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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/28/2025, has been entered.
Claim Status
This office action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed 10/28/2025.
No claims have been amended and no claims have been canceled.
Claims 1, 2, and 9-11 have been previously withdrawn.
Claims 14 and 15 have been added; support for claim 14 an 15 is found in paragraph [0011] of the instant specification.
Claims 3-8, and 12-15 are currently pending in this office action.
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.
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) 3 - 8, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiratsuka et al. (US2017/0250396A1), in view of Tatsumi et al. (US2005/0250013A1), and in further view of Ryoshi et al. (US2014/0186710A1).
As to claim 3 and 12, Hiratsuka discloses a lithium battery having a positive electrode containing a positive active material [0025] (applies to claim 12), wherein the positive-electrode active material comprising:
a lithium complex oxide particle, wherein the lithium complex oxide particle [0007] includes lithium (Li), nickel (Ni), manganese (Mn), zirconium (Zr), and an additive element M (M) in a mole ratio of Li:Ni:Mn:Zr:M = x:a:b:c:d such that x, a, b, c, and d satisfy following conditions: 0.95 <x< 1.20, 0.10<a<0.70, 0.01 <b<0.50, 0.0003 ≤c ≤0.02, 0.01 <d<0.50, and a+b+c+d= 1, and the additive element M is one or more elements selected from Co, W, Mo, V, Mg, Ca, Al, Ti, and Ta,
The lithium composite oxide can be represented by general formula LiNi.sub.xMn.sub.yM.sub.(1−x−y)O.sub.2.
In the formula, M is at least one element selected from the transition metal elements excluding lithium (Li), nickel (Ni), and manganese (Mn). In the formula, x represents the content (molar ratio) of Ni relative to the total amount of Ni, Mn, and M and is, for example, 0.3≦x<0.9. In the formula, y represents the content (molar ratio) of Mn relative to the total amount of Ni, Mn, and M and is, for example, 0.01≦y≦0.5. [0041]… Examples of the transition metal element M in the general formula include cobalt (Co), magnesium (Mg), boron (B), calcium (Ca), chromium (Cr), zirconium (Zr), molybdenum (Mo), tungsten (W), aluminum (Al), vanadium (V), cerium (Ce), titanium (Ti), iron (Fe), potassium (K), phosphorus (P), bismuth (Bi), gallium (Ga), indium (In), and the like. The lithium composite oxide desirably contains as the transition metal element M at least one element selected from the group consisting of these elements. [0044].
From the viewpoint of accelerating the crystal growth of the multilayered crystal structure, the lithium composite oxide desirably contains cobalt and more desirably contains cobalt at a molar ratio of, for example, more than 0.01 and 0.4 or less relative to the total amount of transition metals (in the general formula above, Ni, Mn, and M). [0045]
In the same field of endeavor Ryoshi discloses lithium nickel composite oxide for use as a positive electrode active material for a nonaqueous electrolytic secondary cell, such as, for example, a lithium ion secondary [0002] and further teaches, content of cobalt, is set in a range of 0 ≤ x ≤ 0.35. The cobalt is an additive element that devotes to improvement of the cycle characteristics. When the value of x exceeds 0.35, the reduction of the initial discharging capacity becomes greater [0122].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the application was filed to modify the quantity of cobalt in the electrode material of Hiratsuka with 0.35 or less quantity of cobalt of Ryoshi to improve cycle characteristics.
In the same field of endeavor Tatsumi discloses a material for a positive electrode for a secondary lithium battery [Abstract], and further teaches when the quantity of zirconium is 20% or less cell performance improves [0017] [0019].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the application was filed to modify the quantity of zirconium in the electrode material of Hiratsuka with 20% or less quantity of zirconium of Tatsumi to improve cell performance.
Hiratsuka discloses LiNi.sub.xMn.sub.yM.sub.(1−x−y)O.sub.2. where
Li = 1, meets the range of 0.95 ≤ x ≤ 1.2
Ni = 0.3≦x<0.9, overlaps the range of 0.10<a<0.70
Mn = 0.01≦y≦0.5, overlaps the range of 0.01 <b<0.50
Tatsumi teaches Zr is ≤ 0.2 overlaps the range of 0.0003 ≤c ≤0.02
Ryoshi teaches Co in a range 0 ≤ x ≤ 0.35, which overlaps the range 0.01 <d<0.50
Yielding Li Ni.sub.0.4 Mn.sub.0.4 Zr.sub.(1-0.4-0.4) Co .sub.(1-0.4-0.4),
Li Ni.sub.0.4 Mn.sub.0.4 Zr.sub.0.2 Co.sub.0.2, and 0.4+0.4+0.2+0.2 = 1, which meets the claimed limitation,
Applicant is reminded in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With respect to the limitation, “the lithium complex oxide particle exhibits, in an XRD measurement of the lithium complex oxide particle, a ratio (I2 / Ix) of an integrated intensity (I2) of a diffraction peak of Li2ZrO3 to an integrated intensity (Ii) of a (003) diffraction peak of a hexagonal layered structure of 0.015 or less.” Modified Hiratsuka discloses the each claimed electrode material and the claimed quantities of each material and when the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02.
Modified Hiratsuka discloses, an average particle diameter D50 of the positive-electrode active material is 10 m or more and 18 um or less. ([Tatsumi 0025] The present invention is also characterized in that the particulate positive electrode active material for a secondary lithium cell consists of particles wherein 10 or more primary particles are coagulated to form a secondary particle, and the average particle diameter of the secondary particle is 2 to 20 .mu.m. By such a secondary particle structure of coagulated bodies, the improvement of the packed density of the active material of the electrode layer, and the improvement of large-current charge-discharge properties can be achieved.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the application was filed to modify the particle size of the active material of Hiratsuka with average particle diameter of Tatsumi in a range of 2 to 20 µm to improve cell charge discharge performance.
Applicant is reminded in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As to claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated, with respect to the limitation, “an oil absorption amount is 13 ml/100g or more and 19 ml/100g or less.”
Modified Hiratsuka discloses the each claimed electrode material and the claimed quantities of each material and when the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02.
As to claim 5, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated, with respect to the “amount of an eluted lithium evaluated by a Warder method is 0.06% by mass or less.”
Modified Hiratsuka discloses the each claimed electrode material and the claimed quantities of each material and when the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02.
Examiner notes the product-by-limitations of claim 5 are not given patentable weight since the courts have held that patentability is based on a product itself, even if the prior art product is made by a different process (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 1985). Moreover, a product-by-process limitation is held to be obvious if the product is similar to a prior art product (In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685, and In re Fessman, 180 USPQ 324). Claim 5 as written does not distinguish the product of the instant application from the product of the prior art.
As to claim 6 and 13, Hiratsuka discloses a lithium battery having a positive electrode containing a positive active material [0025] (applies to claim 13), wherein the positive-electrode active material comprising:
a lithium complex oxide particle, wherein the lithium complex oxide particle [0007] includes lithium (Li), nickel (Ni), manganese (Mn), zirconium (Zr), and an additive element M (M) in a mole ratio of Li:Ni:Mn:Zr:M = x:a:b:c:d such that x, a, b, c, and d satisfy following conditions: 0.95 <x< 1.20, 0.10<a<0.70, 0.01 <b<0.50, 0.0003 ≤c ≤0.02, 0.01 <d<0.50, and a+b+c+d= 1, and the additive element M is one or more elements selected from Co, W, Mo, V, Mg, Ca, Al, Ti, and Ta,
The lithium composite oxide can be represented by general formula LiNi.sub.xMn.sub.yM.sub.(1−x−y)O.sub.2.
In the formula, M is at least one element selected from the transition metal elements excluding lithium (Li), nickel (Ni), and manganese (Mn). In the formula, x represents the content (molar ratio) of Ni relative to the total amount of Ni, Mn, and M and is, for example, 0.3≦x<0.9. In the formula, y represents the content (molar ratio) of Mn relative to the total amount of Ni, Mn, and M and is, for example, 0.01≦y≦0.5. [0041]… Examples of the transition metal element M in the general formula include cobalt (Co), magnesium (Mg), boron (B), calcium (Ca), chromium (Cr), zirconium (Zr), molybdenum (Mo), tungsten (W), aluminum (Al), vanadium (V), cerium (Ce), titanium (Ti), iron (Fe), potassium (K), phosphorus (P), bismuth (Bi), gallium (Ga), indium (In), and the like. The lithium composite oxide desirably contains as the transition metal element M at least one element selected from the group consisting of these elements. [0044].
From the viewpoint of accelerating the crystal growth of the multilayered crystal structure, the lithium composite oxide desirably contains cobalt and more desirably contains cobalt at a molar ratio of, for example, more than 0.01 and 0.4 or less relative to the total amount of transition metals (in the general formula above, Ni, Mn, and M). [0045]
In the same field of endeavor Ryoshi discloses lithium nickel composite oxide for use as a positive electrode active material for a nonaqueous electrolytic secondary cell, such as, for example, a lithium ion secondary [0002] and further teaches, content of cobalt, is set in a range of 0 ≤ x ≤ 0.35. The cobalt is an additive element that devotes to improvement of the cycle characteristics. When the value of x exceeds 0.35, the reduction of the initial discharging capacity becomes greater [0122].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the application was filed to modify the quantity of cobalt in the electrode material of Hiratsuka with 0.35 or less quantity of cobalt of Ryoshi to improve cycle characteristics.
In the same field of endeavor Tatsumi discloses a material for a positive electrode for a secondary lithium battery [Abstract], and further teaches when the quantity of zirconium is 20% or less cell performance improves [0017] [0019].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the application was filed to modify the quantity of zirconium in the electrode material of Hiratsuka with 20% or less quantity of zirconium of Tatsumi to improve cell performance.
Hiratsuka discloses LiNi.sub.xMn.sub.yM.sub.(1−x−y)O.sub.2. where
Li = 1, meets the range of 0.95 ≤ x ≤ 1.2
Ni = 0.3≦x<0.9, overlaps the range of 0.7<a<0.98
Mn = 0.01≦y≦0.5, overlaps the range of 0.01 <b<0.2
Tatsumi teaches Zr is ≤ 0.2 overlaps the range of 0.0003 ≤c ≤0.02
Ryoshi teaches Co in a range 0 ≤ x ≤ 0.35, which overlaps the range 0.01 <d<0.2
Yielding Li Ni.sub.0.4 Mn.sub.0.4 Zr.sub.(1-0.4-0.4) Co .sub.(1-0.4-0.4),
Li Ni.sub.0.4 Mn.sub.0.4 Zr.sub.0.2 Co.sub.0.2, and 0.4+0.4+0.2+0.2 = 1, which meets the claimed limitation,
Applicant is reminded in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With respect to the limitation, “the lithium complex oxide particle exhibits, in an XRD measurement of the lithium complex oxide particle, a ratio (I2 / Ix) of an integrated intensity (I2) of a diffraction peak of Li2ZrO3 to an integrated intensity (Ii) of a (003) diffraction peak of a hexagonal layered structure of 0.010 or less.” Modified Hiratsuka discloses the each claimed electrode material and the claimed quantities of each material and when the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02.
Modified Hiratsuka discloses, an average particle diameter D50 of the positive-electrode active material is 10 m or more and 18 um or less. ([Tatsumi 0025] The present invention is also characterized in that the particulate positive electrode active material for a secondary lithium cell consists of particles wherein 10 or more primary particles are coagulated to form a secondary particle, and the average particle diameter of the secondary particle is 2 to 20 .mu.m. By such a secondary particle structure of coagulated bodies, the improvement of the packed density of the active material of the electrode layer, and the improvement of large-current charge-discharge properties can be achieved.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the application was filed to modify the particle size of the active material of Hiratsuka with average particle diameter of Tatsumi in a range of 2 to 20 µm to improve cell charge discharge performance.
Applicant is reminded in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As to claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated, with respect to the oil absorption amount is 15 ml/100g or more and 21 mi/100g or less, modified Hiratsuka discloses the each claimed electrode material and the claimed quantities of each material and when the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02.
As to claim 8, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated, with respect to the an amount of an eluted lithium evaluated by a Warder method is 0.11% by mass or less, modified Hiratsuka discloses the each claimed electrode material and the claimed quantities of each material and when the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02.
Examiner notes the product-by-limitations of claim 8 are not given patentable weight since the courts have held that patentability is based on a product itself, even if the prior art product is made by a different process (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 1985). Moreover, a product-by-process limitation is held to be obvious if the product is similar to a prior art product (In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685, and In re Fessman, 180 USPQ 324). Claim 8 as written does not distinguish the product of the instant application from the product of the prior art.
As to claim 14, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated, modified Hiratsuka discloses the additive element M is a combination of Co and Al. (Example 1 [Tatsumi, 0062]) Tatsumi further discloses, “The present invention, as described above, there is provided a material of a positive electrode for a secondary lithium-ion cell having high cycle durability and high safety for high-voltage and high-capacity uses, which are useful for secondary lithium-ion cells.” [0131] and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Hiratsuka with the cobalt and aluminum as taught by Tatsumi to achieve a lithium cell with high cycle durability and high safety for high voltage and high capacity battery use.
As to claim 15, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated, modified Hiratsuka discloses the additive element M is a combination of Co and Al. (Example 1 [Tatsumi, 0062]) Tatsumi further discloses, “The present invention, as described above, there is provided a material of a positive electrode for a secondary lithium-ion cell having high cycle durability and high safety for high-voltage and high-capacity uses, which are useful for secondary lithium-ion cells.” [0131] and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Hiratsuka with the cobalt and aluminum as taught by Tatsumi to achieve a lithium cell with high cycle durability and high safety for high voltage and high capacity battery use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, pages 6-14, tables 4A and 5A, not found in the original disclosure as filed, provide unexpected results for an average particle diameter of D(50) for the positive-electrode active material in a range of 10 µm or more and 18 µm of less.
The office respectfully disagrees and relies on MPEP 716, “When any claim of an application or a patent under reexamination is rejected or objected to, any evidence submitted to traverse the rejection or objection on a basis not otherwise provided for must be by way of an oath or declaration under this section.” As no declaration or affidavit has been received as evidence for tables 4A and 5A the assertion of unexpected results has not been shown.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BART A HORNSBY whose telephone number is (313)446-6637. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-6:00 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, Matthew T Martin can be reached at 571-270-7871. 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.
BART HORNSBY
Examiner
Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728