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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to for the following informality: in ¶ 0077’s general formula, “M1d” should read “M1d” to clarify that “d” is a subscript denoting the molar ratios, as in similar, lowercase subscripts in the formula. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
It is recommended that Applicant amend the claims as follows:
In claim 2, line 3, “M1d” should read “M1d” to clarify that “d” is a subscript denoting the molar ratios, as in similar, lowercase subscripts in the formula.
Appropriate correction is requested.
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 16–18 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.
Claim 16 recites “a current collecting plate is coupled to each of the uncoated portion of the positive electrode plate and the uncoated portion of the negative electrode plate, and wherein the current collecting plate is connected to an electrode terminal” in lines 6–9. The claim’s scope is unclear given that FIG. 3 depicts a positive electrode current collecting plate (144) coupled to the uncoated portion of the positive electrode plate (146a) and to the positive electrode terminal (143), as well as a negative electrode current collecting plate (145) coupled to the uncoated portion of the negative electrode plate (146b) and to the negative electrode terminal (152). For this Office Action claim 16 will be assumed to require a positive electrode current collecting plate coupled to the uncoated portion of the positive electrode plate and to a positive electrode terminal, as well as a negative electrode current collecting plate coupled to the uncoated portion of the negative electrode plate and to the negative electrode terminal, consistent with FIG. 3.
Claim 18 recites “the current collecting plate is coupled to the plurality of overlapped segments” in line 4. The claim’s scope is unclear given that FIGS. 3 and 5 (as well as spec.’s ¶ 0056, 0061, and 0063) describe that the positive electrode current collecting plate is coupled to the plurality of bent segments on the upper end of the electrode assembly, and the negative electrode current collecting plate is coupled to the plurality of bent segments on the lower end of the assembly. For this Office Action claim 18 will be assumed to require the positive electrode current collecting plate to be coupled to the plurality of bent segments on the upper end of the electrode assembly, as well as the negative electrode current collecting plate to be coupled to the plurality of bent segments on the lower end of the assembly, consistent with FIGS. 3 and 5 and spec.’s ¶ 0056, 0061, and 0063.
Dependent claim 17 fails to correct claim 16’s deficiency and is rejected likewise. Appropriate correction is required.
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 the spec.’s ¶ 0045.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1–3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 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) and a coating layer formed on the core and comprising a conductive nano material (see evenly attached carbon nanotubes (CNTs), ¶ 0018 and 0043).
It is submitted that the above disclosure further reads on the following:
(claim 2) 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 (LiNi0.85Al0.05Co0.10O2 in Ex. 1);
(claim 3) the conductive nano material is CNTs (e.g., ¶ 0018 and 0043).
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.
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.
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.
It is submitted that the above disclosure further reads on the following:
(claim 2) 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);
(claim 3) 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 current collecting plate is coupled to each of the uncoated portion of the positive electrode plate and 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 current collecting plate is connected to an 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 current collecting plate is coupled to the plurality of overlapped segments (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 routinely select 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 have the same properties (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)). Because modified Otani discloses the recited material, along with a similar preparation method (simple mixing of active material, conductive material, and binder to obtain positive electrode slurry including CNT-coated active material, Zhu’s ¶ 0043 and 0044) as the instant specification (e.g., ¶ 0169–0173), the skilled artisan would have reasonably expected the disclosed and recited materials to exhibit the same properties, per MPEP 2112.01 (I). 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, as taught by Iwama, 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 routinely optimize 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
CN 113089103 A, CN 108878859 A, and CN 113594446 A all disclose single-particle positive active material coated with conductive carbon.
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 11/3/2025
Prosecution Insights