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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 9-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9, line 1, “Dv50ranges” should read “Dv50 ranges”.
Claim 10, line 1, “the ternary positivee material” should read “the ternary positive material”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (EP 3859824 A1) in view of Kashima et al. (JP 2016225114 A) and Yura et al. (JP 6433086 B2). It is noted that the disclosures of Kashima et al. and Yura et al. are based on machine translations of the references included with this action.
Regarding claims 1-8 and 10:
Li et al. teaches a positive electrode plate, i.e. positive pole piece, including a positive current collector and a positive active material layer arranged on at least one surface of the positive current collector (0017), wherein the positive active material layer comprises a positive active material including a lithium nickel transition metal oxide, i.e. ternary positive material, such as LiNi0.7Co0.1Mn0.2O2, LiNi0.75Co0.1Mn0.15O2, LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2, LiNi0.85Co0.05Mn0.1O2, LiNi0.88Co0.05Mn0.07O2, LiNi0.9Co0.05Mn0.05O2, LiNi0.92Co0.03Mn0.05O2, LiNi0.95Co0.02Mn0.03O2 (0037), meeting a formula of LiNixCoyMn(1-x-y)O2, where 0.7≤x<1, 0<y≤0.3, and 0<x+y<1.
Li et al. also teaches a porosity P1, i.e. P, of the positive electrode plate satisfies 19%≤P1≤25% (0029).
However, Li et al. does not teach a particle size change rate of the positive active material, a roughness of the positive pole piece and a porosity of the positive pole piece satisfy following relationship: 1.2≤D/(R/5+P/2)≤3.5; where D is the particle size change rate of Dv50 in % before and after the positive active material is held for 30 seconds at a pressure of 35 KN, and Dv50 is a particle size corresponding to 50% of a volume cumulative distribution percentage of the positive active material; R is the roughness of the positive pole piece, in nm; R is the roughness of the positive pole piece, in nm.
Kashima et al. teaches a lithium secondary battery and a particle size change rate of a positive electrode active material for lithium secondary batteries before and after pressing after re-calcination should be 80% or more (0009) to obtain desirable battery characteristics such as charge and discharge efficiency (0004), and the larger this value (rate of change in particle size), the greater the particle strength (0028).
In light of the motivation for using a particle size change rate of 80% or more disclosed by Kashima et al. as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a particle size change rate of 80% or more in the positive electrode plate of Li et al. in order to obtain desirable battery characteristics such as charge and discharge efficiency.
Yura et al. teaches an all-solid-state lithium battery and a surface of a positive electrode plate 12 on a solid electrolyte layer 14 side which preferably has an arithmetic mean roughness, i.e. R, greater than 0.05 μm and less than 3.0 μm (50 to 3000 nanometers) and by controlling the surface roughness of the positive electrode plate 12 on the solid electrolyte layer 14 side within the above range, it is possible to sufficiently secure the contact point between the positive electrode plate 12 and the solid electrolyte layer 14 (which becomes the lithium ion conduction path) with an appropriate surface roughness, while forming a desirable interface with excellent adhesion between the positive electrode plate 12 and the solid electrolyte layer 14, where the resistance value does not increase easily even with repeated charging and discharging, due to the moderately high smoothness (0021).
In light of the motivation for using a roughness greater than 0.05 μm and less than 3.0 μm disclosed by Yura et al. as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a roughness greater than 0.05 μm and less than 3.0 μm in the positive electrode plate of Li et al. in view of Kashima et al. in order to sufficiently secure the contact point between the positive electrode plate 12 and the solid electrolyte layer 14 with an appropriate surface roughness, while forming a desirable interface with excellent adhesion between the positive electrode plate 12 and the solid electrolyte layer 14, where the resistance value does not increase easily even with repeated charging and discharging, due to the moderately high smoothness.
Therefore, it is calculated that 80/(3000/5+25/2)= 0.13 and 80/(50/5+19/2)= 4.10, i.e. 0.13≤D/(R/5+P/2)≤4.10, overlapping the claimed expression 1.7≤D/(R/5+P/2)≤2.5.
Although Li et al. in view of Kashima et al. and Yura et al. do not disclose the positive active material is held for 30 seconds at a pressure of 35 KN, it is noted that “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Li et al. in view of Kashima et al. and Yura et al. meets the requirements of the claimed positive pole piece, Li et al. in view of Kashima et al. and Yura et al. clearly meet the requirements of the present claims.
Regarding claims 11-12:
Li et al. in view of Kashima et al. and Yura et al. teach a positive electrode plate as set forth above.
Further, Li et al. teaches a lithium-ion battery, i.e. electrochemical device, including the positive electrode plate (0017), and an apparatus that uses batteries, i.e. electronic device, is an electric car or any electric vehicles other than electric cars (for example, an electric bus, a tramcar, an electric bicycle, an electric motorbike, an electric scooter, an electric golf cart, and an electric truck), electric ships, electric tools, electronic devices, and energy storage systems. The electric car may be a full electric car, a hybrid electric car, or a plug-in hybrid electric car (0059).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (EP 3859824 A1) in view of Kashima et al. (JP 2016225114 A), Yura et al. (JP 6433086 B2), and Fu et al. (CN 111293313 B). It is noted that the disclosures of Fu et al. are based on machine translations of the references included with this action.
Regarding claim 9:
Li et al. in view of Kashima et al. and Yura et al. teach a positive pole piece as set forth above.
However, Li et al. in view of Kashima et al. and Yura et al. do not teach wherein Dv50 ranges from 3 µm to 8 µm.
Fu et al. teaches a lithium-ion battery with positive electrode active materials with an average volume distribution particle size Dv50 of 3 μm to 20 μm helps to further improve the cycle performance and capacity retention of the battery (0114).
In light of the motivation for using a Dv50 of 3 μm to 20 μm disclosed by Fu et al. as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a Dv50 of 3 μm to 20 μm in the positive electrode plate of Li et al. in view of Kashima et al. and Yura et al. order to further improve the cycle performance and capacity retention of the battery.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON E. BROWN whose telephone number is (571)775-5984. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 5712721123. 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.
/MADISON ELIZABETH BROWN/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
/CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787
