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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05/28/2024 and 06/09/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20210167365 A1), hereinafter "Kim" in view of Noh et al. (US 20230178727 A1), hereinafter "Noh". Kim and Noh are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely positive active materials.
In regard to Claims 1-3 and 5-7, Kim et al. discloses a positive electrode plate comprising: a first active material that is a lithium-(transition metal) composite oxide with a D50 of 7 to 20 μm; and a second active material that is a lithium-(transition metal) composite oxide having a smaller average particle size (D50) than the first active material with a D50 of 2 to 6 μm (Kim, Abstract, [0041-0052]), which overlaps the claimed ranges and Kim et al. discloses wherein a crystallite size of the second active material is 180 nm or more (Kim, Abstract), which overlaps the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference, as overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Kim et al. also discloses a specific example wherein a ratio (Li/M) between a number of moles of lithium (Li) and a total number of moles of transition metal (M) in the first active material is 1.05 or more (1.1 which anticipates 1.12 or less), and a ratio (Li/M) between a number of moles of lithium (Li) and a total number of moles of transition metal (M) in the second active material is 1.04 or less (1.0 - which anticipates 0.98 or more) and a mass ratio between the first active material and the second active material ((first active material)/(second active material)) is 70:30, which anticipates the claimed range (Kim, Example 1).
The skilled artisan of Kim already provides the second lithium transition metal oxide with a smaller D50 than the first lithium transition metal oxide and a ratio (Li/M) of 1.0 in Example 1, which anticipates the claimed parameters and further, the skilled artisan must provide the crystallite size of the second active material in a range of 180nm or more which may reasonable include selecting lithium transition metal oxides with crystallite size above 800nm as evidenced by Noh et al. which disclose a beneficial lithium transition metal oxide with a particle size between 2 μm to 10 μm, an Li/M ratio of 1.00 and a crystallite size of 857nm (Noh, Example 8, Table 2, [0060]) wherein the crystallite size is adjusted to promote movement of lithium ions in the cathode active material so that an initial efficiency of a lithium secondary battery is improved (Noh, Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a second lithium transition metal oxide with Li/M of 1.0, particle size of 2-10μm and adjust the crystallite size to more than 800nm as taught in Noh et al. as the second lithium transition metal oxide of Kim as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Noh and as doing so would amount to nothing more than the skilled artisan optimizing a result effective variable without undue experimentation.
In regard to Claim 8, Kim et al. discloses the positive electrode plate according to claim 1. Kim et al. also discloses wherein each of the first active material and the second active material includes nickel (Ni) in an amount of 80 mol% or more of a total amount of transition metal based on Formula 1 and Formula 2 (Kim, Claims 6-7), it would be reasonable to select a lithium transition metal oxide with Ni above 80 mol% as doing so would be obvious to try for the skilled artisan.
In regard to Claim 9, Kim et al. discloses the positive electrode plate according to claim 1. Kim et al. also discloses wherein the second active material is a secondary particle formed of a plurality of primary particles aggregated together (Kim, [0053]).
In regard to Claim 10, Kim et al. discloses the positive electrode plate according to claim 1. Kim et al. also discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising: an electrode assembly having the positive electrode plate according to claim 1, a negative electrode plate, and a separator interposed between the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate; and an electrolyte solution (Kim, [0067, 0074-0076]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20210167365 A1), hereinafter "Kim" in view of Noh et al. (US 20230178727 A1), hereinafter "Noh" as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kim 2 (US 20210005877 A1), hereinafter "Kim 2". Kim, Noh, and Kim 2 et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely positive active materials.
In regard to Claim 4, Kim et al. discloses the positive electrode plate according to claim 1. Kim et al. also discloses the Li/Me ratio of the active material is a variable which can be selected and optimized by the skilled artisan and considering the margin of error within the ratio calculation and that Kim discloses a range of 0.9-1, which may reasonable include 1.01 (Kim, [0014]) the skilled artisan would reasonably expect the same properties between the two.
Further, the skilled artisan would be well aware of lithium transition metal oxides which comprise an Li/Me ratio of 1.01 or more and that processing may alter the final stochiometric ratio so that a lithium transition metal oxide with Li/Me of 1.01 would still reasonably fall within a suitable range of Kim in its final state as evidenced by Kim 2 et al. which discloses a beneficial first and second lithium transition metal oxide wherein the second lithium transition metal oxide comprises a particle size of 2.6µm, a stoichiometry effected by processing and finishes with a Li/Me of 1.01 (Abstract, Kim 2, Ex-B01). This active material has the advantage of increasing the volumetric density (Kim 2, [0052]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide the second lithium transition metal oxide with a Li/Me ratio of 1.01 as taught in Kim 2 as the second active material of Kim as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of success and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MAX OTERO whose telephone number is (571)272-2559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Generally 7:30-430.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JONATHAN CREPEAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights