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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 21-28, 38-41) in the reply filed on 10/31/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 29-37, 42-45 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/31/2025.
Status of Application
Claims 1-20 are cancelled. Claims 21-28, 38-41 are new.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 21-22,24-25 and 39-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tomohiro (JP2016173875A, translation attached).
Regarding claim 21, Tomohiro discloses a positive electrode active material for non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery composed of particles containing crystals of a lithium metal composite oxide [0009].
The limitations “for an all-solid-state lithium-ion battery” and “wherein the positive electrode active material for an all-solid state lithium-ion battery is in contact with a solid electrolyte layer” do not impart additional structure to the claimed positive electrode active material. Because the structure of Tomohiro’s positive electrode active material is capable of use in an all-solid-state lithium-ion battery, these claim limitations are met (MPEP 2112.02, II).
Tomohiro further discloses:
wherein the lithium metal composite oxide has a layered structure and contains at least Li and a transition metal [0039], and
wherein, in pore physical properties obtained from nitrogen adsorption isotherm measurement and nitrogen desorption isotherm measurement at a liquid nitrogen temperature, a total pore volume obtained from a nitrogen adsorption amount when a relative pressure (p/p0) of an adsorption isotherm is 0.98 to 9.99 is 0.025 cm3/g or less [0055], which Is within or is significantly encompassed by the claimed relative pressure range of “0.0035 cm3/g or less when a relative pressure (p/p0) of an adsorption isotherm is 0.99”.
Assuming, arguendo, that Tomohiro’s adsorption isotherm is not within the claimed limitation, it would still have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the significantly encompassed portion of the range of the total pore volume, as Tomohiro discloses that when the lithium metal composite oxide has such pore volume, it can achieve a higher discharge capacity and capacity retention rate than conventional ones [0055].
Regarding claim 22, Tomohiro discloses the positive electrode active material for an all-solid-state lithium-ion battery according to claim 21.
The limitation “which is used for an all-solid-state lithium-ion battery containing an oxide-based solid electrolyte” does not impart additional structure to the claimed positive electrode active material. Because the structure of Tomohiro’s positive electrode active material is capable of use in an all-solid-state lithium-ion battery, the claimed limitation is met (MPEP 2112.02, II).
Regarding claims 24 and 39, Tomohiro discloses the positive electrode active material for an all-solid-state lithium-ion battery according to claim 21. Tomohiro further discloses the pore volume, but does not disclose a pore diameter D75 and D5 obtained by a mercury intrusion porosimetry, and further does not disclose “the pore diameter D75 at a cumulative 25% is 7.4 µm or less, and the pore diameter D5 at a cumulative 95% is 0.0135 µm or more” as claimed.
In this regard, Tomohiro discloses wherein a lithium-containing transition metal oxide is synthesized using a composite carbonate method, where three kinds of sulfates of Ni, Co, and Mn were used as starting materials and dissolved in ion-exchanged water, followed by dropping sodium carbonate aqueous solution to obtain a composite carbonate of nickel cobalt manganese, followed by filtration, drying, and calcination at a 700 °C. for 4 hours to obtain a composite oxide, which is then mixed with lithium hydroxide and fired at 900°C [PG Pub 0126].
The instant specification also discloses wherein a positive electrode active material having D75 of 2.606 µm and D5 of 0.0138 µm was formed by mixing nickel sulfate aqueous solution, a cobalt sulfate aqueous solution, and a manganese sulfate aqueous solution [PG Pub 0440], followed by adding an ammonium sulfate aqueous solution [PG Pub 0441], followed by washing and dehydrating [0442], followed by mixing with lithium hydroxide powder and calcining under an air atmosphere at 970° C. for 4 hours, followed by additional vacuum drying at 120° C. for 10 hours to obtain a positive electrode active material [PG Pub 0445].
A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the lithium containing transition metal oxide of Tomohiro is made by substantially similar processes as that of the instant specification (e.g., sulfates are mixed, basic solutions were added to control pH, followed by calcination). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would anticipate the positive electrode active material of Tomohiro to have a pore diameter D75 at a cumulative 25% of “7.4 µm or less” and a pore diameter D5 at a cumulative 95% of “0.0135 µm or more” as claimed (MPEP 2112.01 (I)).
Regarding claims 25 and 40, Tomohiro discloses the positive electrode active material for an all-solid-state lithium-ion battery according to claim 21, wherein the lithium metal composite oxide is Li1.5[Ni0.45Co0Mn0.855Li0.195]O3 [Tomohiro 0048], wherein the transition metal is Mn as claimed.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 26, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomohiro (JP2016173875A, translation attached).
Regarding claim 26, Tomohiro discloses the positive electrode active material for an all-solid-state lithium-ion battery according to claim 25, wherein the lithium metal composite oxide Li1.5[Ni0.45Co0Mn0.855Li0.195]O3 [0126], wherein the molar amounts of Li (i.e., 1.695) and Mn (i.e., 0.855) in the lithium metal composite oxide do not fall within the claimed range of 0.9≤x≤1.30 (for Li) and “0≤z≤0.40” (for Mn).
In this regard, Tomohiro discloses wherein the molar amount of Mn ranges from 0<c<1.4 [0042], which encompasses the claimed amount of 0≤z≤0.40. Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the molar amount of Mn, such that it is within the encompassed range, as Tomohiro discloses that such positive electrode active material provides a high discharge capacity and a high capacity retention rate [Tomohiro 0010].
Regarding claim 27, Tomohiro discloses the positive electrode active material for an all-solid-state lithium-ion battery according to claim 26, wherein in Composition Formula (A), 1-y-z-w is 0.145 which does not satisfy the claimed “1-y-z-w≥0.50”. However, Tomohiro discloses that the molar amount of Co (i.e., claimed y) is 0≦b<1.4, and the molar amount of Mn (i.e., claimed z) is 0<c<1.4 [Tomohiro 0037]. Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have controlled the molar amounts of Co and Mn within the disclosed ranges (e.g., 0.1 for both elements), such that the claimed “1-y-z-w≥0.50” is satisfied, as Tomohiro discloses that such positive electrode active material can achieve a high discharge capacity and a high capacity retention rate [Tomohiro 0041].
Claim(s) 28, 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomohiro (JP2016173875A, translation attached), in view of Kim (US20190393479A1).
Regarding claims 28, 41, Tomohiro discloses the positive electrode active material for an all-solid-state lithium-ion battery according to claim 21, wherein the particles are composed of primary particles [Tomohiro 0093], secondary particles [Tomohiro 0096] which are aggregates of the primary particles.
Tomohiro does not disclose wherein the particles are further composed of “single particles that exist independently of the primary particles and the secondary particles” as claimed.
Examiner notes that shape, chemical composition, or structure of the “single particles” is not particularly claimed in the instant claim. Thus, the “single particles” is broadly interpreted as any particles that are different from (i.e., “exist independently” as claimed) the primary and the secondary particles.
In this regard, Kim also teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising a cathode active material including a first cathode active material particle and a second cathode active material particle, wherein the first cathode active material particle includes a lithium metal oxide having a secondary particle formed from an assembly of primary particles, and the second cathode active material particle having a single particle structure [Kim 0034]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the particles of Tomohiro such that it further includes single particles such as the second active material particles of Kim, as Kim teaches that the such cathode active material having single particle structure provides penetration stability and thermal stability, thereby improving life-span and long-term operational reliability of the lithium secondary battery [Kim 0028, 0076].
Regarding the limitation of “wherein the amount of the single particles in the particles is 20% or more”, Kim teaches wherein the second cathode active material particle (i.e., single particles) is mixed in a weight ratio of 40-90% and preferably 50-90%, which is wholly within the claimed range of “20% or more”. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the positive electrode active material of Tomohiro to include the single particles in the encompassed range, with a reasonable expectation to improve thermal stability and life-span and prevention of ignition due to penetration [Kim 0091].
Claim(s) 23, 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomohiro (JP2016173875A, translation attached), in view of Cho (KR20150081938A, translation attached) and Kurita (US20170187031A1).
Regarding claim 23, 38, Tomohiro discloses the positive electrode active material for an all-solid-state lithium-ion battery according to claim 21, but does not disclose a pore distribution or pore diameter of the positive electrode active material.
Thus, Tomohiro does not disclose the claimed limitation of “in a pore distribution obtained from a desorption isotherm by a Barrett-Joyner-Halenda (BJH) method, a proportion of the volume of pores having a pore diameter of 50 nm or less with respect to a total pore volume of pores having a pore diameter of 200 nm or less is 45% or more”.
In this regard, Cho teaches a cathode active material containing lithium nickel-manganese-cobalt (NMC) comprising a plurality of micropores uniformly formed inside the cathode active material secondary particle, wherein the pores of 5nm to 50nm are included in 5 to 50% volume of the total volume of the pores [Cho 0023], which overlaps with the claimed amount of “45% or more”.
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have controlled the proportion of the volume of pores having a pore diameter of 50nm or less such that it is in the overlapping amount, as Cho teaches that such amount of pore allows electrolyte to come into uniform contact with the positive electrode active material, thereby enabling rapid charging of high-capacity, high-output lithium secondary batteries [0023 Cho].
Further, Tomohiro discloses wherein the total molar amount of Li ranges from 1.6<d≦1.9, which does not overlap with the claimed total Li molar range of “0.9≤x≤1.30”.
In this regard, Kurita teaches a positive electrode active material for lithium secondary batteries comprising a layered structure and at least Ni, Col, and Mn (abstract). Kurita further teaches wherein the total molar amount of Li ranges from 0.9≦a≦1.2 [0022 Kurita], which is wholly within the claimed range of “0.9≤x≤1.30”. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have controlled the Li amount in the positive electrode active material of Tomohiro, such that it is in the encompassed range, as Kurita teaches that when the molar amount of Li is 0.95 or more and less than 1.18, it is possible to obtain a lithium secondary battery with high capacity and high discharge capacity at high discharge rate [0023 Kurita].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAEYOUNG SON whose telephone number is (703)756-1427. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5pm.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.
/T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 12/4/2025