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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/02/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not arrive at “more than 0 mass% and not more than 11 mass%” based on the teachings of Hamano in view of Croy. Croy teaches that increasing the amount of Li2MnO3 increases both the charge and discharge capacities of the active material. However, Table 3 of the instant specification shows that the cycle characteristic is better when the Li2MnO3 content is not more than 11 mass% (Nos. 12 and 15) than when the Li2MnO3 content is more than 11 mass% (No. 11). Thus, the Table demonstrates superior results at the claimed content range of Li2MnO3. This is unexpected over the teachings of Croy, which teaches that increasing the amount of Li2MnO3 to 12% or greater increases both the charge and discharge capacities of the active material.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The results shown in the Table appear to depend on a particular active material composition and preparation process and therefore are not commensurate in scope with the claims, which require only a positive electrode active material containing lithium, nickel, and manganese and having a mean value of not lower than 0.85 and not higher than 1.20 and a half-value width of not more than 0.90 in a relative frequency distribution of a molar ratio between a manganese content and a nickel content. It is unclear if the unexpected results are present over the entire claimed range. Table 3 of the instant specification shows that material Nos. 13 and 14 have Li2MnO3 content higher than the claimed range and have higher discharging capacities and cycle characteristics than the cited No. 12. Further, a skilled artisan would be motivated to optimize the Li2MnO3 to achieve a desired balance between capacity and stability of the electrode material as discussed by Croy.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 12, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamano (US 2015/0340683 A1; previously cited) in view of Croy (Quantifying hysteresis and voltage fade in xLi2MnO3●(1-x)LiMn0.5Ni0.5O2 electrodes as a function of Li2MnO3 content, 2013, cited in the IDS filed 06/09/2022).
Regarding claim 12, Hamano discloses a positive electrode material used in a lithium ion secondary battery ([0008]), wherein the positive electrode material is a lithium-containing nickel manganese composite oxide ([0008]), wherein the positive electrode material contains lithium, nickel and manganese ([0008]), wherein in a relative frequency distribution of a molar ratio between a manganese content and a nickel content, a mean value is not lower than 0.85 and not higher than 1.20, and a half-value width is not more than 0.90. (The instant specification indicates that these values indicate even dispersion of manganese and nickel atoms, [0130], the specification at [0080] and remarks filed 11/20/2024 state that even atomic dispersion occurs when the electrode material is formed using the coprecipitation method. Hamano discloses electrode material formed using the coprecipitation method, [0084], and is therefore considered to meet this limitation. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent [MPEP § 2112.01].)
Hamano does not disclose wherein a content of a composite oxide expressed by Formula Li2MnO3 is more than 0 mass% and not more than 11 mass%.
Croy teaches a positive electrode material used in a lithium ion secondary battery (p. A318 ¶1), wherein the positive electrode material is a lithium-containing nickel manganese composite oxide, wherein the positive electrode material contains lithium, nickel and manganese (Table III on p. A321), and wherein a content of a composite oxide expressed by Formula Li2MnO3 is related to the charging/discharging capacity (p. A320, c. 2, l. 9-11) and cycling behavior (p. A324, c. 1, l. 2-8) of the electrode material. A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have optimized the content of Li2MnO3 in the electrode material of Hamano, including to a range corresponding to “more than 0 mass% and not more than 20 mass%,” because Croy teaches that increasing the Li2MnO3 content increases charging/discharging capacities (p. A320, c. 2, l. 9-11) but also increases hysteresis and voltage fade in the active material (p. A324, c. 1, l. 2-8).
Regarding claim 21, Hamano in view of Croy teaches the invention of claim 12, further containing at least one element A selected from the group consisting of aluminum, silicon, titanium, calcium, potassium, barium, and sulfur (Hamano: [0012]-[0013]).
Regarding claim 23, Hamano in view of Croy teaches wherein a mass increase amount when the positive electrode material is left to stand in an air atmosphere at temperature of 25°C and humidity of 60% for 240 hours is not more than 0.75 mass% (Hamano: 0.60 mass% or less, [0021]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE C. DISNEY whose telephone number is (703)756-1076. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30 MT.
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 on (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.
/C.C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723