required for Group II, while Group II: claims 15-20 are drawn to a method of manufacturing an electrode, which requires a search in B60L 50/64 and search there is not required for Group I. Thus, it is shown that these inventions would at least require searching different classes/subclasses.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 3/11/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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.
Claims 8-10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 20210399308 A1), hereinafter “Kim”, as cited in the IDS dated 3/11/2025.
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches a lithium-ion battery cell (corresponding to the claimed battery cell) (Kim, [0120], lines 1-6) comprising:
An anode that may comprise a current collector (corresponding to the claimed anode current collector) (Kim, [0120], lines 1-6)
A cathode that may comprise a current collector (corresponding to claimed cathode current collector) (Kim, [0120], lines 1-6)
A first coating layer that may comprise a first active material, wherein the first coating layer may be disposed on the anode current collector (corresponding to the claimed anode active material layer in direct contact with a surface of the anode current collector) (Kim, [0120], lines 1-6; [0053], lines 1-5)
A first coating layer that may comprise a first active material, wherein the first coating layer may be disposed on the cathode current collector (corresponding to the claimed cathode active material layer in direct contact with a surface of the cathode current collector) (Kim, [0120], lines 1-6; [0053] lines 1-5)
The cathode may be multi-layered (Kim, [0119], lines 15-18), wherein a first coating layer 111 may comprise a first active material and a second coating layer 112 may comprise a different second active material (corresponding to the claimed cathode active material layer comprising a dual-chemistry electrode) (Kim, [0053], lines 1-5).
The first coating layer may be in contact with a side of the current collector and a second coating layer may be disposed on the first coating layer opposite to the current collector (corresponding to the claimed cathode active material layer comprising a first cathode layer in direct contact with the cathode current collector and a second cathode layer positioned directly on the first cathode layer) (Kim, [0119], lines 1-10)
The first active material and the second active material may have different compositions (corresponding to the claimed first cathode layer and the second cathode layer comprise a different chemical makeup) (Kim, [0118], lines 139-145)
Further regarding claim 8, the instant specification defines “D50” as a median value of particle diameters (Instant specification, [0055], lines 1-3). Kim teaches that the active material of the first layer may have a greater D50 size than the active material of the second layer (Kim, [0118], lines 111-112). Since the median size of Kim’s first layer active material is not equal to Kim’s second layer active material, then Kim’s first layer active material size distribution cannot be equal to Kim’s second layer active material size distribution (corresponding to the claimed first cathode layer and the second cathode layer comprise at least one of a different particle size distribution).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, as stated in the rejection of claim 8 above, Kim teaches the active material of the first layer may have a greater D50 size than the active material of the second layer (corresponding to the claimed second particle size distribution is smaller than the first particle size distribution) (Kim, [0118], lines 111-112). Therefore, Kim’s first layer active material size distribution cannot be equal to Kim’s second layer active material size distribution (corresponding to the claimed first cathode layer comprises a material having a first particle size distribution and the second cathode layer comprises a material having a second particle size distribution different than the first particle size distribution).
Regarding claim 12, the instant specification states nickel manganese cobalt oxide (NMC) as an example of a material having a layered oxide structure (Instant specification, [0057], lines 4-6). Kim teaches that the first active material in the first coating layer may be NMC (corresponding to the claimed first cathode layer comprises at least one of a layered oxide structure, a spinel oxide structure, a two-phase structure, and a non-olivine type structure) (Kim, [0053], lines 1-9).
The instant specification states lithium iron phosphate (LFP) as an example of a material having an olivine structure (Instant specification, [0057], lines 8-9). Kim teaches that the second active material in the second coating layer may be LFP (corresponding to the claimed second cathode layer comprises an olivine structure) (Kim, [0053], lines 1-9).
Regarding claims 13-14, Kim teaches that the first coating layer 111 may comprise NMC as a first active material (corresponding to the claimed first cathode layer comprises at least one of nickel cobalt manganese aluminum oxide (NCMA), nickel manganese cobalt oxide (NMC), nickel cobalt aluminum oxide (NCA), lithium manganese oxide (LMO), lithium nickel manganese oxide (LNMO), lithium manganese rich (LMR) and the claimed first cathode layer comprises NMC) (Kim, [0053], lines 1-9).
Kim also teaches that the second coating layer 112 may comprise LFP as a second active material (corresponding to the claimed second cathode layer comprises at least one of lithium iron phosphate (LFP) and lithium manganese iron phosphate (LMFP) and the claimed second cathode layer comprises LFP) (Kim, [0053], lines 1-9).
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20210399308 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Kim teaches that the first coating layer 111 (corresponding to the claimed first cathode layer) may comprise particulates, wherein the particulates comprise active material with a bimodal particle size distribution (PSD) (corresponding to the claimed first cathode layer comprises a bi-modal particle size distribution) (Kim, [0060], lines 1-5).
Kim further teaches a bimodal particle size distribution (Kim, [0073], lines 1-7; [0074], lines 7-17) comprising a first peak 302 that may correspond to a first particle size of less than or equal to 10µm (Kim, [0074], lines 7-17), which overlaps with the instantly claimed D50 value between 1.0 and 5.0 microns. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05. It would have been within the skill of one of ordinary skill to select any value of a first peak within the disclosed range, including a value within the claimed range, as it has been held that overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious.
Kim also teaches the bimodal particle size distribution comprising a second peak 303 that may correspond to a second particle size of less than or equal to 20µm (Kim, [0074], lines 7-17), which overlaps with the instantly claimed D50 value between 5.0 and 15.0 microns. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05. It would have been within the skill of one of ordinary skill to select any value of a second peak within the disclosed range, including a value within the claimed range, as it has been held that overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious.
Kim teaches a first coating layer 111 particle size range of less than or equal to 10µm (Kim, [0058], lines 1-17), which overlaps with the instantly claimed first cathode layer particle diameters ranging between 0.7 and 7.0 microns and ranging between 5.0 and 30.0 microns. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05. It would have been within the skill of one of ordinary skill to select any value of particle size within the disclosed range, including a value within the claimed range, as it has been held that overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious.
Kim teaches particulates in the second coating layer 112 may comprise a normal particle size distribution (corresponding to the claimed second cathode layer comprising a single-modal particle size distribution) (Kim, [0060], lines 1-5). Kim also teaches the second coating layer 112 particles with a D50 value range of 5µm to 20µm (corresponding to the claimed D50 value of between 0.05 and 100.0 microns) (Kim, [0056], lines 37-39). Since a D50 value denotes the median of a particle size distribution (Instant specification, [0055], lines 1-4) and Kim’s D50 value range of 5µm to 20µm for the second coating layer 112 resides within the instantly claimed D50 range (Kim, [0056], lines 37-39), then the particle size distributions associated with Kim’s D50 value range must overlap with the instantly claimed second cathode layer particle diameters ranging between 0.01 and 200.0 microns. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05. It would have been within the skill of one of ordinary skill to select any value of particle size within the disclosed range, including a value within the claimed range, as it has been held that overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20210399308 A1) in view of Takami et al. (US 20080067972 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches the battery cell, as discussed in the rejection of claim 8 above (Kim, [0120], lines 1-6; [0053], lines 1-5; [0119], lines 1-10 & 15-18; [0118], lines 111-112 & 139-145). Kim further teaches a battery pack comprising a plurality of battery cells (corresponding to the claimed battery pack comprising a battery cell) (Kim, [0026], lines 10-14). Kim also teaches that the battery pack may be for an electric or hybrid vehicle (corresponding to the claimed vehicle comprising a battery pack) (Kim, [0106], lines 14-17).
Kim does not teach the vehicle comprising an electric motor and the battery pack electrically coupled to the electric motor. However, Takami teaches a hybrid vehicle comprising a motor (corresponding to the claimed electric motor), wherein a battery module unit is connected to the motor by a control circuit (corresponding to the claimed battery pack electrically coupled to the electric motor) (Takami, [0113], lines 1-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add Takami's motor to the vehicle of Kim in order to drive a wheel (Takami, [0113], lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches the first cathode layer comprising a material having a first particle size distribution and the second cathode layer comprises a material having a second particle size distribution different than the first particle size distribution, as discussed regarding claim 9 above (Kim, [0118], lines 111-112).
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches the second particle size distribution as smaller than the first particle size distribution, as discussed regarding claim 10 above (Kim, [0118], lines 111-112).
Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches the first cathode layer comprises a bi-modal particle size distribution with a first set of particles having a diameter ranging between 0.1 and 7.0 microns with a D50 value of between 1.0 and 5.0 microns and a second set of particles having a diameter ranging between 5.0 and 30.0 microns with a D50 value of between 5.0 and 15.0 microns; and wherein the second cathode layer comprises a single-modal particle size distribution with particles having a diameter ranging between 0.01 and 200.0 microns with a D50 value of between 0.05 and 100.0 microns, as discussed regarding claim 11 above (Kim, [0060], lines 1-5; [0056], lines 37-39; [0073], lines 1-7; [0074], lines 7-17; [0058], lines 1-17).
Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches the first cathode layer comprising at least one of a layered oxide structure, a spinel oxide structure, a two-phase structure, and a non-olivine type structure and the second cathode layer comprises an olivine structure, as discussed regarding claim 12 above (Kim, [0053], lines 1-9).
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches the first cathode layer comprising at least one of nickel cobalt manganese aluminum oxide (NCMA), nickel manganese cobalt oxide (NMC), nickel cobalt aluminum oxide (NCA), lithium manganese oxide (LMO), lithium nickel manganese oxide (LNMO), lithium manganese rich (LMR) and the second cathode layer comprises at least one of lithium iron phosphate (LFP) and lithium manganese iron phosphate (LMFP), as discussed regarding claim 13 above (Kim, [0053], lines 1-9).
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches the first cathode layer comprising NMC and the second cathode layer comprises LFP, as discussed regarding claim 14 above (Kim, [0053], lines 1-9).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rachel Avina whose telephone number is (571)270-0429. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-3:30pm.
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 Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1177. 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.
/R.M.A./ Examiner, Art Unit 1734
/JONATHAN JOHNSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1734
