DETAILED ACTION
Application 18/979099, “Lithium Secondary Battery”, was filed with the USPTO on 12/12/24 and claims priority from a foreign application filed on 12/22/23.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action on the merits is in response to communication filed on 3/16/26.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 4-7, 9-13 and 15-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Lee (US 2020/0235406), Yao (US 2020/0212437), Kim (US 2022/0238872) and Shin (KR 2018-0101896).
Regarding claim 1, 6, 7, 9-11, 13, 16 and 21, Lee teaches a lithium secondary battery (paragraphs [0005, 0054, 0056]) comprising a negative electrode composite layer comprising first and second negative electrode active materials (“first particle… second particle”, paragraph [0010]), a negative electrode conductive material (paragraph [0038]), and a negative electrode binder (paragraph [0039]); a positive electrode (paragraph [0054); and an electrolyte (paragraph [0054]).
Lee further teaches wherein:
As to claim 6, Wc lies within the range 0.001 to 0.05 (“1.0” paragraph [0076]); and
As to claim 7, D50 of the first active material lies within the range of 10 to 30 microns (“17 μm”, paragraph [0064], Table 1) and D50 of the second negative electrode active material lies within the range of 5 to 25 microns (“19 μm”, paragraph [0067], Table 1).
As to claim 21, L lies within the range of 0.2 to 0.5 (L is 260 mg/25 cm2 at paragraph [0076]. Converting units, 260 mg/25 cm2 maps to 0.260 g/25 cm2).
Lee is silent as to an RN/P value and therefore does not teach an RN/P value lying within the range of 1.05 to 1.1 as required by claim 9.
In the battery art, Yao teaches that it is conventional to configure a lithium battery such that RN/P lies between 1.05 and 1.2 for the benefit of mitigating financial costs of capacity loss in cells with desirable capacity (paragraph [0185]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to configure the battery of Lee to have an RN/P value lying with the range of 1.05 to 1.1 since this range is substantially overlapped by the 1.05 to 1.2 range taught by Yao, and Yao further teaches the N/P ratio as a result-effective variable which is optimizable based on factors such as capacity and cost of the battery.
The cited art is silent as to 0.38 ≤ CFC ≤ 1.962, when CFC is calculated as CFC = 100 X Wc – {(D50,a1 X D50,a2 X L X RN/P X 1010) / MWc}.
However, as stated in MPEP 2144 IV, “The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant.” Here, the values suggested by the prior art as described above yield a calculated CFC values lying within the claimed range. For example, when the exemplary values taught by Lee are utilized (Wc=1.0; D50,a1=17 μm; D50,a2=19 μm; and L=0.26), then calculating the CFC parameter with the RN/P range taught by Yao (RN/P = 1.05 to 1.20), yields a CFC range of 0.926 to 0.916, which lies within the claimed CFC range. Therefore, the conditions of the claim are met, even though the prior art does not suggest using the CFC calculation as does applicant.
Moreover, each of the input parameters merely represent values drawn to relative scale [e.g. particle diameter] or concentration, and/or are drawn to the same result-effective parameters recognized by the prior art for optimization. As described in MPEP 2144, a presumption of obviousness exists for claims drawn to optimization of parameters recognized by the prior art as result-effective variables, and recitations drawn to physical scale and relative concentration will not create patentability, unless criticality has been established (MPEP 2144.04 IVA, 2144.05 IIA). Accordingly, the prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Lee teaches the battery comprising a positive electrode, but does not appear to teach: wherein the positive electrode comprises a positive electrode composite layer including each of a positive electrode active material, a positive electrode conductive material, and a positive electrode binder as in claim 1; wherein the positive electrode active material comprising a single particle lithium nickel based oxide of the formula Li1+x[NiaCobMncM1d]O2, having a nickel content of 50 to 70 wt% as in claims 10-11 and 13; and the positive electrode conductive material comprises a line-type conductive material and a point-type conductive material as in claim 16.
In the battery art Kim teaches a positive electrode comprising a positive electrode composite layer including a positive electrode active material, a positive electrode conductive material, and a positive electrode binder (paragraphs [0143]).
Kim further teaches the positive electrode active material being a single particle lithium nickel based oxide (e.g. Fig. 5A) of the formula Li1+x[NiaCobMncM1d]O2 and having a nickel content of 60 wt% (paragraphs [0126-0137; e.g. Li1.05Ni0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 at paragraph [0137]) and a coating layer comprising an element such as Ti (paragraphs [0021-0023]).
Kim further teaches the positive electrode conductive material comprising a line-type conductive material and a point-type conductive material (paragraph [0145]).
Kim further teaches that such a positive electrode active material provides improved performance such as in terms of improved capacity, charge/discharge efficiency and lifespan (paragraphs [0006, 0083-0084, 0139]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize a positive electrode comprising the claimed active material, binder and conductive material having the above-described features for the benefit of providing the constituents normal function and/or providing improved performance as in terms of improved capacity, charge/discharge efficiency and lifespan as taught by Kim.
Regarding the 3/16/26 amendment to claim 1, Lee further teaches wherein the first negative electrode active material is artificial graphite and the second negative electrode active material is natural graphite (paragraphs [0023] and [0041-0042], noting that the “third particle” instead of the “second particle” of Lee may be read on the natural graphite second negative electrode active material), but does not appear to teach wherein the artificial graphite does not comprise a coating layer.
Instead, Lee teaches the artificial graphite comprising a coated oxide shell layer of for the benefit of improving adhesive strength of the artificial graphite (paragraphs [0023-0024]).
However, in the battery art, Shin teaches that artificial graphite normally has a problem of low adhesion (T010) and as a solution teaches an artificial graphite particle provided with SiO2 nanoparticles on the surface thereof in order to improve adhesion of the artificial graphite (T003, T017, T034).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to omit the oxide coating layer of the Lee artificial graphite particles, and instead include SiO2 nanoparticles on the surface of the artificial graphite, for the benefit of providing improved adhesion to the artificial graphite particles as taught by Shin.
It is noted that even if the “improved adhesion” associated with the inclusion of SiO2 nanoparticles disclosed by Shin was not a higher amount of adhesion than offered by the oxide coating layer disclosed by Lee, the replacement of the oxide coating layer with SiO2 nanoparticles still is obvious as a matter of the simple substitution of one known element for another to yield the predictable result of suitable adhesion provided to the artificial graphite particles (MPEP 2141 III for more information on the “simple substation” rationale for obviousness). Accordingly, the invention of claim 1, even if requiring that the first negative electrode active material is artificial graphite which does not comprise a coating layer, is found to be obvious over the cited art.
Regarding claim 4, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Lee further teaches wherein the first negative electrode active material and the second negative electrode active material are included in a weight ratio value lying within the range of 90:10 to 50:50 (paragraphs [0078] teaches a 50:50 ratio and [0041-0042], noting that the “third particle” instead of the “second particle” of Lee may be read on the second negative electrode active material).
Regarding claim 5, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Lee further teaches wherein the negative electrode conductive material is a point-type conductive material (“carbon black”, paragraph [0038]).
Regarding claim 12 and 15, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. In the combined embodiment Kim teaches detailed aspects of a lithium nickel-based positive electrode active material as described in the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 12 and 15 further require that the single particle type lithium nickel-based oxide should comprise 1 to 25 nodules, the nodules have an average particle size of 0.8 to 4.0 µm, and the positive electrode active material has a D50 of 3.0 to 8.0 µm.
Kim further teaches a nickel-based positive electrode active material having a nodule size of 1 to 5 μm (paragraph [0079]) and an active material [agglomerated particle] size of 2.5 to 9 μm (paragraph [0079, 0129]), with Figure 5A illustrating agglomerated crystallite single particles within the ranges and comprised of a small number of nodules appearing to lie within the 1 to 25 nodule range. Kim further teaches that such particles exhibit desirable lifespan, charge/discharge and stability properties (paragraphs [0083-0086]).
Accordingly, the requirement that the positive electrode active material possesses the claimed nodule and particle size characteristics is found to be obvious over the cited art, which teaches agglomerated type particles comprised of a number of nodules in the 1 to 25 range, and teaches ranges of particle sizes which overlap the claimed nodule and whole-particle size ranges, with a prima facie case of obviousness existing when the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art.
Regarding claim 17 and 18, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Lee is silent regarding the energy density and the charge cut-off voltage.
In the battery art, Kim teaches that with appropriate selection of materials, a battery may exhibit a cut-off voltage higher than 3.5 V and an energy density above 260 Wh/kg (see Table 7).
Either i) the lithium secondary battery would exhibit the claimed properties due to comprising similar materials as the claimed invention as described in the claim 1, or ii) it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to reconfigure the battery to exhibit the claimed properties of a cut-off voltage higher than 3.5 V and an energy density above 260 Wh/kg, as these properties represent a known desirable threshold achieved in the prior art, and claims 17 and 18 do not include any additional structural features which facilitate the achievement of the desirable properties.
Regarding claim 19 and 20, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Lee further teaches that the battery may be a subcomponent of a battery module for use in a electric vehicle (paragraph [0062]).
Claims 1, 4-7, 9-11, 13, 14, 16 and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Lee (US 2020/0235406), Yao (US 2020/0212437), Shin (KR 2018-0101896) and Zhang (US 2023/0216047).
Regarding claim 1, 6, 7, 9-11, 13, 14, 16 and 21, Lee teaches a lithium secondary battery (paragraphs [0005, 0054, 0056]) comprising a negative electrode composite layer comprising first and second negative electrode active materials (“first particle… second particle”, paragraph [0010]), a negative electrode conductive material (paragraph [0038]), and a negative electrode binder (paragraph [0039]); a positive electrode (paragraph [0054); and an electrolyte (paragraph [0054]).
Lee further teaches wherein:
As to claim 6, Wc lies within the range 0.001 to 0.05 (“1.0” paragraph [0076]); and
As to claim 7, D50 of the first active material lies within the range of 10 to 30 microns (“17 μm”, paragraph [0064], Table 1) and D50 of the second negative electrode active material lies within the range of 5 to 25 microns (“19 μm”, paragraph [0067], Table 1).
As to claim 21, L lies within the range of 0.2 to 0.5 (L is 260 mg/25 cm2 at paragraph [0076]. Converting units, 260 mg/25 cm2 maps to 0.260 g/25 cm2).
Lee is silent as to an RN/P value and therefore does not teach an RN/P value lying within the range of 1.05 to 1.1 as required by claim 9.
In the battery art, Yao teaches that it is conventional to configure a lithium battery such that RN/P lies between 1.05 and 1.2 for the benefit of mitigating financial costs of capacity loss in cells with desirable capacity (paragraph [0185]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to configure the battery of Lee to have an RN/P value lying with the range of 1.05 to 1.1 since this range is substantially overlapped by the 1.05 to 1.2 range taught by Yao, and Yao further teaches the N/P ratio as a result-effective variable which is optimizable based on factors such as capacity and cost of the battery.
The cited art is silent as to 0.38 ≤ CFC ≤ 1.962, when CFC is calculated as CFC = 100 X Wc – {(D50,a1 X D50,a2 X L X RN/P X 1010) / MWc}.
However, as stated in MPEP 2144 IV, “The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant.” Here, the values suggested by the prior art as described above yield a calculated CFC values lying within the claimed range. For example, when the exemplary values taught by Lee are utilized (Wc=1.0; D50,a1=17 μm; D50,a2=19 μm; and L=0.26), then calculating the CFC parameter with the RN/P range taught by Yao (RN/P = 1.05 to 1.20), yields a CFC range of 0.926 to 0.916, which lies within the claimed CFC range. Therefore, the conditions of the claim are met, even though the prior art does not suggest using the CFC calculation as does applicant.
Moreover, each of the input parameters merely represent values drawn to relative scale [e.g. particle diameter] or concentration, and/or are drawn to the same result-effective parameters recognized by the prior art for optimization. As described in MPEP 2144, a presumption of obviousness exists for claims drawn to optimization of parameters recognized by the prior art as result-effective variables, and recitations drawn to physical scale and relative concentration will not create patentability, unless criticality has been established (MPEP 2144.04 IVA, 2144.05 IIA). Accordingly, the prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Lee teaches the battery comprising a positive electrode, but does not appear to teach: wherein the positive electrode comprises a positive electrode composite layer including each of a positive electrode active material, a positive electrode conductive material, and a positive electrode binder as in claim 1; wherein the positive electrode active material comprising a single particle lithium nickel based oxide of the formula Li1+x[NiaCobMncM1d]O2, having a nickel content of 50 to 70 wt% as in claims 10-11 and 13, and a coating layer comprising an element such as Ti as in claim 14; and the positive electrode conductive material comprises a line-type conductive material and a point-type conductive material as in claim 16.
In the battery art Zhang teaches a positive electrode comprising a positive electrode composite layer including a positive electrode active material, a positive electrode conductive material, and a positive electrode binder (paragraphs [0135-0139]).
Zhang further teaches the positive electrode active material being a single particle lithium nickel based oxide (e.g. Fig. 3) of the formula Li1+x[NiaCobMncM1d]O2 and having a nickel content of 50 to 70 wt% (paragraphs [0039-0042]; paragraphs [0105-0115]; paragraph [0135]) and a coating layer comprising an element such as Ti (paragraphs [0021-0023]).
Zhang further teaches the positive electrode conductive material comprising a line-type conductive material and a point-type conductive material (paragraph [0137]).
Zhang further teaches that such a positive electrode active material provides improved performance such as in terms of cycling performance, reduced ion leaching, and/or reduced gasing (paragraphs [0005-0007]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize a positive electrode comprising the claimed active material, binder and conductive material having the above-described features for the benefit of providing the constituents normal function and/or providing improved performance such as in terms of cycling performance, reduced ion leaching, and/or reduced gasing as taught by Zhang.
Regarding the 3/16/26 amendment to claim 1, Lee further teaches wherein the first negative electrode active material is artificial graphite and the second negative electrode active material is natural graphite (paragraphs [0023] and [0041-0042], noting that the “third particle” instead of the “second particle” of Lee may be read on the natural graphite second negative electrode active material), but does not appear to teach wherein the artificial graphite does not comprise a coating layer.
Instead, Lee teaches the artificial graphite comprising a coated oxide shell layer of for the benefit of improving adhesive strength of the artificial graphite (paragraphs [0023-0024]).
However, in the battery art, Shin teaches that artificial graphite normally has a problem of low adhesion (T010) and as a solution teaches an artificial graphite particle provided with SiO2 nanoparticles on the surface thereof in order to improve adhesion of the artificial graphite (T003, T017, T034).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to omit the oxide coating layer of the Lee artificial graphite particles, and instead include SiO2 nanoparticles on the surface of the artificial graphite, for the benefit of providing improved adhesion to the artificial graphite particles as taught by Shin.
It is noted that even if the “improved adhesion” associated with the inclusion of SiO2 nanoparticles disclosed by Shin was not a higher amount of adhesion than offered by the oxide coating layer disclosed by Lee, the replacement of the oxide coating layer with SiO2 nanoparticles still is obvious as a matter of the simple substitution of one known element for another to yield the predictable result of suitable adhesion provided to the artificial graphite particles (MPEP 2141 III for more information on the “simple substation” rationale for obviousness). Accordingly, the invention of claim 1, even if requiring that the first negative electrode active material is artificial graphite which does not comprise a coating layer, is found to be obvious over the cited art.
Regarding claim 4, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Lee further teaches wherein the first negative electrode active material and the second negative electrode active material are included in a weight ratio value lying within the range of 90:10 to 50:50 (paragraphs [0078] teaches a 50:50 ratio and [0041-0042], noting that the “third particle” instead of the “second particle” of Lee may be read on the second negative electrode active material).
Regarding claim 5, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Lee further teaches wherein the negative electrode conductive material is a point-type conductive material (“carbon black”, paragraph [0038]).
Regarding claim 19 and 20, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Lee further teaches that the battery may be a subcomponent of a battery module for use in a electric vehicle (paragraph [0062]).
Claims 12, 15 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Lee (US 2020/0235406), Yao (US 2020/0212437), Shin (KR 2018-0101896), Zhang (US 2023/0216047) and Kim (US 2022/0238872).
Regarding claim 12 and 15, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. In the combined embodiment Zhang teaches detailed aspects of a lithium nickel-based positive electrode active material as described in the rejection of claim 1.
Zhang does not expressly teach that the single particle type lithium nickel-based oxide should comprise 1 to 25 nodules, the nodules have an average particle size of 0.8 to 4.0 µm, and the positive electrode active material has a D50 of 3.0 to 8.0 µm.
As to the D50 values, instead Zhang teaches the nodules of the material having D50 of 5 to 5 μm to 15 μm (paragraph [0014]) and the positive electrode material [secondary particles] having a D50 of 9 μm to 20 μm (paragraph [0015]), both larger than the claimed range.
Additionally, Zhang teaches a roundish single particle type lithium-nickel based oxide with three identified nodules (see Figure 3), which suggests that the amount of nodules, for the Figure 3 embodiment at least may lie within the claimed range of 1 to 25 nodules. It is noted that this figure corresponds to an example which is subjected to a first heat treatment temperature of 1200 C, whereas the other examples, which are more disperse and angular type oxides (see 4 for example) are subjected to heat treatments at first heat treatment at lower temperatures (see Table 1).
A skilled artisan at the time of invention would have understood that the relatively high heat treatment temperature used in the Figure 3 embodiment may account for the difference in agglomeration which leads to the low nodule number, single particle embodiment of Figure 3. For example, in the battery art, Kim teaches that when lithium oxide particles undergo a high-temperature heat treatment, particles tend to agglomerate (paragraph [0083]).
Kim further teaches a nickel-based positive electrode active material having a nodule size of 1 to 5 μm (paragraph [0079]) and an active material [agglomerated particle] size of 2.5 to 9 μm (paragraph [0079, 0129]), with Figure 5A illustrating agglomerated crystallite single particles within the ranges and comprised of a small number of nodules appearing to lie within the 1 to 25 nodule range. Kim further teaches that such particles exhibit desirable lifespan, charge/discharge and stability properties (paragraphs [0083-0086]).
Accordingly, the requirement that the positive electrode active material possesses the recited particle size ranges and nodule characteristic is found to be obvious over the cited art, which teaches agglomerated type particles comprised of a number of nodules in the 1 to 25 range, and teaches ranges of particle sizes which overlap the claimed nodule and whole-particle size ranges, particularly when the ranges of Zhang and Kim are considered together, with a prima facie case of obviousness existing when the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art.
Regarding claim 17 and 18, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Lee is silent regarding the energy density and the charge cut-off voltage.
In the battery art, Kim teaches that with appropriate selection of materials, a battery may exhibit a cut-off voltage higher than 3.5 V and an energy density above 260 Wh/kg (see Table 7).
Either i) the lithium secondary battery would exhibit the claimed properties due to comprising similar materials as the claimed invention as described in the claim 1, or ii) it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to reconfigure the battery to exhibit the claimed properties of a cut-off voltage higher than 3.5 V and an energy density above 260 Wh/kg, as these properties represent a known desirable threshold achieved in the prior art, and claims 17 and 18 do not include any additional structural features which facilitate the achievement of the desirable properties.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 3/16/26 have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendment.
Relevant or Related Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, though not necessarily pertinent to applicant’s invention as claimed.
Piao (US 2019/0088947) lithium secondary battery comprising two negative electrode active materials;
Baek (US 2020/0083524) lithium secondary battery with optimized loading amount for fast charging and other desirable properties;
Choi (US 2024/0101444) positive electrode active material comprising lanthanum coating and nodules
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMIAH R SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9 AM-5 PM (EST).
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, Tiffany Legette-Thompson can be reached on (571)270-7078. 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.
/JEREMIAH R SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723