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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/07/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed 01/07/2026 have been fully considered. Claim(s) 1 is/are amended; and claim(s) 11 and 16 has/have been canceled. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth in the Office action mailed 10/08/2025 has/have been withdrawn. New grounds of rejection are presented hereinbelow.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, clause 4 recites the following equation, where the emphasized portion appears to be a typographical error intended to recite dhousing:
PNG
media_image1.png
73
1096
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Support for this interpretation is found in clause 5 of claim 1, referring to a value of dhousing.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-24 are also objected to for dependency on the objected claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 9-10, 12, 14, 17-22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN-111446488-A; cited in 01/23/2025 IDS, machine translation in 06/30/2025 Office action) in view of Liang et al. (WO-2021023137-A1; cited in 01/23/2025 IDS, machine translation in 06/30/2025 Office action), Gunter et al. (Influence of the Electrolyte Quantity on Lithium-Ion Cells; copy provided with this Office action) and as evidenced by Solvionic (1M LiPF6 in EC:EMC1:1 (vol.) + 2wt% FEC; copy provided with this Office action)
Claims 1 and 3 recite a value of
d
p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e
*
N
1
+
d
n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e
*
N
2
+
d
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
*
N
3
d
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
. Paragraph [0103] of the instant specification designates this value as being the “group margin” of the secondary battery; thus, the term group margin is used interchangeably to refer to this value as discussed below.
Regarding claims 1-3 and 17-19, Liu discloses a secondary battery, comprising a battery housing (“outer package”, machine translation of Liu [0064], FIG. 2) and a positive electrode plate ([0034]), a negative electrode plate ([0067]), a separator (“isolation membrane”, [0068]), and an electrolyte ([0068]) that are disposed within the battery housing (as electrode assembly 52 in housing 51; [0064], FIG. 2), wherein the separator is arranged between the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate ([0092]), wherein the positive electrode plate comprises a positive electrode active material layer, and the positive electrode active material layer comprises a first positive electrode active material and a second positive electrode active material ([0034]) as claimed in claim 1.
Liu discloses an example embodiment of the battery where the first positive electrode active material comprises LiNi0.5Co0.2Mn0.3O2 (Liu Example 2, Table 3 pp.13), which falls within the range of compositions LiaNibCocM1dM2eOfR'g claimed in claim 1 wherein 0.75≤a≤1.2 (a=1), 0<b<1 (b=0.5), 0<c< 1 (c=0.2), 0<d<1 (d=0.3), 0≤e≤0.2 (e=0), 1≤f≤ 2.5 (f=2), 0≤g≤ 1 (g=0), f+g≤3 (f+g=2), M1 is element Mn and/or element Al (M2 is Mn), M2 is not positively recited where e=0, and R’ is not positively recited where g=0.
Additionally, the general formula of Liu’s first positive electrode active material is Lix1Ni(1-y1-z1-a1)Coy1Mnz1M1a1O2 wherein 0.90≤x1≤1.05, 0<y1≤0.2, 0<z1≤0.2, 0≤a1≤0.05, M1 is selected from one or more of Ti, Al, Zr, Mg, Zn, Ba, Mo, and B, or Lix2Ni(1-y2-z2-a2)Coy2Alz2M2a2O2 wherein 0.90≤x2≤1.05, 0<y2≤0.1, 0<z1≤0.1, 0≤a2≤0.05, M2 is selected from one or more of Ti,
Mn, Zr, Mg, Zn, Ba, Mo, and B ([0037]).
This overlaps with the claimed formula of LiaNibCocM1dM2eOfR'g wherein 0.75≤a≤1.2 (0.90≤a≤1.05), 0<b<1 (0.55≤b<1), 0<c< 1 (0<c≤0.1 or 0<c≤0.2), 0<d<1 (0<d≤0.2 where M1 is Mn, 0<d≤0.1 where M2 is Al), 0≤e≤0.2 (0≤e≤0.05), 1≤f≤ 2.5 (f=2), 0≤g≤ 1 (g=0), f+g≤3 (f+g=2), M1 is element Mn or element Al, M2 comprises one or more elements of Zr, Zn, Cu, Cr, Mg, Fe, V, Ti, Sr, Sb, Y, W, and Nb (M2 is Ti, Mn, Al, Zr, Mg, Zn, Ba, Mo, and B) such that a skilled artisan seeking to produce Liu’s first positive electrode active material would have routinely selected within the portion overlapping with the range of compositions claimed in claim 1 (MPEP 2144.05 I).
In the example embodiment of the battery referenced above, Liu further provides a second positive electrode active material comprising LiFePO4 (“LFP-2” in Liu Example 2 Table 3 pp.13; Liu [0042] indicating the material to be LiFePO4), which falls within the composition of claim 1 comprising Li1+xM3nMn1-yA'yP1-zEzO4, wherein -0.100≤x≤0.100 (x=1), 0≤n≤1.1 (n=0), 0.001≤y≤ 1 (y=1), 0≤z≤0.100 (z=0), M3 is not positively recited where n=0, A' comprises one or more elements of Zn, Al, Na, K, Mg, Mo, W, Ti, V, Zr, Fe, Ga, Sn, Sb, Nb, and Ge, and E is not positively recited where z=0.
LiFePO4 (Liu [0042]) further reads on the scope of condition (i) of claims 2 and 19, reciting “(i) y=1, and n=0, wherein the second positive electrode active material is Li1+xA'P1-zEzO4, wherein A' is element Fe, or A' is element Fe and one or more elements of Zn, Al, Na, K, Mg, Mo, W, Ti, V, Zr, Fe, Ga, Sn, Sb, Nb, and Ge” where A’ is element Fe;
on claim 17, reciting “wherein in the second positive electrode active material, E comprises one or more elements of B, Si, N, and S” where E is not positively recited where z=0; and
on claim 18, reciting “in the second positive electrode active material, A' comprises one or more elements of Fe, Ti, V, and Mg” where A’ comprises Fe.
Liu fails to expressly disclose that the secondary battery satisfies the following equation (i.e., the group margin; see interpretation of claims 1 and 3):
0.9
≤
d
p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e
*
N
1
+
d
n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e
*
N
2
+
d
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
*
N
3
d
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
≤
0.95
wherein dpositive represents a thickness of a single layer of positive electrode plate, measured in mm; dnegative represents a thickness of a single layer of negative electrode plate, measured in mm; dseparator represents a thickness of a single layer of separator, measured in mm; dhousing represents an inner cavity thickness of the battery housing, measured in mm; N1 represents a layer count of the positive electrode plate within the battery housing; N2 represents a layer count of the negative electrode plate within the battery housing; and N3 represents a layer count of the separator within the battery housing.
However, the group margin numerator term dpositive* N1+dnegative*N2+ dseparator*N3 represents the combined thickness of all layers of positive electrode plates, negative electrode plates, and separators, this being understood as a thickness of the electrode assembly (“bare battery cell”) in Liu’s battery (Liu [0092]). At least some value of this term is present as an intrinsic property of Liu’s electrode assembly comprising some amount of thickness, which necessarily fits inside the battery housing having some thickness (i.e., a dhousing-) during manufacturing ([0092], FIG. 2).
Liang (WO-2021023137-A1) is directed to design considerations of a secondary battery (Liang [0006-0007]) including a group margin similarly defined by a ratio of electrode assembly thickness to an inner cavity thickness of the battery housing (“battery case inner thickness”) ([0026]).
Liang teaches that the group margin is at least 85% to improve the energy density of the battery ([0023], [0027]); simultaneously, the group margin is less than 95% to prevent manufacturing damage, to enable sufficient quantities of electrolyte to be provided, and to minimize pressure on the electrode assembly, thus improving cycling and safety performance ([0023], [0027]).
Furthermore, Liang’s experimental examples (Liang Examples 5-9, pp. 9-14 Tables 1-3; machine translation of a portion of Table 3 provided below) show that decreasing the group margin below 90% (Examples 5, 6) sacrifices discharge capacity (see Table 3, col. 3) without improving cycling or safety performance (Table 3, cols. 4-8) such that a skilled artisan would prioritize optimizing a range of group margin between 90-95%.
PNG
media_image2.png
400
1012
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Machine translation of Liang Table 3
Thus, in seeking to sufficiently balance discharge capacity with cycling and safety performance in Liu’s secondary battery, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the group margin between 90% ≤ group margin ≤ 95% as taught by Liang. This range of optimization matches the range of 0.9 ≤ group margin ≤ 0.95 claimed in claim 1 and closely encompasses the range of 0.91≤ group margin ≤ 0.94 claimed in claim 3 such that a skilled artisan would have selected within these ranges through routine optimization under Liang’s teaching (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Such an optimization would be done with a reasonable expectation of success as a skilled artisan would need to select at least some value of group margin (i.e., dimensions of both electrode assembly thickness and inner cavity thickness) to construct Liu’s secondary battery, where Liang’s teaching provides a suitably operable range of group margin available to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Liu further discloses injection of the battery with an amount of liquid electrolyte (Liu [0092]); however, Liu fails to numerically specify an amount of electrolyte relative to the battery capacity (i.e., an electrolyte injection coefficient) where claim 1 recites “an electrolyte injection coefficient of 2.5 g/Ah to 3.0 g/Ah, optionally 2.62 g/Ah to 2.90 g/Ah, and more optionally 2.70 g/Ah to 2.90 g/Ah”.
Gunter, directed to considerations of electrolyte wetting in a lithium-ion battery (Gunter, abstract) teaches that too little electrolyte reduces battery lifetime and capacity, while excess electrolyte reduces energy density (pp. A1713 col. 2 ¶3-A1714 col. 1 ¶1).
Gunter produces experimental example batteries with electrolyte injection coefficients ranging from 1.40 g/Ah (p. A1710 Table II, column under volumetric factor 0.6 with 1.10 mL/Ah) to 4.16 g/Ah (Gunter Table II, volumetric factor 1.8 with 3.26 mL/Ah). (An electrolyte fluid density of 1.27 g/mL is used for estimating the electrolyte weight from Gunter’s electrolyte volumes; see Gunter p. A1710 col. 1 ¶2 and Solvionic pp. 1 § Density).
The batteries with insufficient electrolyte (i.e., “cell with vf 0.6”, p. A1712 col. 2 ¶3; having 1.40 g/Ah electrolyte) were found to collapse at low temperatures and high charging rates, while cells with large amounts of electrolyte (“cells with vf 1.6 and vf 1.8”, p. A1712 col. 2 ¶3; vf 1.8 having 4.16 g/Ah electrolyte) were able to maintain high voltages throughout charging but had reduced capacity (p. A1712 col. 2, pp. A1711 col. 2 ¶3-pp.A1712 col. 1 ¶1). These teachings are teachings are pertinent to Liu’s disclosure, which aims to improve battery performance at low temperatures and low SOC (Liu [0012]).
Thus, in seeking to balance battery capacity and battery performance at low temperatures across a range of charge, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize Liu or modified Liu’s electrolyte injection coefficient between approximately 1.40 g/Ah to 4.16 g/Ah according to Gunter’s teachings. This range encompasses “an electrolyte injection coefficient of 2.5 g/Ah to 3.0 g/Ah, optionally 2.62 g/Ah to 2.90 g/Ah, and more optionally 2.70 g/Ah to 2.90 g/Ah” claimed in claim 1, such that a skilled artisan optimizing the electrolyte injection coefficient would have selected within this range through routine optimization under Gunter’s teaching (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Such an optimization would be done with a reasonable expectation of success, as Liu indicates that specific details of the electrolyte are not necessarily restricted and are suitably selected according to an intended need from those known in the art (Liu [0068], [0066]), and at least some value of electrolyte injection coefficient is already present from injecting the electrolyte to produce Liu’s battery ([0092]).
Modified Liu further discloses that the second positive electrode active material comprises a Dv50 ranging between 1 μm to 15 μm ([0050]), partially overlapping with the limitation “a Dv50 particle size of the second positive electrode active material is 0.25 µm to 1.49 µm” claimed in claim 1 between 1-1.49 µm such that a skilled artisan seeking to produce modified Liu’s battery would have routinely selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Modified Liu also discloses that the first positive electrode active material may have a smaller average particle size than the second positive electrode active material for purposes of improving the compaction density of the electrode ([0051]). Liu fails to expressly disclose a numeric Dv50 of the first positive electrode active material; however, as the Dv50 of Liu’s second positive electrode active material suitably ranges from 1 μm to 15 μm, a Dv50 of Liu’s first positive electrode active material may suitably range from 1 µm to <15µm while still being smaller than the Dv50 of the second positive electrode active material in this range, overlapping with the “a Dv50 particle size of the first positive electrode active material is 2.1 µm to 6.3 µm” claimed in claim 1 such that a skilled artisan seeking to produce modified Liu’s battery would have routinely selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, modified Liu discloses the secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the active material layer of the positive electrode plate has a compacted density of 3.4 g/cm^3 (Liu [0092]), which falls within and renders obvious “the active material layer of the positive electrode plate has a compacted density of 3.10 g/cm3 to 3.50 g/cm3, optionally 3.15 g/cm3 to 3.40 g/cm3, more optionally 3.15 g/cm3 to 3.35 g/cm3” as claimed in claim 9,
and the active material layer of the negative electrode plate has a compacted density of 1.6 g/cm^3 (Liu [0092]), which falls within and renders obvious “the active material layer of the negative electrode plate has a compacted density of 1.6 g/cm3 to 1.70 g/cm3, optionally 1.64 g/cm3 to 1.69 g/cm3” as claimed in claim 10.
Regarding claim 12, modified Liu discloses the secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein a surface of the first positive electrode active material is provided with a first coating layer (“first positive electrode active material […] obtained by coating and modifying the above materials”, Liu [0037])
Claim 12 further recites “optionally, the first coating layer comprises one or more elements of Ti, Al, B, Nb, Zr, Si, and W”, such that the specific element(s) of the first coating layer which Liu fails to specify are not positively recited.
Regarding claim 14, modified Liu discloses the secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein a surface of the second positive electrode active material is provided with a second coating layer, and, the second coating layer comprises carbon (Liu [0055]).
Regarding claims 20-22, modified Liu discloses the secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the first positive electrode active material (LiNi0.5Co0.2Mn0.3O2) and second positive electrode active material (LiFePO4) are present in a molar ratio of 96.5% and 3.5%, respectively (Liu Example 2, pp. 13 Table 3, [0042]). As the first positive electrode active material comprises 0.5 parts Ni per mole, and the second positive electrode active material comprises 1 part A’ (Fe) per mole, a ratio between n(A’) and n(Ni) may be expressed as
n
(
A
'
)
n
(
N
i
)
=
3.5
%
*
1
96.5
%
*
0.5
evaluating to 0.072, wich falls within
0.02
≤
n
A
'
n
N
i
≤
1.4
as claimed in claim 20 and
0.03
≤
n
A
'
n
N
i
≤
0.20
as claimed in claim 22.
Furthermore in modified Liu’s second positive electrode active material (LiFePO4) comprising 1 part A’ (Fe) and 1 part P, a ratio between n(A’) and n(P) may be expressed as
n
(
A
'
)
n
(
P
)
=
1
1
, which falls within
0.15
≤
n
A
'
n
P
≤
1.50
as claimed in claim 20 and
0.4
≤
n
A
'
n
P
≤
1.1
as claimed in claim 21.
Regarding claim 24, modified Liu discloses an electric apparatus (“a device”) comprising the secondary battery according to claim 1 (Liu [0010]).
Claims 1-3, 9-10, 12, 14, 17-22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN-111446488-A; cited in 01/23/2025 IDS, machine translation in 06/30/2025 Office action) in view of Liang et al. (WO-2021023137-A1; cited in 01/23/2025 IDS, machine translation in 06/30/2025 Office action), Gunter et al. (Influence of the Electrolyte Quantity on Lithium-Ion Cells; copy provided with this Office action), and Mo et al. (CN-113517423-A; see attached machine translation), and as evidenced by Solvionic (1M LiPF6 in EC:EMC1:1 (vol.) + 2wt% FEC; copy provided with this Office action)
Claims 1 and 3 recite a value of
d
p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e
*
N
1
+
d
n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e
*
N
2
+
d
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
*
N
3
d
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
. Paragraph [0103] of the instant specification designates this value as being the “group margin” of the secondary battery; thus, the term group margin is used interchangeably to refer to this value as discussed below.
Regarding claims 1-3 and 17-19, Liu discloses a secondary battery, comprising a battery housing (“outer package”, machine translation of Liu [0064], FIG. 2) and a positive electrode plate ([0034]), a negative electrode plate ([0067]), a separator (“isolation membrane”, [0068]), and an electrolyte ([0068]) that are disposed within the battery housing (as electrode assembly 52 in housing 51; [0064], FIG. 2), wherein the separator is arranged between the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate ([0092]), wherein the positive electrode plate comprises a positive electrode active material layer, and the positive electrode active material layer comprises a first positive electrode active material and a second positive electrode active material ([0034]) as claimed in claim 1.
Liu discloses an example embodiment of the battery where the first positive electrode active material comprises LiNi0.5Co0.2Mn0.3O2 (Liu Example 2, Table 3 pp.13), which falls within the range of compositions LiaNibCocM1dM2eOfR'g claimed in claim 1 wherein 0.75≤a≤1.2 (a=1), 0<b<1 (b=0.5), 0<c< 1 (c=0.2), 0<d<1 (d=0.3), 0≤e≤0.2 (e=0), 1≤f≤ 2.5 (f=2), 0≤g≤ 1 (g=0), f+g≤3 (f+g=2), M1 is element Mn and/or element Al (M2 is Mn), M2 is not positively recited where e=0, and R’ is not positively recited where g=0.
Additionally, the general formula of Liu’s first positive electrode active material is Lix1Ni(1-y1-z1-a1)Coy1Mnz1M1a1O2 wherein 0.90≤x1≤1.05, 0<y1≤0.2, 0<z1≤0.2, 0≤a1≤0.05, M1 is selected from one or more of Ti, Al, Zr, Mg, Zn, Ba, Mo, and B, or Lix2Ni(1-y2-z2-a2)Coy2Alz2M2a2O2 wherein 0.90≤x2≤1.05, 0<y2≤0.1, 0<z1≤0.1, 0≤a2≤0.05, M2 is selected from one or more of Ti,
Mn, Zr, Mg, Zn, Ba, Mo, and B ([0037]).
This overlaps with the claimed formula of LiaNibCocM1dM2eOfR'g wherein 0.75≤a≤1.2 (0.90≤a≤1.05), 0<b<1 (0.55≤b<1), 0<c< 1 (0<c≤0.1 or 0<c≤0.2), 0<d<1 (0<d≤0.2 where M1 is Mn, 0<d≤0.1 where M2 is Al), 0≤e≤0.2 (0≤e≤0.05), 1≤f≤ 2.5 (f=2), 0≤g≤ 1 (g=0), f+g≤3 (f+g=2), M1 is element Mn or element Al, M2 comprises one or more elements of Zr, Zn, Cu, Cr, Mg, Fe, V, Ti, Sr, Sb, Y, W, and Nb (M2 is Ti, Mn, Al, Zr, Mg, Zn, Ba, Mo, and B) such that a skilled artisan seeking to produce Liu’s first positive electrode active material would have routinely selected within the portion overlapping with the range of compositions claimed in claim 1 (MPEP 2144.05 I).
In the example embodiment of the battery referenced above, Liu further provides a second positive electrode active material comprising LiFePO4 (“LFP-2” in Liu Example 2 Table 3 pp.13; Liu [0042] indicating the material to be LiFePO4), which falls within the composition of claim 1 comprising Li1+xM3nMn1-yA'yP1-zEzO4, wherein -0.100≤x≤0.100 (x=1), 0≤n≤1.1 (n=0), 0.001≤y≤ 1 (y=1), 0≤z≤0.100 (z=0), M3 is not positively recited where n=0, A' comprises one or more elements of Zn, Al, Na, K, Mg, Mo, W, Ti, V, Zr, Fe, Ga, Sn, Sb, Nb, and Ge, and E is not positively recited where z=0.
LiFePO4 (Liu [0042]) further reads on the scope of condition (i) of claims 2 and 19, reciting “(i) y=1, and n=0, wherein the second positive electrode active material is Li1+xA'P1-zEzO4, wherein A' is element Fe, or A' is element Fe and one or more elements of Zn, Al, Na, K, Mg, Mo, W, Ti, V, Zr, Fe, Ga, Sn, Sb, Nb, and Ge” where A’ is element Fe;
on claim 17, reciting “wherein in the second positive electrode active material, E comprises one or more elements of B, Si, N, and S” where E is not positively recited where z=0; and
on claim 18, reciting “in the second positive electrode active material, A' comprises one or more elements of Fe, Ti, V, and Mg” where A’ comprises Fe.
Liu fails to expressly disclose that the secondary battery satisfies the following equation (i.e., the group margin; see interpretation of claims 1 and 3):
0.9
≤
d
p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e
*
N
1
+
d
n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e
*
N
2
+
d
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r
*
N
3
d
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
≤
0.95
wherein dpositive represents a thickness of a single layer of positive electrode plate, measured in mm; dnegative represents a thickness of a single layer of negative electrode plate, measured in mm; dseparator represents a thickness of a single layer of separator, measured in mm; dhousing represents an inner cavity thickness of the battery housing, measured in mm; N1 represents a layer count of the positive electrode plate within the battery housing; N2 represents a layer count of the negative electrode plate within the battery housing; and N3 represents a layer count of the separator within the battery housing.
However, the group margin numerator term dpositive* N1+dnegative*N2+ dseparator*N3 represents the combined thickness of all layers of positive electrode plates, negative electrode plates, and separators, this being understood as a thickness of the electrode assembly (“bare battery cell”) in Liu’s battery (Liu [0092]). At least some value of this term is present as an intrinsic property of Liu’s electrode assembly comprising some amount of thickness, which necessarily fits inside the battery housing having some thickness (i.e., a dhousing-) during manufacturing ([0092], FIG. 2).
Liang (WO-2021023137-A1) is directed to design considerations of a secondary battery (Liang [0006-0007]) including a group margin similarly defined by a ratio of electrode assembly thickness to an inner cavity thickness of the battery housing (“battery case inner thickness”) ([0026]).
Liang teaches that the group margin is at least 85% to improve the energy density of the battery ([0023], [0027]); simultaneously, the group margin is less than 95% to prevent manufacturing damage, to enable sufficient quantities of electrolyte to be provided, and to minimize pressure on the electrode assembly, thus improving cycling and safety performance ([0023], [0027]).
PNG
media_image2.png
400
1012
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Machine translation of Liang Table 3
Furthermore, Liang’s experimental examples (Liang Examples 5-9, pp. 9-14 Tables 1-3; machine translation of a portion of Table 3 provided above) show that decreasing the group margin below 90% (Examples 5, 6) sacrifices discharge capacity (see Table 3, col. 3) without improving cycling or safety performance (Table 3, cols. 4-8) such that a skilled artisan would prioritize optimizing a range of group margin between 90-95%.
Thus, in seeking to sufficiently balance discharge capacity with cycling and safety performance in Liu’s secondary battery, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the group margin between 90% ≤ group margin ≤ 95% as taught by Liang. This range of optimization matches the range of 0.9 ≤ group margin ≤ 0.95 claimed in claim 1 and closely encompasses the range of 0.91≤ group margin ≤ 0.94 claimed in claim 3 such that a skilled artisan would have selected within these ranges through routine optimization under Liang’s teaching (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Such an optimization would be done with a reasonable expectation of success as a skilled artisan would need to select at least some value of group margin (i.e., dimensions of both electrode assembly thickness and inner cavity thickness) to construct Liu’s secondary battery, where Liang’s teaching provides a suitably operable range of group margin available to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Liu further discloses injection of the battery with an amount of liquid electrolyte (Liu [0092]); however, Liu fails to numerically specify an amount of electrolyte relative to the battery capacity (i.e., an electrolyte injection coefficient) where claim 1 recites “an electrolyte injection coefficient of 2.5 g/Ah to 3.0 g/Ah, optionally 2.62 g/Ah to 2.90 g/Ah, and more optionally 2.70 g/Ah to 2.90 g/Ah”.
Gunter, directed to considerations of electrolyte wetting in a lithium-ion battery (Gunter, abstract) teaches that too little electrolyte reduces battery lifetime and capacity, while excess electrolyte reduces energy density (pp. A1713 col. 2 ¶3-A1714 col. 1 ¶1).
Gunter produces experimental example batteries with electrolyte injection coefficients ranging from 1.40 g/Ah (p. A1710 Table II, column under volumetric factor 0.6 with 1.10 mL/Ah) to 4.16 g/Ah (Gunter Table II, volumetric factor 1.8 with 3.26 mL/Ah). (An electrolyte fluid density of 1.27 g/mL is used for estimating the electrolyte weight from Gunter’s electrolyte volumes; see Gunter p. A1710 col. 1 ¶2 and Solvionic pp. 1 § Density).
The batteries with insufficient electrolyte (i.e., “cell with vf 0.6”, p. A1712 col. 2 ¶3; having 1.40 g/Ah electrolyte) were found to collapse at low temperatures and high charging rates, while cells with large amounts of electrolyte (“cells with vf 1.6 and vf 1.8”, p. A1712 col. 2 ¶3; vf 1.8 having 4.16 g/Ah electrolyte) were able to maintain high voltages throughout charging but had reduced capacity (p. A1712 col. 2, pp. A1711 col. 2 ¶3-pp.A1712 col. 1 ¶1). These teachings are teachings are pertinent to Liu’s disclosure, which aims to improve battery performance at low temperatures and low SOC (Liu [0012]).
Thus, in seeking to balance battery capacity and battery performance at low temperatures across a range of charge, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize Liu or modified Liu’s electrolyte injection coefficient between approximately 1.40 g/Ah to 4.16 g/Ah according to Gunter’s teachings. This range encompasses “an electrolyte injection coefficient of 2.5 g/Ah to 3.0 g/Ah, optionally 2.62 g/Ah to 2.90 g/Ah, and more optionally 2.70 g/Ah to 2.90 g/Ah” claimed in claim 1, such that a skilled artisan optimizing the electrolyte injection coefficient would have selected within this range through routine optimization under Gunter’s teaching (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Such an optimization would be done with a reasonable expectation of success, as Liu indicates that specific details of the electrolyte are not necessarily restricted and are suitably selected according to an intended need from those known in the art (Liu [0068], [0066]), and at least some value of electrolyte injection coefficient is already present from injecting the electrolyte to produce Liu’s battery ([0092]).
Modified Liu further discloses that the second positive electrode active material comprises a Dv50 ranging between 1 μm to 15 μm ([0050]), and the first positive electrode active material comprises a smaller average particle size than the second positive electrode active material ([0051]). However, Liu fails to expressly provide particles of first positive electrode active material which fall within the limitations “wherein a Dv50 particle size of the second positive electrode active material is 0.25 µm to 1.49 µm” or “wherein a Dv50 particle size of the first positive electrode active material is 2.1 µm to 6.3 µm” as claimed in claim 1.
Mo et al. (CN113517423A) is directed to a secondary battery wherein the positive electrode likewise comprises a first positive electrode active material (“low-cobalt active material”) having the formula LiNixCoyM1-x-yO2 where 0.5≤x≤0.9, 0≤y≤0.05, and M is Mn/Al ([n0014]), combined with a second positive electrode active material which is a lithium iron phosphate ([n0011]) to similarly improve battery performance at the end of discharge, i.e., at low SOC ([n0050]).
Mo further discloses that the particle size of the first positive electrode active material is preferably at least 2 µm to reduce side reactions with the electrolyte and less than 7 µm to ensure sufficiently high material reaction kinetics, particularly when using a single crystal first positive electrode active material (Mo [n0016-n0018]). Such considerations are pertinent to Liu, which prefers a single crystal first positive electrode active material and desires to minimize side reactions of the first positive electrode active material (Liu [0049]).
Thus, in seeking to sufficiently improve modified Liu’s material reaction kinetics without causing side reactions, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the Dv50 of the first positive electrode active material within a range of 2 to 7 µm as taught by Mo. This range closely encompasses “a Dv50 particle size of the first positive electrode active material is 2.1 µm to 6.3 µm, optionally 3.5 µm to 4.9 µm” as recited in claim 1, such that a skilled artisan performing the above optimization would reasonably utilize at least a portion of the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Such a modification would be done with a reasonable expectation of success as Liu and Mo are directed to chemically and physically alike first positive electrode active materials (Liu [0049], Mo [n0016-n0018]) which serve analogous functions in the secondary battery (Liu [0035], Mo [n0050]), such that modification of Liu with Mo would not modify Liu’s intrinsic function.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, modified Liu discloses the secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the active material layer of the positive electrode plate has a compacted density of 3.4 g/cm^3 (Liu [0092]), which falls within and renders obvious “the active material layer of the positive electrode plate has a compacted density of 3.10 g/cm3 to 3.50 g/cm3, optionally 3.15 g/cm3 to 3.40 g/cm3, more optionally 3.15 g/cm3 to 3.35 g/cm3” as claimed in claim 9,
and the active material layer of the negative electrode plate has a compacted density of 1.6 g/cm^3 (Liu [0092]), which falls within and renders obvious “the active material layer of the negative electrode plate has a compacted density of 1.6 g/cm3 to 1.70 g/cm3, optionally 1.64 g/cm3 to 1.69 g/cm3” as claimed in claim 10.
Regarding claim 12, modified Liu discloses the secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein a surface of the first positive electrode active material is provided with a first coating layer (“first positive electrode active material […] obtained by coating and modifying the above materials”, Liu [0037])
Claim 12 further recites “optionally, the first coating layer comprises one or more elements of Ti, Al, B, Nb, Zr, Si, and W”, such that the specific element(s) of the first coating layer which Liu fails to specify are not positively recited.
Regarding claim 14, modified Liu discloses the secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein a surface of the second positive electrode active material is provided with a second coating layer, and, the second coating layer comprises carbon (Liu [0055]).
Regarding claims 20-22, modified Liu discloses the secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the first positive electrode active material (LiNi0.5Co0.2Mn0.3O2) and second positive electrode active material (LiFePO4) are present in a molar ratio of 96.5% and 3.5%, respectively (Liu Example 2, pp. 13 Table 3, [0042]). As the first positive electrode active material comprises 0.5 parts Ni per mole, and the second positive electrode active material comprises 1 part A’ (Fe) per mole, a ratio between n(A’) and n(Ni) may be expressed as
n
(
A
'
)
n
(
N
i
)
=
3.5
%
*
1
96.5
%
*
0.5
evaluating to 0.072, wich falls within
0.02
≤
n
A
'
n
N
i
≤
1.4
as claimed in claim 20 and
0.03
≤
n
A
'
n
N
i
≤
0.20
as claimed in claim 22.
Furthermore in modified Liu’s second positive electrode active material (LiFePO4) comprising 1 part A’ (Fe) and 1 part P, a ratio between n(A’) and n(P) may be expressed as
n
(
A
'
)
n
(
P
)
=
1
1
, which falls within
0.15
≤
n
A
'
n
P
≤
1.50
as claimed in claim 20 and
0.4
≤
n
A
'
n
P
≤
1.1
as claimed in claim 21.
Regarding claim 24, modified Liu discloses an electric apparatus (“a device”) comprising the secondary battery according to claim 1 (Liu [0010]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Liu (CN-111446488-A), Liang (WO-2021023137-A1), Gunter (Electrolyte Quantity […]), and Solvionic as applied to claim 1 alone or in view of Mo (CN-113517423-A), further in view of Tanizaki et al. (US-20160285100-A1; cited in 06/30/2025 Office action).
Regarding claim 4, modified Liu discloses the secondary battery according to claim 1. While Liu’s positive and negative electrodes necessarily comprise some measure of thickness dpositive and dnegative, modified Liu fails to specify a numeric value of either dpositive or dnegative as claimed in claim 4, reciting “wherein 0.11 mm ≤ dpositive ≤ 0.16 mm, optionally 0.12 mm ≤ dpositive ≤ 0.14 mm; and 0.15 mm ≤ dnegative ≤ 0.20 mm, optionally 0.16 mm ≤ dnegative ≤ 0.18mm”.
Tanizaki, analogous as a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery (Tanizaki, abstract), teaches that a thickness of the positive electrode active material layer on each side of the current collector should be least 50 μm (0.05mm) to improve the battery capacity, while also less than 100 μm (0.10mm) to prevent degradation of the input/output characteristics ([0040]). A combined thickness (i.e., dpositive) of two positive electrode active material layers applied to a 0.02mm thick current collector typical in the art ([0093]) forming a single layer of positive electrode plate ([0021], FIG. 2) is thus optimized between about 120-220 µm (0.12-0.22 mm).
As such, in seeking to balance the capacity and input/output characteristics of modified Liu’s secondary battery, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize a thickness of a single layer of Liu’s positive electrode plate dpositive between 0.12mm to 0.22mm as taught by Tanizaki. This range overlaps with the range of 0.11 mm ≤ dpositive ≤ 0.16 mm claimed in claim 4 and encompasses the optional range 0.12 mm ≤ dpositive ≤ 0.14 mm claimed in claim 4 such that a skilled artisan performing the above optimization would utilize at least a portion of the overlapping or encompassed ranges (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Similarly, Tanizaki teaches that the negative electrode active material layer thickness should be at least 40 µm (0.04mm) to improve battery capacity and less than 80 µm (0.08mm) to prevent degradation of the input/output characteristics ([0081]). A combined thickness (i.e, dnegative) of two negative electrode active material layers applied to a 0.010mm thick current collector typical in the art ([0094]) forming a single layer of positive electrode plate ([0022], FIG. 2) is thus optimized between about 0.09-0.17 mm.
As such, in seeking to balance the capacity and input/output characteristics of modified Liu’s secondary battery, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize a thickness of a single layer of Liu’s negative electrode plate dnegative between 0.09mm to 0.17mm as taught by Tanizaki. This range overlaps with a portion of the range 0.15 mm ≤ dnegative ≤ 0.20 mm claimed in claim 4 between 0.15 mm ≤ dnegative ≤ 0.17mm and overlaps with a portion of the optional range 0.16 mm ≤ dnegative ≤ 0.18mm claimed in claim 4 between 0.16 mm ≤ dnegative ≤ 0.17mm such that a skilled artisan performing the above optimization would utilize at least a portion of the overlapping or encompassed ranges (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Such optimizations would be made with a reasonable expectation of success because aside from requiring the use of the particular first and second positive electrode active materials, Liu indicates a suitability of selecting existing structures and preparation methods to produce the secondary battery (Liu [0066]), e.g., selection of a known positive and negative electrode plate thickness.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Liu (CN-111446488-A), Liang (WO-2021023137-A1), Gunter (Electrolyte Quantity […]), and Solvionic as applied to claim 1 alone or in view of Mo (CN-113517423-A), further in view of Sato et al. (US6589690; cited in 06/30/2025 Office action).
Regarding claim 5, modified Liu discloses the secondary battery according to claim 1. While Liu’s separator (“isolation film”) necessarily comprises some measure of thickness, modified Liu fails to specify a numeric value of dseparator as claimed in claim 5 where reciting “wherein 0.009 mm ≤ dseparator ≤ 0.014 mm, optionally 0.011 mm ≤ dseparator ≤ 0.012 mm”.
Sato, analogous as a secondary battery (Sato, abstract) comprising a separator (“porous sheet”, Sato col. 13 ln. 18-30), teaches selecting thickness of the separator (i.e., dseparator) of at least 5 µm (0.005 mm) to provide sufficient material strength and prevent short circuits, and less than 30 µm (0.030 mm) to avoid increasing the internal resistance of the secondary battery (col. 13 ln. 31-39).
Thus, in seeking to balance the above considerations in modified Liu’s secondary battery, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the thickness of the separator dseparator within a range of 0.005 to 0.030mm. This range encompasses the ranges “0.009 mm ≤ dseparator ≤ 0.014 mm, optionally 0.011 mm ≤ dseparator ≤ 0.012 mm” claimed in claim 5 such that a skilled artisan performing this optimization would utilize at least a portion of the overlapping or encompassed ranges (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Such optimizations would be made with a reasonable expectation of success because aside from requiring the use of the particular first and second positive electrode active materials, Liu indicates a suitability of selecting existing structures and preparation methods to produce the secondary battery (Liu [0066]), e.g., selection of a known separator thickness.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Liu (CN-111446488-A), Liang (WO-2021023137-A1), Gunter (Electrolyte Quantity […]), and Solvionic as applied to claim 1 alone or in view of Mo (CN-113517423-A), further in view of Shiozaki et al. (EP-1391950-B1; cited with copy in 06/30/2025 Office action).
Regarding claims 6 and 8, modified Liu discloses the secondary battery according to claim 1. While Liu in view of Liang addresses considerations of accommodating expansion pressure of the electrode assembly on the battery during charging (Liang [0023]), modified Liu does not explicitly disclose an average lattice volume shrinkage rate when the positive electrode plate is in a fully delithiated state.
Shiozaki is directed to a battery with a positive electrode active material having the formula LiaMn0.5-xNi0.5-yCox+yO2 (Shiozaki [0025]), analogous to Liu’s first positive electrode active material (LiNi0.5Co0.2Mn0.3O2, Liu Example 2, Table 3 p.13). In this material, Shiozaki teaches an average lattice volume shrinkage rate of up to 4% in a fully delithiated state to be desirable ([0043]); when appropriately paired with a negative electrode active material that undergoes expansion, volume changes of both materials are offset during charge/discharge to minimize pressure ([0044]). The first positive electrode active material must shrink by some degree for this effect (i.e., a lattice volume shrinkage is at least 0%) ([0014]); simultaneously, the lattice volume shrinkage is less than 4% to avoid damage to the crystal structure due to lattice distortions ([0046]).
While Shiozaki does not expressly teach considerations of volume shrinkage for modified Liu’s second positive electrode active material, this material comprises a very small portion of the positive electrode active materials (3.5 mol% in Liu Example 2, Table 3 pp.13, machine translation below) such that for estimation purposes, the average lattice shrinkage rate of both the positive electrode active materials appears closely approximated by that of the first positive electrode active material.
PNG
media_image3.png
257
1282
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Machine translation of Liu Table 3
As such, in seeking to minimize pressure on the battery during charge/discharge without damaging the crystal structure, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the average lattice shrinkage rate of modified Liu’s first positive electrode active material within a range of 0-4% when fully delithiated as taught by Shiozaki, and consequently optimize the average lattice volume shrinkage rate of the positive electrode active materials within a range of approximately of 0-4%. This range overlaps with “the positive electrode active materials have an average lattice volume shrinkage rate of not less than 2.7%” claimed in claim 6 and “the positive electrode active materials have an average lattice volume shrinkage rate of 2.7% to 4.2%” claimed in claim 8 between 2.7-4% in both ranges, such that a skilled artisan performing the above optimization would routinely use the overlapping portion (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Such an optimization would be done with a reasonable expectation of success, as Liu and Shiozaki are utilize a chemically alike first positive electrode active material (Shiozaki [0025]; Liu Example 2, Table 3 p.13), and Shiozaki’s effects of reducing electrode pressure during charging support are beneficial to Liu in view of Liang addressing related considerations of electrode assembly expansion (Liang [0023]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Liu (CN-111446488-A), Liang (WO-2021023137-A1), Gunter (Electrolyte Quantity […]), and Solvionic as applied to claim 1 alone or in view of Mo (CN-113517423-A), further as evidenced by Zheng et al. (In situ stress monitoring unravels particle-scale microstructural evolution in aging LiFePO4/graphite batteries; copy provided with this Office action).
Regarding claim 7, modified Liu discloses the secondary battery according to claim 1. While Liu does not disclose the lattice volume shrinkage rate of the second positive electrode active material as ranging from 2.7% to 6.9%, Liu’s second positive electrode active material is LiFePO4 (“LFP-2” in Liu Example 2 Table 3 pp.13; Liu [0042] indicating the material to be LiFePO4).
As evidenced by Zheng, which states “The lattice volume expansion rate of lithium iron phosphate (FePO₄ → LiFePO₄) is 6.77%” (Zheng pp. 3 col. 1 ¶2), modified Liu’s second positive electrode active material therefore inherently comprises a lattice volume shrinkage rate of 6.77%, which falls within and renders obvious “a lattice volume shrinkage rate of 2.7% to 6.9%” as claimed in claim 7.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Liu (CN-111446488-A), Liang (WO-2021023137-A1), Gunter (Electrolyte Quantity […]), and Solvionic as applied to claim 12 alone or in view of Mo (CN-113517423-A), further in view of Dou et al. (EP-3933981-A1; copy provided in 06/30/2025 Office action; US20220407059A1 cited as English equivalent).
Regarding claim 13, modified Liu discloses the secondary battery according to claim 12, comprising a surface of the first positive electrode active material provided with a first coating layer (Liu [0037]; see discussion of claim 12 above).
While Liu’s first coating layer necessarily comprises at least some measure of thickness ([0037]), and considerations of reducing side reactions of the first positive electrode active material are pertinent to Liu’s disclosure ([0049]), Liu fails to address these considerations through selecting a particular thickness of the first coating layer as claimed in claim 13, reciting “wherein a thickness of the first coating layer is 20 nm to 150 nm”.
Dou is directed to a positive electrode active material comprising particles of nickel-containing lithium composite oxide (Dou [0006]), analogous to modified Liu’s first positive electrode active material and first coating layer (Liu [0037]). Dou further teaches a thickness of the coating layer is at least 1 nm to insulate the particles from an electrolyte and reduce side reactions, while also 200 nm or less to avoid impacting the lithium ion diffusion capability and battery capacity (Dou [0088]).
Thus, in seeking to balance preventing side reactions without impacting the lithium ion diffusion capability of modified Liu’s first positive electrode active material, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize a thickness of Liu’s first coating layer within a range of 1nm to 200nm as taught by Dou. This range encompasses the range “20 nm to 150 nm” claimed in claim 13, such that a skilled artisan performing the above optimization would utilize the encompassed range through routine experimentation under Dou’s teaching (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Such a modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success, as Liu’s positive electrode active material already comprises a first coating layer with some amount of thickness available for modification (Liu [0037]), and would benefit from optimization in view of Dou’s teaching to suitably protect the first positive electrode active material from side reactions (Liu [0049]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Liu (CN-111446488-A), Liang (WO-2021023137-A1), Gunter (Electrolyte Quantity […]), and Solvionic as applied to claim 14 alone or in view of Mo (CN-113517423-A), further in view of Yoshikawa (US-20220359873-A1; cited in 06/30/2025 Office action).
Regarding claim 15, modified Liu discloses the secondary battery according to claim 14, comprising a second coating layer comprising carbon (Liu [0055]; see discussion of claim 13).
Liu further discloses optimizing a mass percentage of the second coating relative to the second positive electrode active material within a range of 0.1 to 5% to optimize the the powder resistivity, conductivity, and interface stability (Liu [0055]); however, Liu’s disclosre alone provides insufficient information to determine a thickness of the second coating in nm as claimed in claim 15, reciting “wherein a thickness of the second coating layer is 10 nm to 50 nm”.
Yoshikawa is directed to a positive electrode active material comprising the formula LiFexMPOt1-x1 (Yoshikawa [0061-0062]) with a coating layer of carbon ([0051]) provided to improve the conductivity ([0063]), analogous in composition and function to Liu’s second positive electrode active material LiFePO4 (Liu Example 2 Table 3 pp.13; Liu [0042]) and carbon-based second coating layer (Liu [0055]).
Yoshikawa further teaches a suitable thickness of the second coating layer as being 5 nm to 50 nm ([0050]), which is applied to positive electrode active material particles having a D50 ranging from 1-5 µm ([0316-0317]) and occupies 0.1-3.0% by mass ([0053]); these proportions are comparable to Liu’s second positive electrode active material Dv50 of 1 μm to 15 μm (Liu [0050]), coated with 0.1 to 5 wt% of second coating (Liu [0055]).
Thus, given the similar dimensions and compositions between Yoshikawa and modified Liu’s second positive electrode active materials and second coating layers, a skilled artisan adjusting a mass percentage of Liu’s second coating within a range of 0.1 to 5% would inherently use at least a portion of Yoshikawa’s second coating layer thickness of 5 nm to 50 nm, and in doing so, further utilize the range of “10 nm to 50 nm” claimed in claim 15 closely encompassed by Yoshikawa’s thickness range (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Assuming arguendo that Applicant persuasively argues or shows by means of evidence that Liu alone fails to utilize at least a portion of the claimed range of 10 nm to 50 nm, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to select a second coating layer thickness within 5 nm to 50 nm as taught by Yoshikawa for modified Liu’s second positive electrode active material for the same purpose of improving the material conductivity (MPEP 2144.07). In doing so, a skilled artisan would utilize the range of “10 nm to 50 nm” claimed in claim 15 closely encompassed by Yoshikawa’s thickness range with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Liu (CN-111446488-A), Liang (WO-2021023137-A1), Gunter (Electrolyte Quantity […]), and Solvionic as applied to claim 20 alone or in view of Mo (CN-113517423-A), further in view of Xiao (US-20200274148-A1; cited in 06/30/2025 Office action).
Regarding claim 23, modified Liu discloses the secondary battery according to claim 20, wherein
n
(
A
'
)
n
(
N
i
)
=
3.5
%
*
1
96.5
%
*
0.5
and
n
(
A
'
)
n
(
P
)
=
1
1
, but does not further specify values of n(A’) and n(Ni), wherein n(A’) and n(Ni) are numeric values of moles of Ni and A’ in the positive electrode plate. However, values of n(A’) and n(Ni) are largely dependent on the particular structure of the secondary battery, which Liu indicates as being known in the art (Liu [0066]). As an example, Xiao teaches a secondary battery cell (Xiao [0175-0178]) exemplified with a positive electrode plate area of 5.4cm*3.6cm=19.44 cm^2, a coating weight of 20.2 mg/cm^2, and an active material loading rate of 96% (Xiao pp. 13, Table 2), equating to 0.37 g of positive electrode active material.
A battery having this mass of cathode active material using modified Liu’s positive electrode active material, comprising 96.5 mol% first positive electrode active material with the formula LiNi0.5Co0.2Mn0.3O2 (Liu Example 2, Table 3 pp.13) having a molar mass of 143.81 g/mol and a molar ratio of 0.5 parts Ni, and 3.5 mol% LiFePO4 ([0042], Liu Example 2, Table 3 pp.13) would comprise roughly n(Ni)=0.0013 mol Ni and n(A’)=0.000093 mol A’ (Fe).
As Xiao’s presents a suitable battery structure known in the art for the same purpose of being a secondary battery, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to select Xiao’s secondary battery design for use in modified Liu (MPEP 2144.07). In doing so, a skilled artisan would manufacture a secondary battery comprising roughly n(Ni)=0.0013 mol Ni and n(A’)=0.000093 mol A’ (Fe), which fall within and render obvious the “0.001 ≤ n(Ni) ≤ 0.0026, optionally 0.0014 ≤ n(Ni) ≤ 0.002; and 0.00007 ≤ n(A') ≤ 0.00075, optionally 0.0001 ≤ n(A') ≤ 0.00032” claimed in claim 23.
Furthermore, Examiner notes that that it has been found that changes in size or proportion normally require only ordinary skill in the art absent unexpected results; see MPEP 2144.04 IV A.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1, which has been amended to incorporate limitations of cancelled claims 11 and 16 (remarks pp. 7-9) have been considered but are moot since Applicant's amendment necessitated a different interpretation of Liu (CN111446488A) as laid out in the rejections of record, or are moot as the claim amendment has necessitated new grounds of rejection under new prior art discussed above.
Applicant further cites unexpected results demonstrated in paragraph [0119] of the instant application, as discussed below with respect to each of the relevant emphasized portions (Remarks pp. 10-11):
¶[0119], “controlling the group margin of the battery within the range of 0.9 to 0.95 can allow the number of cycles of the battery corresponding to an 80% capacity retention rate to increase to over 1000, and with no lithium precipitation”,
“the group margin of the battery also affects the cycling performance and safety of the battery”.
Liang [0027] teaches that “the group margin of the lithium-ion battery of the present application is 85% to 95%, which […] will not deteriorate the cycle performance, rate performance and safety performance of the lithium ion battery”, such that these improvements to cycling performance and safety from optimizing a group margin of the battery are expected in view of Liang’s teaching (MPEP 716.02(c)).
¶[0119], “It can be seen from Examples 1, and 6 to 13 that for the battery design of the above examples of this application, the electrolyte injection coefficient also affects the cycling performance and safety of the battery to a certain extent. As the electrolyte injection coefficient increases, the range thereof can optionally be 2.5 g/Ah to 3.0 g/Ah, more optionally 2.62 g/Ah to 2.90 g/Ah”
Gunter teaches “the energy density as well as the capacity of lithium-ion batteries are dependent on the electrolyte quantity. Too little electrolyte leads to a loss of capacity and lifetime, whereas too much electrolyte reduces the energy density” (Gunter pp. A1713-A1714 § Conclusion), such that improvements to the cycling performance based on optimizing an electrolyte injection coefficient are expected (MPEP 716.02(c)).
¶[0119], “particle size changes of the two [positive electrode active materials] affect the active sites, compacted density, and diffusion paths of active ions of the positive electrode active materials. The Dv50 particle size of the first positive electrode active material can optionally be 2.1 μm to 6.3 μm, and the Dv50 particle size of the second positive electrode active material can optionally be 0.25 μm to 1.49 µm”.
Liu discloses that “a first positive electrode active material […] with a smaller average particle size is mixed with a second positive electrode active material […] with a larger average particle size as the positive electrode active material of the electrode of the present application, which is beneficial to improving the compaction density” (Liu [0051]), suggesting that improvements to compaction density from use of a larger positive electrode active material and a smaller positive electrode active material would be expected (compacted density of the particles being a function of the geometry of the particles and not the composition of the particles themselves) (MPEP 716.02(c)).
Mo, relied upon to teach optimizing the Dv50 of Liu’s first positive electrode active material, further teaches a particular D50 range “to ensure material reaction kinetics while reducing side reactions with the electrolyte and ensuring long-term performance”. This appears to suggest similar effects from the Dv50 as those found by Applicant regarding the active sites and diffusion paths of the material, where ¶[0062] of the inst. spec. recites “an excessive number of active sites in a case of too small particle size, while such excessive number increases side reactions” and “significant negative impact on power performance, where such impact is caused when a too large particle size leads to a small number of active sites”. Thus, these effects to the active sites and diffusion paths from the Dv50 of the materials is suggested, if not fully expected over Liu in view of Mo (MPEP 716.02(c)).
Furthermore, Applicant’s experimental evidence only appears to support unexpected results in batteries wherein a Dv50 particle size of the first positive electrode active material is 2.1 µm to 6.3 µm and a Dv50 particle size of the second positive electrode active material is 0.25 µm to 1.49 µm (see inst. spec. Table 1, pp. 45, Examples 21-28), while claim 1 fails to positively recite the specific Dv50 values of both the first and second positive electrode active materials.
Applicant’s experimental results also only appear to support the unexpected effects of the first and second positive electrode active material Dv50 range in batteries comprising NCM523 for the first positive electrode active material and LiMn0.6Fe0.4PO4 for the second positive electrode active material (see inst. spec. Table 1, pp. 45, Examples 21-28), while claim 1 encompasses broad ranges of first positive electrode active material compositions (LiaNibCocM1dM2eOfR'g) and second positive electrode active material compositions (Li1+xM3nMn1-yA'yP1-zEzO4).
Not all of the possible first and second positive electrode active material compositions present in this range would be expected to benefit from the specific claimed ranges of first and second positive electrode active material Dv50 as claimed due to differences in physical and electrochemical characteristics. Paragraph [0043] of the instant specification, as a non-limiting example, suggests that the proportions of Ni, Co, and Mn in the first positive electrode active material affects the structure and stability of the material, and [0044] recites effects of dopants in the second positive electrode active material on side reactions and lithium-ion migration in the battery. Each of these would affect the “active sites, compacted density, and diffusion paths of active ions” discussed in ¶[0119] with respect to the specifically desired range of first and second positive electrode active material Dv50; for instance, using a small Dv50 for one material composition to improve the activity would not necessarily be desirable for another more active composition prone to side reactions.
Based on Applicant’s own disclosure, the composition of the first and second positive electrode active material has non-trivial effects on the density, active sites, and diffusion paths of positive electrode active material. Thus, Applicant’s evidence of unexpected results for a specific combination of two positive electrode active material compositions does not appear commensurate in scope with claims directed to a broad range of compositions which the evidence is offered to support (MPEP 716.02 (d)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVERETT T CHOI whose telephone number is (703)756-1331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:00-8:00.
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 G Leong can be reached on (571) 270 1292. 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.
/E.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 7/1/2026
Prosecution Insights