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 .
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received on February 27, 2026 are entered into the file. Currently, claim 1 is amended; claim 9 is cancelled; and claims 11-16 are withdrawn; resulting in claims 1-8 and 10 pending for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 17, 2026 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagai, et al. (US 2015/0140389 A1) in view of Sano, et al. (US PGPub 2015/0180034 A1).
Regarding claims 1-2, 5-6, and 10, Nagai teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery including a positive electrode, negative electrode, and heat-resistant layer disposed between the positive and negative electrodes (¶ [0008], Ln. 1-4), such that the negative electrode faces the positive electrode. The positive electrode includes a positive electrode current collector and a positive electrode mixture layer formed on at least one surface of the positive electrode current collector (¶ [0028], Ln. 4-8). The positive electrode mixture layer contains a positive electrode active substance, which contains a lithium transition metal oxide (¶ [0036], Ln. 1-4), mixed with electrically conductive materials and binders in an appropriate solvent (¶ [0109], Ln. 5-10). Nagai teaches that the average particle diameter of the positive electrode active substance particles is preferably 3 to 10 µm, within the claimed range of 3 to 15 µm (¶ [0061], Ln. 17-19). Nagai also teaches that the density of positive electrode mixture layer is preferably 1.0 to 3.8 g/cm3, overlapping the claimed range of less than or equal to 3.7 g/cm3 and more specifically 3.6 to 3.7 g/cm3 (¶ [0111], Ln. 11-14). Additionally, Nagai teaches that the BET specific surface area of the positive electrode active substance is preferably 0.5 to 2.0 m2/g, further teaching that it is preferred to have a BET specific surface area of 1.5 m2/g or lower (¶ [0070], Ln. 4-11). In Example 1, Nagai teaches a positive electrode active substance including a lithium transition metal composite oxide with an average particle diameter of 5.4 µm and a BET specific surface area adjusted within the range of 0.5 to 1.9 m2/g (¶ [0163], Ln. 23-30), which is mixed with acetylene black as an electrically conductive material PVDF as a binder in NMP to form a positive electrode mixture layer (¶ [0165], Ln. 1-5). The positive electrode mixture layer is applied to the positive electrode current collector and pressed to form a positive electrode sheet with a density within the range of 1.8 to 2.4 g/cm3 (¶ [0165], Ln. 13-15). Nagai does not expressly teach an embodiment in which the density of the positive electrode mixture layer after pressing is less than or equal to 3.7 g/cm3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the positive electrode mixture layer of Example 1 to have a density of approximately 3.6 to 3.7 g/cm3, based on the disclosure that the preferred density is 1.0 to 3.8 g/cm3 (¶ [0111], Ln. 11-14). One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to try any density within the ranges provided by the reference with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to target a density on the higher end of the range provided, such as 3.6 to 3.7 g/cm3, in order to increase the energy density of the battery.
Nagai does not expressly teach that the BET specific surface area of the positive electrode mixture layer after pressing is within 1.5 to 2.0 m2/g and a pore volume of mesopores with a diameter from 10 to 50 nm of the positive electrode mixture layer after pressing is in the range of 0.009 to 0.015 cm3/g.
Sano teaches a lithium ion secondary battery including a positive electrode with a positive electrode active material disposed on a positive electrode current collector (¶ [0018], Ln. 3-6). The positive electrode active material includes a compound represented by the formula LiaNixCoyAl(1-x-y)O2 (¶ [0020], Ln. 1-5; Formula 1). The battery also includes a negative electrode and separator, with the positive and negative electrodes disposed opposite each other with the separator sandwiched between (¶ [0018], Ln. 1-3). Sano teaches that the BET specific surface area of the positive electrode is 1.3-3.5 m-2/g (¶ [0020], Ln. 6-7), teaching several examples with BET specific surface areas of 1.8 m-2/g (Table 1). Sano teaches that when the BET specific surface area of the positive electrode is within 1.3-3.5 m-2/g as an electrode, higher affinity with the electrolyte is obtained, increasing ion conductivity (¶ [0024, Ln. 1-4). Additionally, Sano teaches that the positive electrode has a pore volume of 0.005 to 0.02 cm3/g, teaching that pore volume within this range results in better high-rate discharge characteristics as the pores can be sufficiently impregnated with electrolyte to ensure ion conductivity (¶ [0027]-[0028]). Sano teaches that the pore volume is based on pores approximately 1,000 Å or smaller (¶ [0029], Ln. 1-4). To achieve these properties, Sano teaches that the BET specific surface area of the positive electrode active material is in the range of 0.3 to 1.0 (¶ [0037], Ln. 5-7), further teaching that the BET specific surface area and the pore volume can be modified by varying the electrode pressing pressure, the mixture of the active material and the conductive auxiliary agent, and slurry kneading (¶ [0055], Ln. 1-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the positive electrode mixture layer after pressing of Nagai to have a BET specific surface area of approximately 1.8 m-2/g and a pore volume of pores approximately 1,000 Å or smaller within the range of 0.005 to 0.02 cm3/g based on the teachings of Sano. Based on the teaching that the pore volume of pores approximately 1,000 Å (100 nm) or smaller is within the range of 0.005 to 0.02 cm3/g, one would find it obvious that pores with a diameter of 10-50 nm falls within this range, and would find it obvious to apply the teaching of pore volume to pores with a diameter of 10-50 nm. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to have a pore volume of pores with a diameter of 10-50 nm within the range of 0.005 to 0.02 cm3/g, overlapping the claimed range of 0.009 to 0.015 cm3/g. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05(I)). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to adjust the BET specific surface area and pore volume of the positive electrode mixture layer in order to increase ion conductivity. By adjusting the BET specific surface area and pore volume within these ranges, higher affinity with the electrolyte is obtained and pores can be sufficiently impregnated with electrolyte to ensure ion conductivity. As Nagai teaches a similar BET specific surface area of the positive electrode active material to Sano, and Sano teaches that BET specific surface area and pore volume may be adjusted by varying the electrode pressing pressure, the mixture of the active material and the conductive auxiliary agent, and slurry kneading, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to adjust these properties within the ranges taught by Sano.
While it is acknowledged that the BET specific surface area and pore volume of the positive electrode active material layer after 300 cycles of charging and discharging are not expressly recited by Nagai in view of Sano, the combination of references teaches the claimed composition with the specified starting properties, including a positive electrode active material layer including lithium-transition metal composite oxide particles with the same BET specific surface area, pore volume, and electrode density after pressing, which the instant specification indicates are essential to achieving the claimed properties after 300 cycles of charging and discharging. Therefore, the claimed properties, i.e., a BET specific surface area of 1.5 to 2.3 m-2/g after 300 cycles of charging at 1.0C and 4.2V in a CC/CV mode to a 100% state of charge and then discharging at 1.0C and 2.5V in a CC mode in a temperature range from 20 to 45 °C and pore volume of the cathode active material layer after the 300 cycles of 0.01 to 0.016 cm3/g would be implicitly achieved by a positive electrode with the same positive electrode active material and properties after pressing. The instant specification has not provided adequate teachings that the claimed property is only obtainable with the claimed material.
As evidence that the claimed properties are inherent to the positive electrode taught by Nagai in view of Sano, the reference teaches a positive electrode active material with substantially the same properties recognized by the instant specification as essential to achieving the claimed BET specific surface area of 1.5 to 2.3 m-2/g and pore volume of 0.01 to 0.016 cm3/g after 300 cycles of charging and discharging. In paragraph [0062] of the instant specification, the BET specific surface area and pore volume properties of the cathode active material layer after the 300 cycles are said to be implemented by adjusting the mixture density after pressing, the BET specific surface area before/after pressing, and the pore volume before/after pressing. In particular, the instant specification teaches a preferred mixture density after pressing of 3 g/cc or more and less than 3.8 g/cc (paragraphs [0063]-[0065]), a BET specific surface area of 1.5 to 2.0 m2/g after pressing (paragraphs [0068]-[0069]), and a pore volume of 0.009-0.015 cm3/g after pressing (paragraph [0076]).
With respect to the mixture density, Nagai teaches that the density of positive electrode mixture layer is preferably 1.0 to 3.8 g/cm3 (¶ [0111], Ln. 11-14), overlapping the taught range of 3 to 3.8 g/cm3. As detailed above, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to try any density within the ranges provided by the reference with reasonable expectation of success, particularly a density on the higher end of the range provided, such as 3.6 to 3.7 g/cm3, in order to increase the energy density of the battery. Thus, the electrode density falls within the range required to result in a BET specific surface area of claim 2 and pore volume of claim 6.
With respect to the BET specific surface area after pressing, Nagai teaches that the BET specific surface area of the positive electrode active substance is preferably 0.5 to 2.0 m2/g, further teaching that it is preferred to have a BET specific surface area of 1.5 m2/g or lower (¶ [0070], Ln. 4-11). Sano teaches that the BET specific surface area of the positive electrode is 1.3-3.5 m-2/g (¶ [0020], Ln. 6-7), teaching several examples with BET specific surface areas of 1.8 m-2/g (Table 1). Sano teaches that when the BET specific surface area of the positive electrode is within 1.3-3.5 m-2/g as an electrode, higher affinity with the electrolyte is obtained, increasing ion conductivity (¶ [0024, Ln. 1-4). As detailed above, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the positive electrode mixture layer after pressing of Nagai to have a BET specific surface area of approximately 1.8 m-2/g after pressing. Thus, the BET specific surface area after pressing falls within the range required to result in a BET specific surface area of claim 2 and pore volume of claim 6.
With respect to pore volume after pressing, Sano teaches that the positive electrode has a pore volume of 0.005 to 0.02 cm3/g, teaching that pore volume within this range results in better high-rate discharge characteristics as the pores can be sufficiently impregnated with electrolyte to ensure ion conductivity (¶ [0027]-[0028]). As detailed above, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the positive electrode mixture layer after pressing of Nagai to have a pore volume of pores with a diameter of 10-50 nm within the claimed range after pressing. Thus, the pore volume falls within the range required to result in a BET specific surface area of claim 2 and pore volume of claim 6.
Additionally, Nagai teaches a lithium ion secondary battery with a similar composition, formed by a similar process. In example 1 of the instant specification, LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 was prepared and mixed with Denka Black and PVDF in a mass ratio of 95.5:3:1.5, and mixed with NMP. The cathode slurry was coated on an aluminum foil current collector before roll pressing. Nagai teaches a positive electrode formed by mixing Li1.14Ni0.34Co0.33Mn0.33Zr0.002W0.005O2, acetylene black, and PVDF in a mass ratio of 90:8:2, then adding NMP and coating the slurry on an aluminum foil current collector before pressing (¶ [0165], Ln. 1-11; Example 1). Thus, Nagai in view of Sano teaches all of the essential features to achieving the claimed BET specific surface area of 1.5 to 2.3 m-2/g and pore volume of 0.01 to 0.016 cm3/g after 300 cycles of charging and discharging.
Regarding claims 3-4, Nagai in view of Sano teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. While it is acknowledged that an increase ratio of BET specific surface area after 300 cycles of charging and discharging relative to BET specific surface area after 1 cycle of charging and discharging of 20 to 50% is not expressly recited by Nagai in view of Sano, the combination of references teaches the claimed composition with the specified starting properties, including a positive electrode active material layer including lithium-transition metal composite oxide particles with the same BET specific surface area, pore volume, and density after pressing. Therefore, the claimed property, i.e., an increase ratio of 20 to 50% of BET specific surface area after 300 cycles of charging and discharging relative to BET specific surface area after 1 cycle, would be implicitly achieved by a positive electrode with the same positive electrode active material and properties after pressing. The instant specification has not provided adequate teachings that the claimed property is only obtainable with the claimed material.
As evidence that the claimed property is inherent to the positive electrode active material taught by Nagai in view of Sano, the combination of references teaches a positive electrode active material with substantially the same properties, which the instant specification recognizes as essential to achieving the claimed BET specific surface area of 1.5 to 2.3 m-2/g after 300 cycles of charging and discharging. Additionally, the combination of references teaches a BET specific surface area after pressing, prior to the charge and discharge cycles, within the range taught in the instant specification. In the instant specification, a preferred BET specific surface area of 1.5 to 2.0 m2/g after pressing is taught (paragraphs [0068]-[0069]). As detailed above, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the positive electrode mixture layer after pressing of Nagai to have a BET specific surface area of approximately 1.8 m-2/g after pressing. Nagai also teaches a positive electrode with the claimed composition including a positive electrode active substance with lithium transition metal oxide particles. Specifically, Nagai teaches a positive electrode formed with Li1.14Ni0.34Co0.33Mn0.33Zr0.002W0.005O2. Nagai in view of Sano teaches all of the essential features (positive electrode composition, electrode density, BET specific surface area after pressing, and pore volume after pressing) to achieving the BET specific surface areas after one cycle and after 300 cycles of charging and discharging taught in the instant specification. Thus, Nagai in view of Sano teaches all of the essential features to achieving the claimed increase ratio of 20 to 50% of BET specific surface area after 300 cycles of charging and discharging relative to BET specific surface area after 1 cycle.
Regarding claim 7, Nagai in view of Sano teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Nagai further teaches that the lithium transition metal oxide included in the positive electrode active substance follows the general formula Li1+xNiyCozMn(1-y-z)MAαMBβO2 (¶ [0040], Ln. 1-5). Specifically, Example 1 teaches the use of Li1.14Ni0.34Co0.33Mn0.33Zr0.002W0.005O2, meeting the claimed Chemical Formula 1 wherein x=1.14, y=0.66, z=0, and M is the combination of Co, Mn, Zr, and W.
Regarding claim 8, Nagai in view of Sano teaches all of the limitations of claim 7 above. Nagai does not expressly teach an embodiment including a molar ratio of nickel in the lithium transition metal oxide of 0.8 or more.
Including lithium transition metal oxides having a high nickel content in positive electrode active materials in well-known in the art. Sano teaches that the positive electrode active material includes a compound represented by the formula LiaNixCoyAl(1-x-y)O2, wherein 0.5≤x≤0.9 (¶ [0020], Ln. 1-5; Formula 1). More specifically, Sano teaches 0.70≤x≤0.90, teaching that the high nickel content is more preferable in view of good capacity and rate performance (¶ [0021], Ln. 5-7). Examples 1-21 of Sano include a molar ratio of nickel of 0.85 in the positive electrode active material (¶ [0051], Ln. 1; Examples 1-21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the chemical formula of the lithium transition metal oxide used in Example 1 of Nagai to include a higher molar ratio of nickel, such as 0.85, based on the teachings of Sano. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include a lithium transition metal oxide with a high nickel content in order to produce a battery with good capacity and rate performance.
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Objections
Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 in the response filed February 27, 2026 overcomes the previous objection to claim 1 over minor informalities.
Response-Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 103
In light of the Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 to specify that the BET specific surface area and pore volume properties are measured after pressing of the cathode active material layer, including solvent, binder, conductive material and/or dispersive agent, the previous rejections of claims 1-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Nagai, et al. (US 2015/0140389 A1) in view of Inoue, et al. (US 11,949,101 B2) and of claim 8 over Nagai, et al. (US 2015/0140389 A1) in view of Inoue, et al. (US 11,949,101 B2), and further in view of Sano, et al. (US PGPub 2015/0180034 A1) have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, Nagai is still applicable under 35 U.S.C. 103 and used in combination with Sano in the rejections above. Any arguments with respect to the reference that are still deemed valid will be addressed herein.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim 1 regarding the BET specific surface area 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. In light of the amendment, Sano is relied upon for teaching the BET specific surface area of the positive electrode mixture layer after pressing.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim 1 regarding the pore volume taught by Inoue 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. In light of the amendment, Sano is relied upon for teaching the pore volume of the positive electrode mixture layer after pressing.
Additionally, the Applicant argues that even if Nagai is assumed to have taught the BET specific surface area, the density taught by Nagai is 2.4 g/cm-. This argument is not persuasive. Nagai teaches that the density of positive electrode mixture layer is preferably 1.0 to 3.8 g/cm3 (¶ [0111], Ln. 11-14). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05(I)). While it is acknowledged that Nagai teaches that the density of the positive electrode mixture layer of the examples is adjusted to 1.8-2.4 g/cm3, disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments (MPEP 2123 (II)).
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH J JACOBSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291.
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.
/SARAH J JACOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/MARK RUTHKOSKY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights