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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments, filed 02/06/26, have been fully considered. Claim(s) 1, 2, 16, and 18 is/are amended; and claim(s) 3–15, 17, and 19–21 stand(s) as originally or previously presented; no new matter has been added. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous specification and claim objections as well as 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections set forth in the Office Action mailed 11/06/25 has/have been withdrawn. However, the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Otani in view of Zhu has/have been maintained and altered as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment, as set forth below. Additionally, the amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 over Zhu.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “single particles” and “quasi-single particles”. Such single particles will be interpreted as (unaggregated) primary particles with no observable grain boundary when observed via SEM at a 5000–20000x magnification, as specially defined in the specification’s ¶ 0044, and such quasi-single particles will be interpreted as a secondary particle in which 10 or fewer primary particles are aggregated—i.e., 2–10 aggregated primary particles—as specially defined in ¶ 0045.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The text forming the bases for the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 may be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim(s) 1–3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by or, alternatively, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zhu et al. (CN 110957463 A) (Zhu).
Regarding claims 1–3, Zhu discloses a lithium secondary battery (e.g., ¶ 0021) comprising an electrode assembly comprising a positive electrode plate, a negative electrode plate, and a separator between the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate, the electrode assembly being wound in one direction (¶ 0054, FIG. 1); a battery can configured to accommodate the electrode assembly (FIG. 1) and a sealing body configured to seal an open end of the battery can (lid, FIG. 1), wherein the positive electrode plate comprises a positive electrode active material comprising a core comprising a single particle (single-crystal ternary material—and, thus, single particles by necessarily lacking grain boundaries—e.g., ¶ 0017; see also Ex. 1’s LiNi0.85Al0.05Co0.10O2, ¶ 0042, further reading on claim 2’s Chemical Formula 1, where M1 is Al, a = 1, b = 0.85, c = 0.10, d = 0.05, e = 0, and M2 is absent because e = 0) and a coating layer formed on the core and comprising a conductive nano material (see evenly attached carbon nanotubes (CNTs), ¶ 0018 and 0043, further reading on claim 3).
The limitation “wherein the coating layer is formed by carbonizing a polymer layer” is a product-by-process limitation (MPEP 2113). Here, absent additional recitation or special definition of “coating”, the implied structure is simply the adhered/coated layer comprising the conductive nano material (see spec, e.g., ¶ 0172). As Zhu discloses CNTs evenly adhered to surfaces of the active particles (¶ 0018), Zhu reasonably meets the implied structure.
Assuming, arguendo, that Zhu’s structure failed to necessarily read on this product-by-process limitation, the specification appears devoid of any indicia that Zhu’s adhered CNTs are structurally different than the coating formed by polymer carbonization (note that the spec.’s comp. exs. (¶ 0176–0180) appear to simply mix/disperse the nano material in the active-material slurry versus adhere/coat them like Zhu). Absent additional evidence, then—and considering that Zhu is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely positive active material coated with conductive nano material—Examiner submits that any differences between Zhu and the instant disclosure’s coating would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention’s effective filing date.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1–3 and 15–21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otani (WO 2021020277 A1; citations to English equivalent US 20220149443 A1) in view of Zhu et al. (CN 110957463 A) (Zhu).
Regarding claims 1–3, 20, and 21, Otani discloses an automobile comprising a battery pack (e.g., ¶ 0004) comprising a lithium secondary battery (e.g., ¶ 0049) comprising an electrode assembly (wound body 20 of fig. 1) comprising a positive electrode plate, a negative electrode plate, and a separator between the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate (¶ 0059, fig. 1), the electrode assembly being wound in one direction (perpendicular to cylindrical axis, fig. 1); a battery can configured to accommodate the electrode assembly (fig. 1); and a sealing body configured to seal an open end of the battery can (cover 14, fig. 1).
Otani further discloses that the positive electrode comprises a positive electrode active material of, e.g., a lithium composite oxide (¶ 0070) but, in being unconcerned with the specifics of such, fails to explicitly disclose that the active material comprises a core comprising a single particle or quasi-single particle and a coating layer formed on the core and comprising a conductive nano material.
Zhu, in teaching a positive electrode material (Abstract), teaches a single-crystal—and, thus, single-particle by necessarily lacking grain boundaries—lithium composite oxide (e.g., ¶ 0017 and Ex. 1’s LiNi0.85Al0.05Co0.10O2, ¶ 0042), where CNTs evenly adhere to the surface of the oxide (e.g., ¶ 0018). Zhu teaches that such single-crystal material allows Li+ to quickly embed to improve rate performance (¶ 0017), and the CNTs connect multiple active particles to form an excellent conductive network (¶ 0018).
Zhu and Otani are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery 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 use Zhu’s single-crystal, lithium composite oxide such as LiNi0.85Al0.05Co0.10O2 that is coated with CNTs as Otani’s active material with the reasonable expectation of improving rate performance and forming an excellent conductive network, as taught by Zhu.
The limitation “wherein the coating layer is formed by carbonizing a polymer layer” is a product-by-process limitation (MPEP 2113). Here, absent additional recitation or special definition of “coating”, the implied structure is simply the adhered/coated layer comprising the conductive nano material (see spec, e.g., ¶ 0172). As Zhu discloses CNTs evenly adhered to surfaces of the active particles (¶ 0018), Zhu reasonably meets the implied structure.
Assuming, arguendo, that Zhu’s structure failed to necessarily read on this product-by-process limitation, the specification appears devoid of any indicia that Zhu’s adhered CNTs are structurally different than the coating formed by polymer carbonization (note that the spec.’s comp. exs. (¶ 0176–0180) appear to simply mix/disperse the nano material in the active-material slurry versus adhere/coat them like Zhu). Absent additional evidence, then, Examiner submits that any differences between Zhu and the instant disclosure’s coating would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention’s effective filing date.
The above disclosure further reads on claim 2, where the core is a lithium nickel-based oxide represented by Chemical Formula 1, where M1 is Al, a = 1, b = 0.85, c = 0.10, d = 0.05, e = 0, and M2 is absent because e = 0 (Zhu’s LiNi0.85Al0.05Co0.10O2 in Ex. 1), as well as claim 3, where the conductive nano material is CNTs (Zhu’s ¶ 0018).
Regarding claims 15–19, modified Otani discloses the lithium secondary battery claim 1, wherein each of the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate comprises an uncoated portion in which an active material layer is not formed (non-covered parts 21C/22C, respectively, Otani’s fig. 1), and wherein at least a portion of the uncoated portion of the positive electrode plate or the negative electrode plate defines an electrode tab (see ends of non-covered parts 21C/22C joined to current-collecting plates 24/25, respectively, and, thus, defining tabs in Otani’s ¶ 0063 and 0064 and figs. 1 and 5), wherein
the uncoated portion of the positive electrode plate and the uncoated portion of the negative electrode plate are at an end of one side of the positive electrode plate and an end of one side of the negative electrode plate, respectively, along the one direction in which the electrode assembly is wound (Otani’s figs. 1, 2, and 5; compare to substantially similar instant figs. 4 and 5), wherein a positive electrode current collecting plate is coupled to the uncoated portion of the positive electrode plate and a negative electrode current collecting plate is coupled to the uncoated portion of the negative electrode plate (Otani’s refs. 24/25, respectively, figs. 1 and 5 and ¶ 0063 and 0064), and wherein the positive electrode current collecting plate is connected to a positive electrode terminal, and the negative electrode current collecting plate is connected to a negative electrode terminal (Otani’s collecting plate 24 electrically connected to cover 14 and collecting plate 25 electrically connected to can 11 (fig. 1), which the skilled artisan would recognize would serve as the positive and negative electrode terminals, respectively, for external electrical output), wherein
each of the uncoated portion of the positive electrode plate and the uncoated portion of the negative electrode plate comprises a plurality of segments that are independently bendable (see bent ends of non-covered parts 21C/22C in Otani’s fig. 1 and ¶ 0063 and 0064), and wherein at least a portion of the plurality of segments are bent toward a winding center of the electrode assembly (Id.), wherein
at least a portion of the plurality of bent segments are overlapped on an upper end and a lower end of the electrode assembly (Id.), wherein the positive electrode current collecting plate is coupled to the plurality of overlapped segments on the upper end, and the negative electrode current collecting plate is coupled to the plurality of overlapped segments on the lower end (Id.), and
the lithium secondary battery further comprises an insulating layer on the positive electrode plate (insulating layer 101 in Otani’s fig. 2 and ¶ 0062), the insulating layer configured to cover a portion of a layer of the positive electrode active material and a portion of the uncoated portion along a direction parallel to the one direction in which the electrode assembly is wound (insulating layer 101’s covering covered part 21B (active material layer) and portion of non-covered part 21C, Id.).
Claim(s) 4–9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otani (WO 2021020277 A1; citations to English equivalent US 20220149443 A1) in view of Zhu et al. (CN 110957463 A) (Zhu), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Han et al. (WO 2022265258 A1; citations to English equivalent US 20240282953 A1) (Han).
Regarding claims 4–9, modified Otani discloses the lithium secondary battery of claim 1 but, in being unconcerned with the active material’s size characteristics, fails to explicitly disclose a powder with a Dmin ≥ 1.0 μm (claim 4), a powder with a D50 ≤ 5 μm or less (claim 5), a powder with a Dmax of 12–17 μm (claim 6), a particle size distribution represented by the recited Equation 1 of (Dmax–Dmin)/D50 of ≤ 3 (claim 7), a powder having a unimodal particle size distribution that exhibits a single peak in a volume accumulated particle size distribution graph (claim 8), or a primary particle diameter of 0.5–5 μm (claim 9).
Han, in teaching a powder-form positive active material including a one-body, i.e., single-particle (¶ 0001, 0007), lithium composite oxide (Abstract, ¶ 0007), teaches a uniform particle size distribution for improved battery characteristics such as reduced resistance (¶ 0011, 0012). Han specifically embodies, in Ex. 3, a Dmin of 1.06, a D50 of 3.17 μm, a Dmax of ~ 10 μm (fig. 1/Table 1), and a unimodal particle size distribution exhibiting a single peak in a volume accumulated particle size distribution graph (fig. 1). Such yields a (Dmax–Dmin)/D50 of ≈ (10–1.06)/3.17 ≈ 2.85, falling within claim 7’s Equation 1. Further, as the particles, like Otani/Zhu’s, are one-body, they would also reasonably constitute primary particles (see also Han’s ¶ 0006) such that the primary particle diameter, per Han’s Ex. 3, would be 1.06~10 μm.
Han is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely single-particle positive electrode active material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention's effective filing date, that modified Otani’s active material must necessarily be incorporated with some size, and, as demonstrated by Han, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to adopt a powder-form active material with a narrow, unimodal particle distribution—with, e.g., Dmin of 1.06, D50 of 3.17 μm, Dmax of ~ 10 μm, and (Dmax–Dmin)/D50 ~ 2.85—as an appropriate size distribution for enhancing battery characteristics such as reduced resistance.
Examiner submits that such reads on or renders obvious the following:
(claim 4) the positive electrode active material comprises a powder having a Dmin of 1.06 μm, falling within ≥ 1.0 μm;
(claim 5) the positive electrode active material comprises a powder having a D50 of 3.17 μm, falling within ≤ 5 μm;
(claim 7) a particle size distribution represented by the recited Equation 1 of (Dmax–Dmin)/D50 of ~ 2.85, falling within ≤ 3;
(claim 8) the positive electrode active material comprises a powder having a unimodal particle size distribution that exhibits a single peak in a volume accumulated particle size distribution graph (Han’s fig. 1);
(claim 9) the positive electrode active material has a primary particle diameter of 1.06~10 μm, which overlaps the recited 0.5–5 μm such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful active material with suitable primary-particle diameter (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Further, specifically regarding claim 6’s Dmax, although Han’s Ex. 3’s Dmax of ~ 10 μm narrowly falls outside the recited 12–17 μm, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges fail to overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to display the same properties (MPEP 2144.05 (I)). Here, Han never includes any comparative testing isolating inferior performance to Dmax above ~ 10 μm (instead showing comp. exs. with much smaller D90 and, thus, Dmax, Table 1), and the instant specification never tests Dmax outside the recited range. Thus, absent demonstrated criticality, the recited Dmax appears obvious over modified Otani.
Claim(s) 10–12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otani (WO 2021020277 A1; citations to English equivalent US 20220149443 A1) in view of Zhu et al. (CN 110957463 A) (Zhu), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Iwama et al. (US 20170047613 A1) (Iwama).
Regarding claims 10–12, modified Otani discloses the lithium secondary battery of claim 1.
Otani further discloses that the negative electrode plate may comprise a carbon-based negative electrode active material for high energy density due to the carbon’s minute volume change during Li+ (de)intercalation (¶ 0077) but fails to explicitly disclose that the negative electrode plate comprises a silicon-based negative electrode active material alongside the carbon at a silicon:carbon ratio of 1–20:80–99.
Iwama, in teaching a secondary battery (Title), teaches that the anode includes silicon oxide and a carbon material at a ratio of 0.01–20:80–99.9% (Abstract). Iwama teaches, like Otani, that the carbon improves conductivity while experiencing extremely small changes in crystal structure during discharge, enabling high energy density to be stably achieved (¶ 0075), while the silicon oxide provides high discharge capacity, high energy density, and resistance to deterioration (¶ 0076), and the combination makes it possible to suppress expansion and contraction during (dis)charge while achieving high theoretical capacity (¶ 0077).
Iwama is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery negative electrodes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use silicon oxide and a carbon material at a ratio of 0.01–20:80–99.9% as Otani’s negative active material with the reasonable expectation of making it possible to suppress expansion and contraction during (dis)charge while achieving high theoretical capacity, as taught by Iwama. Moreover, to balance each material’s effects, it would have been obvious to arrive at the instant range by routinely optimizing the carbon:silicon ratio, including within the overlap (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otani (WO 2021020277 A1; citations to English equivalent US 20220149443 A1) in view of Zhu et al. (CN 110957463 A) (Zhu), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Chen (CN 113097612 A).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, modified Otani discloses the lithium secondary battery of claim 1.
Otani further discloses that the lithium secondary battery is a cylindrical battery (fig. 1) but, in being unconcerned with the battery’s size, fails to explicitly disclose a ratio of form factor of ≥ 0.4 and, specifically, one of the recited cells of claim 14.
Chen, in teaching a cylindrical battery (Title), teaches that the battery may be, e.g., a 4680 cell (¶ 0037), i.e., a cell with a diameter of 46 mm and height of 80 mm—and, thus, form factor of 46/80 = 0.575.
Chen is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely cylindrical batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention's effective filing date, that Otani’s battery must necessarily be incorporated with some diameter and height, and, as demonstrated by Chen, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to incorporate the cell as, e.g., a 4680 battery—with form factor of 0.575—with the reasonable expectation of forming a successful battery.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Zhu fails to disclose a coating layer formed by carbonizing a polymer layer. Examiner respectfully reiterates that such is a product-by-process limitation, where the process’s implied structure—here an adhered coating layer—is what limits the product (MPEP 2113). As Zhu discloses uniformly adhered CNTs atop the active particles’ surfaces, such reasonably meets the implied structure.
Although Applicant further argues that Zhu’s CNTs, would not constitute a “coating” layer to the skilled artisan, Examiner respectfully echoes that the specification is devoid of a special definition of “coating”, and nothing in claim 1 prohibits the coating layer from forming once inside the active-material slurry. Thus, the adhered CNTs reasonably constitute a coating layer. Further, as explained above, the specification appears devoid of indicia that Zhu’s attached CNTs are structurally distinct because the instant comp. exs. are simply mixed without ever being controlled to adhere to the active particles (i.e., Zhu recognizes as adhered), rendering this argument further unpersuasive.
Applicant then argues that claim 1’s configuration produces unexpectedly superior electrical conductivity and capacity performance while avoiding slurry aggregation and improving electrode coatability. Examiner respectfully notes that 1) Zhu’s composite also improves capacity and electrical conductivity (e.g., ¶ 0018, 0030); 2) such argument presupposes that claim 1 is not anticipated, whereas Examiner maintains the 102 rejection above; and 3) again, the comp. exs. seem to simply mix the CNTs in the slurry versus being envisaged to attach them to the active particles, making the comp. exs. appear to not compare against the closest prior art for at least the 103 section of the 102/103 (see MPEP 716.02(e)).
Addressing now the unexpected results with respect to the above 103 rejection over Otani in view of Zhu, even ignoring that at least some of Applicant’s results appear expected from Zhu, it appears that the results are incommensurate with claim 1 at least as follows:
Claim 1 allows any active material, whereas Table 1’s results are tailored to lithium nickel-based oxides with ≥ 80 mol% Ni for high capacity (see, e.g., ¶ 0067–0077 and 0169); it is unclear if the results would occur using any active material.
Claim 1 allows any particle size(s)/distribution of the active material, whereas the instant results appear tailored to a specific, unimodal distribution (e.g., ¶ 0169; see also ¶ 0083–0090 to note that this distribution improves capacity and reduces breakage from rolling, resistance, and particle aggregation); it is unclear if such results would occur across any size(s)/distribution.
Claim 1 allows a battery of any dimensions, whereas the results appear tailored to larger cylindrical cells like 4680 cells (e.g., ¶ 0185; per ¶ 0116, these dimensions provide excellent safety); it is unclear if such results would occur for a battery of any size.
The results partly involve electrode adhesion, but the skilled artisan would recognize that such is also a function of binder content because such adheres the electrode ingredients to the current collector. As claim 1 allows an unbounded binder concentration, it is unclear if the results would occur using, e.g., 1 ppb binder.
The results also involve capacity retention, which the skilled artisan would recognize would directly correlate with active-material availability.
As claim 1 allows any active-material concentration in either electrode, it is unclear whether substantially similar results would occur using, e.g., 70 wt% pos. active material as at 95%.
The skilled artisan would recognize that different active materials exhibit different capacities (e.g., NCM vs. lithium cobaltate vs. sulfur in positive electrode and carbon/graphite vs. Si/SiOx vs. Li in negative electrode). As claim 1 allows any type of active material in either electrode, it is unclear if substantially similar results would occur using, e.g., a sulfur positive electrode and an LTO negative electrode as using the envisaged NCM positive electrode and Si/carbon negative electrode.
Thus, per MPEP 716.02(d), this argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 5/20/2026
Prosecution Insights