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)
with a filing date of 09/30/2021. The certified copy of JP2021-160852 has been filed in the present
application, received on 03/19/2024.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: The word “a” before “secondary battery” in line 5 should be “the”. 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 – 9 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.
Specifically, in Claim 1, the use of parentheses around the recitation “wherein n is an integer greater than or equal to 2” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the subject matter contained within the parentheses are part of the claim invention [See MPEP 2173.05(d)].
In the interest of compact prosecution, the examiner is interpreting the instant claim to include the recitation -- wherein n is an integer greater than or equal to 2--.
Claims 2 – 9 are similarly rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 2 and 4 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US PG Pub. 2020/0185714 A1) in view of Ryu (US PG Pub. 2008/0063939 A1, cited in 03/19/2024 IDS), as evidenced by The Engineering ToolBox (The Engineering ToolBox, “Mineral Hardness – Mohs Scale” webpage, pp. 1 – 10, PDF of relevant website pages provided).
Regarding Claims 1 and 6, Han discloses a positive electrode for a secondary battery ([0015 – 0017]), comprising: a positive electrode current collector ([0081];[0091]); and a positive electrode mixture layer ([0089 – 0090]).
Han teaches the ([0030]). Specifically, Han teaches the active material including small diameter active material particles that are in the form of single particles and large diameter active materials particles that are in the form of secondary particles ([0030];[0033 – 0037];[0058 – 0060]). Therefore, by teaching that the positive electrode active material includes two active material particles that differ in average particle diameter and structure, Han necessarily further discloses the positive electrode including 2 types of positive electrode active materials, which is within the claimed scope of greater than or equal to 2 types.
In the positive electrode active material layer mixture, Han teaches including, in addition to active material, a conductive material and/or binder ([0090]).
Han does not explicitly disclose a low-hardness compound having a lower hardness than any of the n types of positive electrode active materials or further having a Mohs hardness of less than or equal to 3 (Claim 6).
Ryu, directed to electrodes for secondary batteries ([0030]), teaches electrode material compositions including electrode active material and a clay mineral ([0016]). The inclusion of a clay mineral in the electrode material is taught to increase the mechanical strength of the electrode material and improve the impregnation ability of electrolyte ([0016];[0018 – 0020]). Ryu exemplifies using clay minerals such as smectite, bentonite, laponite, hectorite, gibbsite, chlorite, kaolinite, halloysite, pyrophyllite-talc, montmorillonite (MMT), vermiculite, illite, mica, and brittle mica ([0023]). The Engineering ToolBox, which provides the Mohs hardness for a variety of minerals, shows that hectorite, gibbsite, chlorite, kaolinite, halloysite, pyrophyllite, talc, MMT, vermiculite, and illite all have Mohs hardnesses between 1 and 3 (Refer to highlighted compounds in Table from The Engineering ToolBox).
Since Han teaches a positive electrode for a secondary battery, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive electrode mixture of Han to include a clay mineral, as taught Ryu, with a reasonable expectation of success in achieving a positive electrode with improved strength and electrolyte impregnability [See MPEP2143(I)(E)].
Furthermore, selection of a clay material having a Mohs strength less than or equal to 3 {i.e. hectorite, gibbsite, chlorite, kaolinite, halloysite, pyrophyllite-talc, MMT, vermiculite, or illite}, and thus of a low-hardness compound with a hardness within the claimed scope, would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, because such a clay mineral would be a selection from a finite list of exemplified clay minerals, and thus would have reasonable expectation of success in being a suitable electrode material additive and further in achieving the desired benefits of improved electrode strength and electrolyte impregnability.
One with ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the clay mineral of modified Han to be of hardness lower than both the positive electrode active material types, because both positive electrode active materials types in Han are lithium composite metal oxides including Ni, Mn, and Co, and such lithium transition metal oxides are taught in the instant specification to have a hardness relatively higher than compounds having a Mohs hardness of less than or equal to 3 (Instant Specification: [0026 – 0030]).
Modified Han, as established above, has a content of low-hardness compound in the positive electrode mixture layer of 0.05 – 5 % by weight (Ryu: [0021]), which encompasses the claimed range of greater than 0.05 parts by mass and less than 1.00 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the n types of positive electrode active materials.
Ryu further teaches that as the content of the clay mineral decreases, it becomes more difficult to exert a desired wettability, and, as the content of the clay mineral increases, electrical resistance increases and ion conductivity can deteriorate ([0021]).
Selection of a content of low-hardness compound, within the overlapping portion of the taught range and the claimed range would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in order to optimize the wettability of the electrode while ensuring that electrical resistance is minimized, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [See MPEP 2144.05(II)].
Regarding Claim 2, modified Han discloses all limitations as set forth above. Han further discloses wherein the number types of average particle sizes of the n types of positive electrode active material is 2 (Refer to small average diameter particles with a D50 of 2 – 8 µm and large average particle diameter particles with a D50 of 10 – 20 ([0039];[0059])), which is within the claimed scope of greater than or equal to two.
Regarding claim 4, modified Han discloses all limitations as set forth above. In Han, the small diameter particle included in the active material mixture is in the form of a single particle ([0037 – 0038]); therefore, Han further discloses wherein one type among the n types of the positive electrode active material is formed from one primary particle, which is within the scope of claim 4.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Han discloses all limitations as set forth above. The small-diameter active material particle taught by Han is taught to preferably be a lithium composite transition metal oxide containing nickel, cobalt, manganese, and aluminum ([0047 – 0048]). The large-diameter active material particle is taught to be lithium composite transition metal oxide represented by Formulas 1 or 2 and further to have a composition that is the same or different from the small-diameter active material particle ([0060]). Furthermore, in working embodiments (See Examples 1 – 2), Han only exemplifies using large-diameter and small-diameter active material particles that differ in composition {i.e. the large-diameter particles are a lithium composite oxide consisting of Ni, Co, and Mn and the small-diameter particle are a lithium composite oxide consisting of Ni, Co, Mn, and Al} ([0118 – 00119];[0130 – 0131]). Therefore, Han further discloses wherein a number of types of compositions of the n types of positive electrode active materials is 2, which is within the claimed range of greater than or equal to 2.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Han discloses all limitations as set forth above. Han further discloses a secondary battery ([0098]) comprising: the positive electrode (Refer to rejection of claim 1 and [0089];[0098]); a separator ([0098];[0105]); a negative electrode for a the secondary battery that opposes the positive electrode for the secondary battery with the separator therebetween ([0098];[0100];[0105]); and an electrolyte ([0098];[0106]).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US PG Pub. 2020/0185714 A1), Ryu (US PG Pub. 2008/0063939 A1) and The Engineering ToolBox (The Engineering ToolBox, “Mineral Hardness – Mohs Scale” webpage, pp. 1 – 10), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sato (JP2005174847A, Machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Han discloses all limitations as set forth above. Han further discloses wherein a minimum average particle size Dmin of the n types of the positive electrode active materials is 2 – 8 µm ([0039]), which is within the claimed range of 0.1 – 10 µm. The D50 of the small-diameter active material particles corresponds to the claimed Dmin, because by being the smallest active material particles between the two active material particle types, the average size of the small-diameter particles makes up the minimum average size of the active material.
Generally, Han teaches the large-diameter particles having a D50 of 10 – 17 µm ([0059]). The D50 of the large-diameter active material particles corresponds to the claimed Dmax, because by being the largest active material particles between the two active material particle types, the size of the large-diameter particles makes up the maximum average particle size of the active material. As such Han teaches a maximum average particle size Dmax of the n types of the positive electrode that overlaps in scope with the claim range of two times the Dmin or greater.
Sato, also directed to an electrode for a secondary battery, teaches an electrode that contains two different types of lithium composite metal oxide active materials, and further particularly teaches having the first active material be single particles and the second active material be secondary particles ([0004 – 0007];[0023]). The first active material particles are further taught to have an average particle size of 1 – 3.5 µm and the second active material particle are taught to have an average particle size of 5 – 15 µm ([0013];[0016]). Sato further teaches particularly controlling the average particle size of the primary particles of the first positive electrode to be ½ or less of the average particle size of the secondary particles of the second positive electrode active material, and thus suggests having the larger particles of the active material be two times or greater than the size of the smaller active materials, because such a configuration makes it easier for the second positive electrode active materials to sink towards the current collector during pressing ([0026]). The configuration of active material particles {i.e. having the larger secondary particles shielded by the smaller particles}, is taught by Sato to allow for the dense packing of active material which prevents moisture from penetrating into interior of electrode and thus enables high capacity even in a moisture-containing atmosphere ([0024]).
Since Han also teaches a positive electrode including small single particles and large secondary/aggregated particles and teaches pressing to form the electrode ([0037];[0061]), it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to control the large-diameter particles of Han to have an average diameter that is two times the average diameter of the small-diameter particles, as taught by Sato, with a reasonable expectation of success that such a diameter would achieve Han’s desired effects improved roll-pressing density {i.e. such diameters are included within Han’s taught range} while also achieving a configuration of the active material particles that allows for a high capacity electrode even in a moisture-containing atmosphere.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US PG Pub. 2020/0185714 A1), Ryu (US PG Pub. 2008/0063939 A1) and The Engineering ToolBox (The Engineering ToolBox, “Mineral Hardness – Mohs Scale” webpage, pp. 1 – 10), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang (WO2021126998A1, cited in 01/07/2025 IDS – US PG Pub. equivalent: US 2023/0026596 A1 used for citation purposes).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Han discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Han’s includes a low-hardness compound selected from hectorite, gibbsite, chlorite, kaolinite, halloysite, pyrophyllite-talc, MMT, vermiculite, and illite as an additive in the positive electrode active material mixture (Ryu: [0016];[0023]).
Modified Han teaches using a compound clay material including talc {i.e. pyrophyllite-talc}; however, modified Han does not explicitly disclose an embodiment wherein the low-hardness compound is particularly talc.
Yang, directed to a cathode for a solid electrolyte secondary battery, teaches a cathode include an active material and an additive having a lower melting point than the active material ([0060 – 0061]). The additive is taught to include B2O3, Bi2O3, and/or any other low melting temperature additive(s) such as talc (Mg3Si4O10(OH)2), CaO—SiO2, LiF, TiO2, MgO, and/or Y2O3—Al2O3 ([0065]). As such, Yang suggests that talc is suitable cathode active material additive and further, when used as an additive, provides a composite cathode where a cathode-electrolyte interphase having high electronic and ionic conductivity, good mechanical deformability, and high oxidation potential ([0044 – 0045]).
that using talc alone as an additive in a cathode active material mixture is known.
Since modified Han does not particularly limit the clay mineral and already suggests using a composite mineral including talc (Ryu: [0023]), it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize talc as the clay mineral additive of modified Han, with a reasonable expectation of success that such a material would be suitable for achieving the desired effects of improved electrode strength and electrolyte impregnability, since Han already teaches using a talc derivative {i.e. pyrophyllite-talc}; and further with a reasonable expectation of success that such a substitution would, as taught by Yang, provide the benefit of a cathode-electrolyte interphase having high electronic and ionic conductivity, good mechanical deformability, and high oxidation potential.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARYANA Y ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5986. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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 at (571) 270-1292. 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.
/A.Y.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 7/10/2026
Prosecution Insights