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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/14/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 01/14/2025 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
In view of the amendment to claim 1 the rejection of claims 1-10 under U.S.C. 103 is withdrawn.
The addition of claims 10-18 is acknowledged.
New analysis follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 10 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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-9, 10-13 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura (JP2016149258A, reference made to attached English translation) in view of Takano (US2020251733A1), and further in view of Junpei (JP2018206774, reference made to English translation in IDS).
Regarding claim 1 and 10, Tamura discloses a lithium metal composite oxide powder comprising Li, Ni, Mn and Co with a primary particle size of 3 µm or more and a D50 of 5-7 µm(¶[0009]).
Tamura does not disclose an angle of difference calculated from an angle of repose and angle of fall and the lithium metal composite containing 500 ppm or less of water and having a layered structure.
Junpei, related to producing lithium oxide powders for batteries, discloses the difference angle of a compound can be adjusted by a mixing process using a pulverizing mixer, bead mill, screw kneaders and the like (¶[0023]). In particular mixing speed changes the angle of difference such as when the rotation of the mixer is fast the angle will increase (¶[0032]). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize changing the difference angle would change the fluidity and ion conduction within the battery to improve battery characteristics.
Therefore it would have been obvious to alter the angle of difference to improve battery characteristics. “[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.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Takano, related to lithium metal composite oxides, teaches a lithium metal composite oxide powder(¶[0014]-[0015], see formula 1) having a layered structure (¶[0025]), and comprising of at least one element selected from the group Co, Al, Mg, Ti, Zr, Mo, and Nb containing 500 ppm or less of water(¶[0106]).
One of ordinary skill would have realized the lithium metal composite oxide of Tamura having a layered structure would lead to a more stable structure during charging(¶[0036]) and having 500 ppm or less of water would lead to improved breaking strength and coatabilty(¶[0106]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to have set the structure and water content as taught by Takano in the lithium metal oxide of Tamura to improve charging, breaking strength and coatabilty.
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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding clam 2, 3, 11, and 12 modified Tamura discloses a lithium metal composite oxide according to claims 1 and 10, respectively, but does not disclose an angle of repose or angle of fall. The angle of repose and angle of fall are the two variables determined when calculating the angle of difference. The angle of difference, and thus angle of repose and fall, are adjustable, depending on the needs of the application, by a mixing process (see rejection of claim 1) and therefore the claimed ranges of angles are obvious results of optimization.
Regarding claim 4 and 13, modified Tamura discloses a lithium metal composite oxide powder according to claim 1 wherein the amount of residual sulfate radical is 1.0% by mass or less. The method of preparation of Tamura (¶[0027]-[0028]) does not require sulfate as starting materials or as a processing treatment and provides other salt options such as chlorides, nitrates, acetates. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize sulfate radical presence is dependent of the presence of sulfate within the process.
Therefore, it would be obvious the material produced in Tamura’s method would have less than 1.0% by mass of sulfate radical.
Regarding claim 7 and 16, modified Tamura discloses a lithium metal composite oxide powder according to claim 1 and a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery which comprises the composite powder (¶[0027]).
Regarding claim 8 and 17, modified Tamura discloses a positive electrode active material according to claim 7, present in a positive electrode for a lithium-ion battery (¶[0040]).
Regarding claim 9 and 18, modified Tamura discloses a positive electrode according to claim 8 as part of a lithium secondary battery (¶[0040]).
Claim 5 and 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura (JP2016149258A, reference made to attached English translation) in view of Takano (US2020251733A1), and further in view of Junpei (JP2018206774, reference made to English translation in IDS).
as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, respectively, and further in view of Fumhiro (JP2001122626A, reference made to English translation).
Regarding claim 5 and 14, modified Tamura discloses a lithium metal composite oxide powder according to claim 1, but does not disclose the particle size distribution in terms of a difference of cumulative diameters.
Fumhiro, related to a lithium composite oxide, discloses heat treatment eliminates the smallest
particles and sharpens the particle size distribution (¶[0020]). The difference (D20-D10) of the cumulative diameters is a measurement of the subsection of the particle size distribution and therefore would also be modified by heat treatment.
“[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.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize having a sharp particle size distribution would have has a high initial discharge capacity and a high-capacity retention rate of the discharge capacity improving battery characteristics.
Therefore it would have been obvious to have adjusted the particle size distribution and difference (D20-D10) to improve the battery characteristics.
Claim 6 and 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura (JP2016149258A, reference made to attached English translation) in view of Takano (US2020251733A1), and further in view of Junpei (JP2018206774, reference made to English translation in IDS).
as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, respectively, and further in view of Kim (US20150171423A1).
Regarding claim 6 and 15, modified Tamura discloses a lithium metal composite oxide powder according to claim 1, but does not disclose the powder comprises core particles and coating material covering the core particles.
Kim, related to cathode active materials, teaches a positive electrode active material core with a coating covering the core (¶[0015], Fig. 1).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize adding a coating to the outside of the lithium composite particles would reduce the amount of lithium on the surface thereby providing high initial and rate capacity as well as a longer lifespan (¶[0005]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided a coating material to cover the core articles to improve the initial and rate capacity as well as to improve the lifespan of the material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN J. ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (703)756-1243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am-6 pm 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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/K.J.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1726 /RYAN S CANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726