Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nishie et al. (“Nishie”, US 20140212747 A1) in view of Yun et al. (“Yun”, US 20100285341 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nishie teaches a positive electrode (Nishie, Abstract) comprising:
a lithium transition metal oxide having an average particle diameter D50 (Nishie, Abstract, [0036], Table 1, Table 2, e.g., average particle size (which is being interpreted as average particle diameter D50));
a conductive material (Nishie, [0037], e.g., conducting agent); and
a binder (Nishie, [0037], e.g., binder);
Nishie does not teach a filler comprising a fibrous material.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Yun teaches a positive electrode comprising a filler having a fibrous material (Yun, [0058], [0063], e.g., cathode may be fabricated by applying a mixture comprising a cathode active material, a conductive material and a binder to a cathode collector; the mixture may include a filler; the filler may be used to inhibit expansion of a cathode and, is not particularly restricted so long as it is a fibrous material which does not cause chemical modification of a battery; the filler may include a fibrous material such as carbon fiber).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a filler comprising a fibrous material, for the purpose of inhibiting expansion of a cathode and/or not causing chemical modification of a battery (Yun, [0063]).
Claim 1 is considered a product-by-process claim. Nishie in view of Yun teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed positive electrode. The determination of patentability is based upon the positive electrode structure itself. The patentability of a positive electrode does not depend on its method of production or formation, e.g., average particle diameter D50 of a transition metal precursor for preparation of the lithium transition metal oxide of the positive electrode. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. (See MPEP § 2113).
Regarding claim 2, Nishie teaches wherein the lithium transition metal oxide comprises Ni, Mn and Co (Nishie, Table 1, Table 2, e.g., Example 5).
Regarding claim 3, Nishie teaches wherein the lithium transition metal oxide is a compound satisfying Formula 4 of the claim (Nishie, Table 1, Table 2, e.g., Example 5).
Regarding claim 4, Nishie teaches wherein, in Formula 4, x>y and x>z (Nishie, Table 1, Table 2, e.g., Example 5).
Regarding claim 5, Nishie in view of Yun teaches the positive electrode comprising the lithium transition metal oxide as disclosed in claim 1 above. Claim 5 is considered a product-by-process claim. Nishie in view of Yun teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed positive electrode. The determination of patentability is based upon the positive electrode structure itself. The patentability of a positive electrode does not depend on its method of production or formation, e.g., using transition metal precursor for preparation of the lithium transition metal oxide of the positive electrode. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. (See MPEP § 2113).
Regarding claim 6, Nishie in view of Yun teaches the positive electrode comprising the lithium transition metal oxide as disclosed in claims 1 and 5 above. Claim 6 is considered a product-by-process claim. Nishie in view of Yun teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed positive electrode. The determination of patentability is based upon the positive electrode structure itself. The patentability of a lithium transition metal oxide does not depend on its method of production or formation, e.g., using transition metal precursor for preparation of the lithium transition metal oxide of the positive electrode. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. (See MPEP § 2113).
Regarding claim 7, Nishie in view of Yun teaches the positive electrode as disclosed in claim 1 above. Nishie teaches a lithium secondary battery in which a unit cell comprising the positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a polymer membrane disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode is accommodated in a battery case (Nishie, Title, Abstract, Fig. 1, Table 1, Table 2, [0039], [0006], [0016], e.g., a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery includes a positive electrode, a negative electrode and a nonaqueous electrolyte; a separator 5 may be one that can isolate the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate from each other, and a nonwoven fabric, a synthetic resin mieroporous film, or the like may be used; particularly a polyolefin-based microporous film formed of polyethylene and polypropylene, a heat-resistant resin including an araraid layer on the surface of the polyolefin-based microporous film, or the like may be used; using a lithium transition metal oxide including manganese, nickel and cobalt for a positive electrode; shown in FIG. 1 includes a power generating element in which a positive electrode plate with a positive composite, which contains a positive active material, applied to both surfaces of a positive electrode current collector formed of an aluminum foil or an aluminum alloy foil and a negative electrode plate with a negative composite, which contains a negative active material, applied to both surfaces of a negative electrode current collector formed of a copper foil are wound with a separator interposed therebetween, the power generating element being accommodated in a battery case).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and Supplemental Declaration filed 03/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that that the product of amended independent claim 1 has distinct structural characteristics because the lithium transition metal oxide particles are less likely to break or be crushed during the rolling process of making the positive electrode when Equation 3 of amended independent claim 1 is satisfied, which may prevent side reactions with the electrolyte and the negative effects of such reactions. Table 2 in the Supplemental Declaration illustrates that when the ratio of average particle diameter D50 of the lithium transition metal oxide to average particle diameter D50 of a transition metal precursor for preparation of the lithium transition metal oxide is greater than 0 and less than or equal to 1.006, there were unexpected results as there were small changes in particle sizes before and after calcination, i.e., less than 0.6% difference in the particle size before and after calcination. However, when this condition is not satisfied, the change in particle sizes before and after calcination was greater than 1.1%, which is close to double the change when compared to the examples in which the condition is satisfied. Furthermore, in the Examples where the ratio of average particle diameter D50 of the lithium transition metal oxide to average particle diameter D50 of a transition metal precursor for preparation of the lithium transition metal oxide is greater than 0 and less than or equal to 1.006, the change in particle size before and after pulverization relatively small, i.e. less than 12.3%. In contrast, in the Comparative Examples, the change in particle size after pulverization was greater than 18.6%. Nishie does not teach that the ratio of average particle diameter D50 of the lithium transition metal oxide to average particle diameter D50 of a transition metal precursor for preparation of the lithium transition metal oxide is greater than 0 and less than or equal to 1.006. Instead Nishie teaches only the average particle diameter D50 of the lithium transition metal oxide, not the precursor. (See Nishie, para. [0012], [0036]). (Remarks, Pages 5-9) (Supplemental Declaration, pages 3-4).
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Claim 1 is directed to a product, e.g., a positive electrode. Claim 1 is not a method claim nor an intermediate product. It is claiming a final product (positive electrode). The determination of patentability is based upon the final product structure itself, e.g., positive electrode. The patentability of a positive electrode does not depend on its method of production or formation, e.g., average particle diameter D50 of a transition metal precursor for preparation of the lithium transition metal oxide of the positive electrode. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. (See MPEP § 2113).
Nishie in view of Yun teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed positive electrode. Applicant has not shown how the final product, e.g., a positive electrode, of claim 1 are structural different from the positive electrode taught by Nishie in view of Yun.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAIXIA ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5697. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Tuesday 9-5.
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 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.
/HAIXIA ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights