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 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 1-7, 9-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao (CN 108878771 as cited within the IDS on 10/21/2024), and further in view of Kang (US 2016/0325998) and alternatively further in view of Ho (US 2023/0187639).
As to claim 1, Xiao discloses a positive electrode comprising a positive electrode active material layer ([0013]-[0015], discussed throughout), wherein the positive electrode active material layer comprises a positive electrode active material and a conductive agent (abstract, [0010], [0015], [0022] and discussed throughout), wherein the positive electrode active material comprises a first lithium composite transition metal oxide in a form of a single particle composed of one primary particle or a pseudo-single particle as an aggregate of 10 or less primary particles ([0011], [0022] and discussed throughout), and the conductive agent comprises few-walled carbon nanotubes and single-walled carbon nanotubes (abstract, [0010] and discussed throughout).
Xiao is silent to wherein a number of walls of the few-walled carbon nanotubes is in a range of 2 to 7. Kang discloses a method of growing a multi-wall carbon nanotube ([0008]) wherein the muti-walled carbon nanotube has 3-10 walls ([0085], discussed throughout). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to use the method of making the multi walled carbon nanotubes along with the muti walled carbon nanotubes because damage to the length can be greatly reduced during dispersion procedure and a high conductivity can be provided ([0028], discussed throughout, Kang).
Alternatively should it be considered that Xiao is silent to wherein the positive electrode active material comprises a particle as Xiao does not specifically state the term particle. Ho discloses a cathode active material for lithium ion batteries ([0009]) wherein the cathode active material is made of particles ([0025] and [0075]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to use the cathode active material from Ho within Xiao because cathode active material have decrease material degradation resulting in existential electrochemical performance ([0008], discussed throughout) and as a mere combing prior art elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143 I). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
As to claim 2, modified Xiao discloses wherein, the few-walled carbon nanotubes have an average diameter of 3 nm to 7 nm ([0046], Kang, discussed throughout). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
As to claim 3, modified Xiao discloses wherein, the few-walled carbon nanotubes have a Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET) specific surface area of 300 m2/g to 500 m2/g ([0045], Kang, discussed throughout). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
As to claim 4, modified Xiao discloses wherein, the first lithium composite transition metal oxide comprises a compound represented by Formula 1: Lia1[Nib1Coc1M1 d1M2 e1]O2 [Formula 1] wherein, M1 is at least one of manganese (Mn) or aluminum (Al), M2 is at least one of zirconium (Zr), tungsten (W), yttrium (Y), barium (Ba), calcium (Ca), titanium (Ti), magnesium (Mg), tantalum (Ta), or niobium (Nb), and 0.8≤a1≤1.2, 0.8≤b1<1, 0<c1<0.2, 0<d1<0.2, and 0≤e1≤0.1 ([0011] and [0022]; Xiao and [0066] and [0067]; Ho, discussed throughout).
As to claim 5, modified Xiao discloses wherein, an average particle diameter of the primary particles included in the first lithium composite transition metal oxide ranges from 1 micron to 10 microns ([0025] and [0075], Ho, discussed throughout). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
As to claim 6, modified Xiao discloses wherein, the first lithium composite transition metal oxide has a BET specific surface area of 0.1 m2/g to 3 m2/g ([0078], Ho; discussed throughout). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
As to claim 7, modified Xiao discloses wherein, the few-walled carbon nanotubes are included in an amount of 0.1 wt % to 3 wt % based on a total weight of the positive electrode active material layer (abstract, Xiao; discussed throughout). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
As to claim 9, modified Xiao discloses wherein, the single-walled carbon nanotubes are included in an amount of 0.005 wt % to 0.15 wt % based on a total weight of the positive electrode active material layer (abstract, Xiao, discussed throughout). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
As to claim 10, modified Xiao discloses wherein, a weight ratio of the few-walled carbon nanotubes to the single-walled carbon nanotubes is in a range of 5:1 to 50:1 ([0024], Xiao; discussed throughout). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
As to claim 11, modified Xiao discloses wherein, a weight ratio of the few-walled carbon nanotubes to the single-walled carbon nanotubes is in a range of 10:1 to 30:1 ([0024], Xiao; discussed throughout). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
As to claim 12, modified Xiao discloses wherein, in the positive electrode active material layer, a total amount of the few-walled carbon nanotubes and the single-walled carbon nanotubes is in a range of 0.2 wt % to 2.0 wt % based on a total weight of the positive electrode active material layer (abstract, Xiao; discussed throughout). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
As to claim 13, modified Xiao discloses wherein, the positive electrode active material comprises a second lithium composite transition metal oxide, wherein the second lithium composite transition metal oxide has an average particle diameter D50 of 10 μm to 20 μm ([0025] and [0075], Ho, discussed throughout). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
As to claim 14, modified Xiao discloses wherein, the second lithium composite transition metal oxide comprises a compound represented by Formula 2: Lia2[Nib2Coc2M3 d2M4 e2]O2 [Formula 2] wherein, M3 is at least one of Mn or Al, M4 is at least one of Zr, W, Y, Ba, Ca, Ti, Mg, Ta, or Nb, and 0.8≤a2≤1.2, 0.8≤b2<1, 0<c2<0.17, 0<d2<0.17, and 0≤e2≤0.1 ([0011] and [0022]; Xiao and [0066] and [0067]; Ho, discussed throughout).
As to claim 16, modified Xiao is a secondary battery comprising the positive electrode of claim 1. However, Xiao discloses a positive electrode for a lithium ion battery thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to use the positive electrode within a secondary battery.
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Xiao as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2022/0020987).
As to claim 8, modified Xiao is silent to wherein, the single-walled carbon nanotubes have a BET specific surface area of 800 m2/g to 1,600 m2/g. Kim discloses an electrode comprising single walled carbon nanotubes for a secondary battery ([0011] and [0037]) wherein the single-walled carbon nanotubes have a BET specific surface area of 200 m2/g to 1,000 m2/g ([0037]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to use the surface area for the single walled carbon nanotubes as disclosed within Kim within modified Xiao because if the BET of the single-walled carbon nanotubes is less than 200 m2/g, it may be difficult to secure the conductivity of the mixture layer, and if it exceeds 1000 m2/g, it is difficult to secure the dispersibility of the carbon nanotubes during slurry preparation, rather, the conductivity of the mixture layer may be reduced ([0037], Kim). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
As to claim 15, modified Xiao discloses wherein, BET1 is a specific surface area of the few-walled carbon nanotubes ([0045], 400-1,00 m2/g; Kang), BET3 is a specific surface area of the first lithium composite transition metal oxide ([0078], 0.1-3 m2/g; Ho), BET4 is a specific surface area of the second lithium composite transition metal oxide ([0078], 0.1-3 m2/g), W1 is a weight % of the few-walled carbon nanotubes relative to a total weight of the positive electrode active material layer (abstract, Xiao, 0.1-0.5), W2 is a weight % of the single-wall carbon nanotubes relative to the total weight of the positive electrode active material layer (abstract, Xiao, 0.01-0.1), W3 is a weight % of the first lithium composite transition metal oxide relative to the total weight of the positive electrode active material layer (abstract, Xiao, greater than zero to 98.89, note there is no claimed difference between a first and a second lithium composite transition metal oxide, thus oxide can be divided any way in the broadest reasonable interpretation), and W4 is a weight % of the second lithium composite transition metal oxide relative to the total weight of the positive electrode active material layer (abstract, Xiao, greater than zero to 98.89).
Modified Xia is silent to wherein the positive electrode has an A value defined by Equation (1) of 3 or more. A=(BET1 ×W 1+BET2 ×W 2)/(BET3 ×W 3+BET4 ×W 4) Equation (1): wherein, in Equation (1), BET2 is a specific surface area of the single-walled carbon nanotubes.
Kim discloses an electrode comprising single walled carbon nanotubes for a secondary battery ([0011] and [0037]) wherein the single-walled carbon nanotubes have a BET specific surface area of 200 m2/g to 1,000 m2/g ([0037]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to use the surface area for the single walled carbon nanotubes as disclosed within Kim within modified Xiao because if the BET of the single-walled carbon nanotubes is less than 200 m2/g, it may be difficult to secure the conductivity of the mixture layer, and if it exceeds 1000 m2/g, it is difficult to secure the dispersibility of the carbon nanotubes during slurry preparation, rather, the conductivity of the mixture layer may be reduced ([0037], Kim). Therefore, using the surface area from Kim within modified Xiao the equation is satisfied. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN R OHARA whose telephone number is (571)272-0728. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM-3:30 PM EST M-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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
/BRIAN R OHARA/Examiner, Art Unit 1724