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 .
The Applicant has amended independent claim 1; and canceled claim 1. The pending claims are claims 1, 3-21.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
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 1 and 3-21 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, "active material includes a first active material and a second active material,…the first active material is the LNO, …the second active material comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of…compounds of the active material in the upper mixture layer and the lower mixture layer are the same." The claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations of the compounds of the active material in the upper mixture layer and the lower mixture layer are all the same or whether the lower mixture layer and the upper mixture layer can either have one or more active materials. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al., CN 1964101 (US 2006/0099495).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki et al., teaches a positive electrode (0011) for a secondary battery (0039), comprising: a current collector layer (0012); a lower mixture layer disposed on one or both surfaces of the current collector layer (0012-0013); and an upper mixture layer disposed on the lower mixture layer (0031-0032), wherein the lower mixture layer and the upper mixture layer both include an active material containing LixNiO2 (Lithium nickel composite) (0029) (wherein the active material contained in the lower mixture layer (0030; 0032), a content of the LNO
In addition:
“as the first active material, a composite oxide containing lithium and a transition metal element is preferable. As the second active material, a phosphorus compound containing lithium and a transition metal element is preferable. In particular, as the first active material, a complex oxide containing lithium and nickel is preferable, and as the second active material, a phosphorus compound containing lithium and iron is preferable. This is because a high capacity can be obtained and thermal stability can be improved.” (0032)
Suzuki does not teach 100 parts by weight of the active material in the lower mixture layer, a content of the LNO in the lower mixture is 60 parts by weight or more, and a content of the LNO in the upper mixture layer is in a range of 1 to 40 parts by weight.
However, "[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding the amendment, “compounds of the active material in the upper mixture layer and the lower mixture layer are the same,” Suzuki teaches:
“[0027] The first layer 12A may contain other active material in addition to the first active material, or may contain a plurality of the first active materials. Similarly, the second layer 12B may contain other active material in addition to the second active material, or may contain a plurality of the second active materials. In this case, the first layer 12A and the second layer 12B may contain the same active material.
[0029] Further, as shown in FIG. 3, it is possible that both the second layer 12B and the second layer 12C may be provided. In this case, the compositions of the second active materials used for the second layer 12B and the second layer 12C may be identical or different.”
Regarding claim 3, Suzuki et al., does not teach the positive electrode of claim 1, wherein a ratio ((LTOp)/(LUND)) of an LNO fraction (LTOP, wt%) of the active material contained in the upper mixture layer to an LNO fraction (LUND, wt%) of the active material contained in the lower mixture layer is 0.5 or less.
However, "[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 4, Suzuki et al., does not teach the active material includes a first active material and a second active material ratio of the first active material to the second active material in the lower mixture layer is in a range of 65 to 98 : 2 to 35, and wherein a weight ratio of the first active material the second active material in the upper mixture layer is 2 to 35 : 65 to 98.
However, a prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979).
Regarding claim 5, Suzuki et al., does not teach an average particle diameter of the active materials contained in the lower mixture layer is in a range of 1 to 10 um, and wherein an average particle diameter of the active materials contained in the upper mixture layer is in a range of 15 to 60 um.
However, a prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979).
Regarding claim 6, Suzuki et al., does not teach the positive electrode of claim 1, wherein a ratio of an average thickness of the lower mixture layer to the upper mixture layer is in a range of 1:9 to 3:7.
However, a prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979).
Regarding claim 7, Suzuki et al., does not teach wherein the upper mixture layer and the lower mixture layer both include a binder, and wherein a ratio ((BTOp)/(BUND)) of a binder content (BTOP, wt%) contained in the upper mixture layer to a binder content (BUND, wt%)) contained in the lower mixture layer is in a range of 0.1 to 0.95.
However, a prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979).
Regarding claim 8, Suzuki et al., teaches a secondary battery (abstract; 0020) comprising the positive electrode (0059) according to claim 1, a negative electrode (0059), and a separator (0059) interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (0059).
Regarding claim 9, Suzuki et al., teaches a secondary battery of claim 8 (0020), wherein the negative electrode (0059) includes: a current collector layer (0059); and a negative electrode mixture layer (0059) formed on one or both surfaces of the current collector layer (0059) and including a negative electrode active material (0097), wherein the negative electrode active material includes a silicon (Si)-based active material (0044-0045).
Regarding claim 10, Suzuki et al., teaches the negative electrode (0042) includes: a current collector layer (0013); and a negative electrode mixture layer (0080) formed on one or both surfaces of the current collector layer (0026) and including a negative electrode active material (0097), wherein the negative electrode active material includes a carbon-based active material (artificial graphite) (0097) and a silicon-based active material (0044-0045).
Regarding claim 11, Suzuki et al., teaches wherein in the negative electrode active material (0097).
Suzuki et al., does not teach a weight ratio of the carbon-based active material to the silicon-based active material is in a range of 10 to 95 : 5 to 90.
However, a prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979).
Regarding claim 12, Suzuki et al., teaches a portable device (0006; 0040) comprising the secondary battery according to claim 8 (0059).
Regarding claim 13, Suzuki et al., teaches the device is at least one of a portable device (0006; 0040).
Regarding claim 14, Suzuki et al., wherein, the second active material comprises Lix(NiaCobMnc)O2 (0.5<x<1.3, 0<a<1, 0<b<1, 0<c<1, a+b+c=1) (0027).
Regarding claim 15, Suzuki et al., wherein, the second active material comprises LixNii-yCoyO2 (0.5<x<1.3, 0<y<1) (0028-0029).
Regarding claim 16, Suzuki et al., wherein, the second active material comprises LixCoi-yMnyO2 (0.5<x<1.3, 0<y<1) (0029-0029).
Regarding claim 17, Suzuki et al., wherein, the second active material comprises LixNii-yMnyO2 (0.5<x<1.3, 0<y<1) (0028-0029).
Regarding claim 18, Suzuki et al., wherein, the second active material comprises Lix(NiaCobMnc)O4(0.5<x<1.3, 0<a<2, 0<b<2, 0<c<2, a+b+c=2) (0028-0029).
Regarding claim 19, Suzuki et al., wherein, the second active material comprises LixMn2-zNizO4(0.5<x<1.3, 0<z<2) (0028-0029).
Regarding claim 20, Suzuki et al., wherein, the second active material comprises LixMn2-zCozO4 (0.5<x<1.3, 0<z<2) (0028-0029).
Regarding claim 21, Suzuki et al., wherein, the second active material comprises LixCoPO4 (0.5<x<1.3) (0028-0029).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that “Applicant has amended claim 1, upon which the remaining claims depend, to recite that compounds of the active material in the upper mixture layer and the lower mixture layer are the same. As discussed and agreed during the interview, Applicant submits that Suzuki fails to teach or suggest the aforementioned feature of the claimed embodiment.
However, , Suzuki teaches that “The first layer 12A may contain other active material in addition to the first active material, or may contain a plurality of the first active materials. Similarly, the second layer 12B may contain other active material in addition to the second active material, or may contain a plurality of the second active materials. In this case, the first layer 12A and the second layer 12B may contain the same active material.” (0027). Additionally, “it is possible that both the second layer 12B and the second layer 12C may be provided. In this case, the compositions of the second active materials used for the second layer 12B and the second layer 12C may be identical or different” (Suzuki, 0029).
Therefore, the adjacent layers of the positive electrode may be the same or the adjacent layers of the positive electrode may be different, wherein “various changes and modifications to the presently preferred embodiments described herein will be apparent to those skilled in the art. Such changes and modifications can be made without departing from the spirit and scope of the present subject matter and without diminishing its intended advantages.” (Suzuki, 0091).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA J MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1288. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-4pm.
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.
ANGELA J. MARTIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/ANGELA J MARTIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727