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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-18 are currently pending.
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.
Claims 1-13 & 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamakawa (US 2017/0229711 A1) in view of Kawasaki (US 2018/0351175 A1) and Nagai (US 2021/0119206 A1).
Regarding claims 1-13 & 16, Yamakawa teaches an electric vehicle comprising a lithium secondary battery, as a power source, and comprising a positive electrode with a porosity of 12% to 22% and having a positive electrode mixture layer comprising: 93 wt% to 99 wt% of a positive electrode active material comprising at least one of lithium nickel-based oxide represented by the claimed formula 1 or a lithium metal phosphate-based compound represented by the claimed formula 2; a binder; and a point-type conductive material disposed on a current collector; wherein the point-type conductive material including a carbon black such as Ketjen black (KB) having a bulk density preferably ranging from 0.05 g/cc to 0.14 g/cc; and a BET specific surface area of 290 m2/g to 1300 m2/g ([0031]-[0041], [0057]-[0060] & [0075]). Yamakawa is silent as to the positive electrode active material being a single particle-type and a rolling index ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. Nagai teaches a positive electrode comprising a positive electrode active material and a point-type conductive material such as carbon black having an oil adsorption number ranging from 210 ml/100g to 400 ml/100 g ([0021] & [0024]-[0026]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to use a carbon black having an oil adsorption number ranging from 210 ml/100g to 400 ml/100 g because such a carbon black has a structure having sufficient length and spread, and good conductive paths and liquid retention property of a non-aqueous electrolytic solutions can be obtained. Further, by setting the amount to 400 ml/100 g or less, aggregation due to entanglement between structures is suppressed, so that the structures are uniformly dispersed in the positive electrode active materials, so that it is possible to achieve both the formation of good conductive paths and sufficient liquid retention for non-aqueous electrolyte solutions as taught by Nagai ([0026]). Kawasaki teaches a positive electrode comprising a single particle-type positive electrode active material including a lithium nickel-based oxide having a Dmean ranging from 0.5 micron to 3 microns and a ratio D50/Dmean ranging from 1 to 2.5 ([0021] & [0047]) such that D50 ranges from 0.5 microns to 7.5 microns. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to use a single particle-type positive electrode active material as described in Kawasaki above, in view of achieving high durability and output characteristics as taught by Kawasaki ([0018]). Moreover, based on the combined teachings of Yamakawa and Kawasaki, the minimum possible value for the product of [(D50/Dmean) x Bc] is 0.05 and maximum possible value for the product is 0.35 for any combination of values within the ranges D50/Dmean and Bc disclosed in Kawasaki and Yamakawa respectively. Similarly, the minimum possible value for the product of (Sc x Oc) is 60,900 and the maximum possible value of the product is 520,000 for any combination of values within the ranges of SC and Oc. Accordingly, the minimum possible value for [(D50/Dmean) x Bc] / (Sc x Oc) x 105 is: 105 x 0.35 / 60,900 = 0.01 and the maximum possible value for [(D50/Dmean) x Bc] / (Sc x Oc) x 105 is: 105 x 0.05 / 520,000 = 0.57 which overlaps with the presently claimed range of 0.01 to 1.
Regarding claim 15, Yamakawa as modified by Kawasaki and Nagai teaches the positive electrode of claim 1 but is silent as to the claimed capacity retention rate ranging from 91.8% to 95.7%. However, modified by Yamakawa teaches a lithium secondary battery having substantially the same positive electrode composition and structure as well as a negative electrode, separator and electrolyte having substantially the same structure and/or composition as that of the present invention ([0061]-[0068] of Yamakawa and [0101]-[0112] of the present invention). As such, the claimed capacity retention rate would be expected to be obtained from the teachings of modified Yamakawa.
Regarding claim 17, Yamakawa as modified by Kawasaki and Nagai teaches the positive electrode of claim 1 but is silent as to the point-type conductive material being configured to reduce particle breakage and cracking by dispersing external forces applied to the single particle-type positive electrode active material during rolling. However, the instant specification notes that a positive electrode comprising a single particle-type active material and a point-type conductive material having a large specific surface area and an excellent secondary structure can disperse external force applied to the active material particles even during high pressure rolling, resulting in reduced particle breakage, crack formation, fine particles, and porosity ([0027]). Thus, since modified Yamakawa teaches a positive electrode having the claimed single particles along with point-type conductive materials possessing the claimed BET surface area and oil adsorption number, the point-type conductive material is expected to be in a state configured to reduce particle breakage and cracking by dispersing external forces applied to the single particle-type positive electrode active material during rolling.
Regarding claim 18, Yamakawa as modified by Kawasaki and Nagai teaches the positive electrode of claim 1 but is silent as to the point-type conductive material including a secondary structure positioned between single particle-type positive electrode active material particles. However, Yamakawa teaches the same type of point-type conductive material and further having significantly similar structure/properties (i.e oil adsorption number; BET surface area; bulk density) as that of the present invention. Moreover, the instant specification notes that a larger secondary structure is related to a high oil adsorption number ([0050]). Since modified Yamakawa teaches a carbon black having an oil adsorption number which encompasses the claimed range of 250 ml/100g to 500 ml/100 g, a secondary structure would be expected to be present between the single particle-type positive electrode active material.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamakawa (US 2017/0229711 A1), Kawasaki (US 2018/0351175 A1) and Nagai (US 2021/0119206 A1), as applied to claims 1-13 & 15-18 above, and further in view of Oljaca (US 2014/0377659 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Yamakawa as modified by Kawasaki and Nagai teaches the positive electrode of claim 1 but is silent as to a rolling density ranging from 2.51 g/cc to 3.70 g/cc. Oljaca teaches a positive electrode comprising a lithium nickel-based oxide as an active material and a point-type conductive material such as carbon black, wherein the positive electrode has a rolling density ranging from 3 g/c to 3.7 g/cc (Fig. 19; [0067]-[0074]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to produce a positive electrode with a rolling density of ranging from 3 g/cc to 3.7 g/cc as a suitable rolling density for a positive electrode of a lithium secondary battery as taught by Oljaca.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s arguments that the combination of Yamakawa, Kawasaki and Nagai does not fairly teach or suggest the claimed rolling index ranging from 0.01 to 1, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, applicant argues that while the cited art may teach specific values and ranges for the components making up the claimed rolling index, there are innumerable combination of values which do not necessarily obviate the claimed range for the rolling index. However, as noted in the above rejection, Kawasaki discloses a ratio D50/Dmean ranging from 1 to 2.5 and Yamakawa teaches Bc ranging from 0.05 to 0.14. Thus, based on the combined teachings of Yamakawa and Kawasaki, the minimum possible value for the product of [(D50/Dmean) x Bc] is 0.05 and maximum possible value for the product is 0.35 for any combination of values within the respective ranges disclosed. Similarly, the minimum possible value for the product of (Sc x Oc) is 60,900 and the maximum possible value of the product is 520,000 for any combination of values within the ranges of SC and Oc. Accordingly, the minimum possible value for [(D50/Dmean) x Bc] / (Sc x Oc) x 105 is: 105 x 0.35 / 60,900 = 0.01 and the maximum possible value for [(D50/Dmean) x Bc] / (Sc x Oc) x 105 is: 105 x 0.05 / 520,000 = 0.57. Therefore, any value of D50/Dmean, Bc, Sc and Oc within the ranges disclosed in the cited art would yield a rolling index ranging from 0.01 to 0.57 which overlaps with the presently claimed range of 0.01 to 1. In response to applicant's argument that the cited art does not recognize the claimed rolling index, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Thus, in view of the foregoing, claims 1-18 stand rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANAEL T ZEMUI whose telephone number is (571)272-4894. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm (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, BARBARA GILLIAM can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/NATHANAEL T ZEMUI/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights