DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/14/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 19 and 27-29 have been withdrawn.
Claims 1-16 and 18 are canceled.
Claim 17 has been amended; partial support for the amendment can be found in [0020], [0060], [0063-0064], and [0090].
Claims 17, 20-26 and 30-33 have been examined on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Toyoma is now relied on to teach a cylindrical battery cell and Kim is relied on to teach steel.
Applicant’s arguments (pg. 8-9) with respect to Toyoma’s disclosed range of LiOH is persuasive. However, Toyoma still renders the claimed range of LiOH obvious as set forth below.
Applicant's remaining arguments filed 06/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the results of the claimed invention are unexpected over the prior art and specifically over Toyoma which teaches that high LiOH is disadvantageous (pg. 10, para. 3). Applicant argues that the improvement factors of tables 3 and 4 are not predictable from the cited art (pg. 10, para. 3).
These arguments are not persuasive because the combination of Toyoma in view of Kim and Kageura teaches superior cycle life (Toyoma [0017]; Kageura [0060]). Therefore, the advantageous results pointed to by applicant are expected results. Further, regarding applicant’s arguments against Toyoma, the examiner notes that the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record and that Toyoma renders obvious the claimed range of LiOH as set forth in the rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 26 is indefinite because it is unclear from the claims or the specification how a battery with a casing that is cylindrical or two rigid plates compressing a pouch cell, as claimed in claim 17, may also be a hard-case prismatic lithium ion cell as recited in lines 2-3 of claim 26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 17, 20-26, 30, 31 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyoma (US 2016/0099460 A1) in view of Kim (US 20100021812 A1) and Kageura (US 20170358798 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Toyoma discloses a secondary ([0018]) Li-ion battery ([0018]) comprising a casing (Fig. 1; all elements) selected from (i) a cylindrical (Fig. 1; 4) battery casing (Fig. 1; 4), housing a wound ([0064]) jelly-roll electrode assembly (Fig. 1; 1-3), the casing (Fig. 1) comprising as battery parts (Fig. 1; 1-3; “electrolyte”; [0064]):
- a positive electrode (Fig. 1; 1) comprising a powderous (“particles”; [0050]) positive electrode active material ([0023]),
- a negative electrode (Fig. 1; 2),
- a separator (Fig. 1; 3), and
-an electrolyte ([0064]),
wherein the positive electrode active material ([0023]) has a general formula (“Li1+xNiyCOzM1−x−y−zO2 ”; [0023]) within a general formula Li1+a(NixCoyMz)1−aO2, wherein M=M′1−bAb, M′ being either one or both of Al and Mg ([0023]), and A being a dopant (“Ti, Mn, Zr, Mo, and Nb”; [0023]) with b≤0.10 ([0023]), and wherein −0.03≤a≤0.03 (where the instant a corresponds to x of Toyoma, wherein x= −0.12≦x≦0.2 [0023]), 0.80≤x≤0.95 (where the instant x*(1-a) corresponds to y of Toyoma, wherein 0.7≦y≦0.9 per [0023]), 0.05≤y≤0.20 (where the instant y*(1-a) corresponds to z of Toyoma, wherein 0.05≦z≦0.3 per [0023]), z≤0.10 (where the instant z*(1-a) corresponds to 1-x-y-z of Toyoma per [0023]), with x+y+z=1 ([0023]), and wherein the positive electrode active material further comprises between 0.40 and 0.75 wt % LiOH ([0024] teaches a range of 0% to 0.75% LiOH).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected a formula within the formula Li1+a(NixCoyMz)1−aO2, wherein M=M′1−bAb, M′ being either one or both of Al and Mg, and A being a dopant, with b≤0.10 ([0023]), and wherein −0.03≤a≤0.03, 0.80≤x≤0.95, 0.05≤y≤0.20, z≤0.10, and wherein the positive electrode active material further comprises between 0.40 and 0.75 wt % LiOH because Toyoma ranges that overlap or encompass these ranges.
Toyoma fails to disclose the cylindrical battery casing made of steel and wherein the positive electrode active material has a crystallite size of ≤ 43 nm as determined by the Scherrer equation based on the peak of the (104) plane obtained from the X-ray diffraction pattern using a Cu Ka radiation source.
Kim discloses a cylindrical battery casing (“cylindrical container”; [0043]) made of steel ([0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Toyoma by substituting the material of the cylindrical battery casing of Toyoma for the material taught by Kim because Kim teaches that steel is suitable for use as a material of a cylindrical battery casing. The courts have held that the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Toyoma in view of Kim still fails to disclose wherein the positive electrode active material has a crystallite size of ≤ 43 nm as determined by the Scherrer equation based on the peak of the (104) plane obtained from the X-ray diffraction pattern using a Cu Ka radiation source.
Kageura teaches a positive electrode comprising a positive electrode active material ([0010]) with a general formula (“Li[Lix(NiaCobMncMd)1-x]O2”; [0012]) overlapping a general formula Li1+a(NixCoyMz)1−aO2, wherein M=M′1−bAb, M′ being either one or both of Al and Mg, and A being a dopant with b≤0.10, and wherein −0.03≥a≥0.03, 0.80≤x≤0.95, 0.05≤y≤0.20, z≤0.10, with x+y+z=1, wherein the positive electrode active material has a crystallite size ≤43 nm ([0062] teaches a range of 20 nm to 60 nm with a particular preference for 30 nm to 45 nm) as determined by the Scherrer equation based on the peak of the (104) plane obtained from the X-ray diffraction pattern using a Cu Kα radiation source ([0062]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Toyoma in view of Kim by substituting the crystallite size of the positive material of Toyoma in view of Kim for a crystallite size greater than or equal to 30 nm and less than or equal to 43 nm in order to obtain a battery with higher cycle performance as taught by Kageura ([0021]).
Regarding claim 20, Toyoma in view of Kim and Kageura discloses wherein a is between 0.005 and -0.010 (where the instant a corresponds to x of Toyoma, wherein x= −0.12≦x≦0.2 [0012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected wherein a is between 0.005 and -0.010 because Toyoma in view of Kim and Kageura teaches a range that encompasses this range.
Regarding claim 21, Toyoma in view of Kim and Kageura discloses wherein the positive electrode active material has a crystallite size between 30 and 43 nm (Kageura [0062]).
Regarding claim 22, Toyoma in view of Kim and Kageura discloses wherein 0≤z≤0.03 (where the instant z*(1-a) corresponds to 1-x-y-z of Toyoma per [0012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected wherein 0≤z≤0.03 because Toyoma in view of Kim and Kageura teaches a range that encompasses this range.
Regarding claim 23, Toyoma in view of Kim and Kageura discloses wherein A (Toyoma “M” of the formula in [0024]) is one or more of Ti, B or Nb (Toyoma [0023]; Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected A from Ti, B or Nb because Toyoma in view of Kim and Kageura teaches each of these materials.
Regarding claim 24, Toyoma in view of Kim and Kageura discloses wherein the positive electrode active material (Toyoma [0024]) has a formula (Toyoma “Li1+xNiyCOzM1−x−y−zO2”; [0024]) within the general formula Li1+a(NixCoyAlz)1−aO2 ([0024]), wherein −0.03≤a≤0.03 (where the instant a corresponds to x of Toyoma, wherein x= −0.12≦x≦0.2 [0024]), 0.80≤x≤0.90 (where the instant x*(1-a) corresponds to y of Toyoma, wherein 0.7≦y≦0.9 per [0024]), 0.10≤y≤0.20 (where the instant y*(1-a) corresponds to z of Toyoma, wherein 0.05≦z≦0.3 per [0024]), and either z=0 or 0.02≤z≤0.05 (where the instant z*(1-a) corresponds to 1-x-y-z of Toyoma per [0024]), with x+y+z=1 ([0024]; see claim 17 above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected a formula within the general formula Li1+a(NixCoyAlz)1−aO2, wherein x≤0.90, 0.05≤y, and either z=0 or 0.02≤z≤0.05 because Toyoma in view of Kim and Kageura teaches ranges that encompass or overlap with each of these ranges.
Regarding claim 25, Toyoma in view of Kim and Kageura fails to disclose wherein the powderous positive electrode active material has a particle size distribution with a D50 between 10 to 15 μm.
Kageura discloses a positive electrode comprising a positive electrode active material ([0010]) wherein the positive electrode active material has a particle size distribution with a D50 between 10 to 15 μm ([0065] teaches a range of between 6 and 20 microns; [0067] teaches that that range is the D50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Toyoma in view of Kim and Kageura by substituting the particle size of the active material of Toyoma in view of Kim and Kageura for a particle size with a D50 between 10 to 15 μm as taught by Kageura in order to obtain a battery with higher cycle performance as taught by Kageura ([0021])
Regarding claim 26, Toyoma in view of Kim and Kageura discloses wherein the battery is a cylindrical cell lithium-ion cell (Fig. 1), whereby the battery may be incorporated in a pack of multiple batteries (the battery of Fig. 1 is capable of incorporation in a pack of multiple batteries).
A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. The examiner notes that the recitation “whereby the battery may be incorporated in a pack of multiple batteries” is a functional recitation that does not differentiate the claimed invention from Toyoma in view of Kim and Kageura because Toyoma in view of Kim and Kageura teaches the structure of the claimed invention and is capable of being incorporated in a pack of multiple batteries.
Toyoma in view of Kim and Kageura fails to disclose any of the claimed form factors.
Kim discloses a cylindrical 18650 lithium ion cell ([0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Toyoma in view of Kim and Kageura by substituting the form factor of Toyoma in view of Kim and Kageura for the cylindrical 18650 battery cell of Kim because Kim teaches that the 18650 form factor is a form factor suitable for cylindrical lithium ion battery cells.
Regarding claim 30, Toyoma in view of Kim and Kageura teaches a battery pack (“driving power supplies”; [0073]) of an electric vehicle ([0073]) or a hybrid electric vehicle ([0073]) comprising the secondary Li-ion battery of claim 17 (see claim 17 above).
Regarding claim 31, Toyoma in view of Kim and Kageura discloses wherein the battery is configured to be cycled between at least 2.50V and at most 4.50 V ([0085] teaches 3 V to 4.3 V) at a charging/discharging rate of at least 0.8 C/0.8 C ([0085] teaches 1C).
Regarding claim 33, Toyoma in view of Kim and Kageura discloses wherein −0.03≤a≤0.03 (where the instant a corresponds to x of Toyoma, wherein x= −0.12≦x≦0.2 [0024]), 0.80≤x≤0.90 (where the instant x*(1-a) corresponds to y of Toyoma, wherein 0.7≦y≦0.9 per [0024]), 0.10≤y≤0.20 (where the instant y*(1-a) corresponds to z of Toyoma, wherein 0.05≦z≦0.3 per [0024]), and either z=0 or 0.01≤z≤0.05 (where the instant z*(1-a) corresponds to 1-x-y-z of Toyoma per [0024]), with x+y+z=1 ([0024]; see claim 17 above), wherein the crystallite size of the positive electrode active material is greater than or equal to 30 nm and less than or equal to 43 nm (see claim 17 above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected wherein x≤0.90, 0.05≤y, and either z=0 or 0.01≤z≤0.05 because Toyoma in view of Kim and Kageura teaches ranges that encompass or overlap with each of these ranges.
Claim(s) 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyoma (US 2016/0099460 A1) in view of Kim (US 20100021812 A1) and Kageura (US 20170358798 A1) as applied to claim 31 above and further in view of Maeda (US 20170025710 A1).
Regarding claim 32, Toyoma in view of Kim and Kageura fails to disclose wherein the battery has an 80% retention capacity after at least 1000 cycles at a 1C charge/1C discharge rate.
Maeda discloses a secondary Li-ion battery ([0089]), wherein the battery has an 80% retention capacity ([0017]) after at least 1000 cycles ([0117]) at a 1C charge/1C discharge rate ([0096]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery of Toyoma in view of Kim and Kageura to have an 80% retention capacity after at least 1000 cycles at a 1C charge/1C discharge rate as taught by Maeda in order to achieve a high capacity retention rate as taught by Maeda ([0117]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACE A KENLAW whose telephone number is (571)272-1253. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-6:00 PM.
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 at (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.
/G.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights