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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 11, 2025 has been entered.
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received December 11, 2025 have been entered into the file. Currently, claims 1 and 4 are amended; claims 2-3 are cancelled; claim 5 is withdrawn; and claims 6-7 are new; resulting in claims 1, 4, and 6-7 pending for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 14, 2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “wherein the carbon-based particles are at least one of the group consisting of flake graphite, massive graphite, amorphous graphite, massive artificial graphite (MAG) and graphitized mesophase-carbon microbeads (MCMB)” is new matter that is not supported by the original specification. In looking to the instant specification, paragraph [0017] describes the conductive agent included in the positive electrode mixture layer, listing carbon black, acetylene black, Ketjen black, and graphite as options, however, the graphite materials required in claim 7 are not included. It is noted that the graphite materials of claim 7 are provided in paragraph [0034], however that paragraph of the specification refers to the carbon-based active material included in the negative electrode active material, not to the positive electrode active material.
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, 4, and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horikawa, et al. (US 2018/0316003 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Horikawa teaches a positive electrode for a lithium ion (non-aqueous electrolyte) secondary battery including a positive electrode composite material layer, which contains composite particles and electron conductive particles. Horikawa teaches that the positive electrode composite layer may contain other materials in addition to the composite particles and electron conductive particles including non-oxide electron conductive particles and a binder (¶ [0074], Ln. 1-6). Horikawa further teaches that the non-oxide electron conductive particles may include carbon black, such as acetylene black, thermal black, and furnace black, graphite, and vapor grown carbon fiber (¶ [0075], Ln. 1-5), specifically teaching the use of acetylene black in Example 1 (¶ [0096], Ln. 1-5).
The composite particles include positive electrode active material particles (11) (¶ [0027], Ln. 1-2) which may be secondary particles aggregated from primary particles (¶ [0028], Ln. 2-4). The positive electrode active material can electrochemically adsorb lithium ions and electrochemically release Li ions (¶ [0029], Ln. 1-3) and may be a spinel oxide (¶ [0029], Ln. 3-6). The electron conductive particles (20) are dispersed in the positive electrode composite material layer (¶ [0040], Ln. 1-2) and contain an electron conductive oxide (¶ [0041], Ln. 1-2). The electron conductive oxide may include a first electron conductive oxide coated on the surface of the positive electrode active material particles and the second electron conductive oxide dispersed in the positive electrode composite material layer (¶ [0042], Ln. 1-8). The electron conductive oxide may be SrMnO3 (¶ [0069], Ln. 2). As shown in Figure 1, the electron conductive particles (20) are dispersed outside the positive electrode active material particles (11; secondary particles of the lithium-transition metal composite oxide).
Horikawa teaches that the positive electrode active material may be a spinel oxide and provides two examples of spinel oxides, including LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 (lithium-transition metal composite oxide represented by Li1+αNi0.5-xMn1.5-yMx+yOaFb, wherein α=0, x=0, y=0, a=4, and b=0) (¶ [0037], Ln. 1-2).
Horikawa further teaches that each of the first electron conductive oxide and the second electron conductive oxide has, for example, a ratio of 0.01 mol% or more to 3 mol% or less, or a ratio of 0.1 mol% or more to 2 mol% or less, or a ratio of 0.5 mol% or more to 1 mol% or less with respect to the total amount of the positive electrode active material contained in the positive electrode composite material layer (¶ [0043], Ln. 1-7). Horikawa additionally teaches examples of the positive electrode active material with 1-2 moles of metal elements excluding Li (¶ [0030], Ln. 1-4, ¶ [0037], Ln. 1-4). Specifically, the spinel oxide compounds taught by Horikawa (LiMn2O4 and LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4) include 2 moles of metal elements excluding Li per mole of the compound (¶ [0037], Ln. 1-2). If SrMnO3 is used as the electron conductive oxide in a ratio of 0.5 mol% to 1 mol%, this results in a mole fraction of Sr contained in SrMnO3 based on a total number of moles of metal elements excluding Li contained in a spinel oxide (lithium-transition metal composite oxide) of 0.25 mol% to 0.5 mol%, within the claimed range of 0.1 mol% to 5 mol%.
Horikawa does not expressly teach a positive electrode active material with the combination of SrMnO3 as the electron conductive oxide and LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 as the spinel oxide.
Horikawa teaches that the electron conductive oxide improves the electron conductivity of the positive electrode active material (¶ [0046], Ln. 4-6) and is represented by the general formula ABO3 (¶ [0050], Ln. 1-4). Horikawa specifically teaches that when B is selected from Co, Ni, or Mn, the oxide is expected to have high electron conductivity (¶ [0050], Ln. 7-9), and that A may be selected from La or Sr (¶ [0052], Ln. 1-5), providing SrMnO3 as an example (¶ [0069], Ln. 1-2). Additionally, Horikawa teaches using a spinel oxide as the positive electrode active material particles, providing LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 as an example (¶ [0037], Ln. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use SrMnO3 as the electron conductive oxide and LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 as the positive electrode active material particles, as both are taught by Horikawa for use in a positive electrode active material. One would be motivated to use SrMnO3 as the electron conductive oxide based on the general formula ABO3 provided and the teaching that when B is selected from Co, Ni, or Mn, the oxide is expected to have high electron conductivity, and one would be motivated to use LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 as the positive electrode active material particles based on the limited number of options provided for spinel oxides. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able combine these two components in order to produce a positive electrode active material with high electron conductivity with a reasonable expectation of success, given that both are expressly recited by Horikawa.
Regarding claim 4, Horikawa teaches a lithium ion (non-aqueous electrolyte) secondary battery comprising the positive electrode meeting the limitations of claim 1, a negative electrode, and a separator that are wound together and housed in a battery case, into which an electrolyte solution is injected (¶ [0099], Ln. 1-11).
Regarding claim 7, Horikawa teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Horikawa teaches that the non-oxide electron conductive particles may include carbon black, such as acetylene black, thermal black, and furnace black, graphite, and vapor grown carbon fiber (¶ [0075], Ln. 1-5). Horikawa does not expressly teach that the graphite may be selected from flake graphite, massive graphite, amorphous graphite, massive artificial graphite, or graphitized mesophase-carbon microbeads.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use graphite as the non-oxide electron conductive particles, as it is included in the list of carbon-based materials provided by Horikawa. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to include a powdered graphite in a positive electrode active material as a conductive additive. Natural graphite such as flake graphite or amorphous graphite are commonly used in graphite powders and would be an obvious choice to one of ordinary skill in the art. One would be motivated to include non-oxide electron conductive particles based on the teachings of Horikawa, and would be motivated to use flake or amorphous graphite based on their common use in the art and to impart conductivity.
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant's arguments filed December 11, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that Horikawa, et al. (US 2018/0316003 A1) does not teach a positive electrode mixture layer comprising a positive electrode active material and a conductive agent composed of carbon-based particles; and that the claimed SrMnO3 corresponds to the first electron conductive oxide of Horikawa, the claimed conductive agent corresponds to the second electron conductive oxide of Horikawa, and therefore one would not have been motivated to use solely the first electron conductive oxide and a carbon-based conductive agent, but not the second electron conductive oxide.
With respect to the argument, see page 5 of the remarks, that Horikawa does not teach a positive electrode mixture layer comprising a positive electrode active material and a conductive agent composed of carbon-based particles, this argument is not persuasive. Horikawa teaches that the positive electrode composite layer may contain other materials in addition to the composite particles and electron conductive particles, including non-oxide electron conductive particles and a binder (¶ [0074], Ln. 1-6). Horikawa further teaches that the non-oxide electron conductive particles may include carbon black, such as acetylene black, thermal black, and furnace black, graphite, and vapor grown carbon fiber (¶ [0075], Ln. 1-5), specifically teaching the use of acetylene black in Example 1 (¶ [0096], Ln. 1-5).
With respect to the argument, see pages 6-7 of the remarks, that the claimed SrMnO3 corresponds to the first electron conductive oxide of Horikawa, that the claimed conductive agent corresponds to the second electron conductive oxide of Horikawa, and that therefore one would not have been motivated to use solely the first electron conductive oxide and a carbon-based conductive agent, but not the second electron conductive oxide, this argument is not persuasive. In the office action presented above, the second electron conductive oxide of Horikawa is not interpreted as the claimed carbon-based conductive agent. Horikawa teaches that the electron conductive oxide is represented by the general formula ABO3 (¶ [0050], Ln. 1-4), specifically teaching that when B is selected from Co, Ni, or Mn, the oxide is expected to have high electron conductivity (¶ [0050], Ln. 7-9), and that A may be selected from La or Sr (¶ [0052], Ln. 1-5), providing SrMnO3 as an example (¶ [0069], Ln. 1-2). The electron conductive oxide of Horikawa is interpreted as the claimed SrMnO3 included inside or outside the secondary particles of the lithium-transition metal oxide. The claimed conductive agent corresponds to the non-oxide electron conductive particles taught by Horikawa as materials added in addition to the composite particles and electron conductive particles. Thus, it is not argued that one of ordinary skill in the art would need to replace the second electron conductive oxide with carbon-based particles. Horikawa teaches the inclusion of first electron conductive oxide particles, second electron conductive oxide particles, and non-oxide electron conductive particles (carbon-based particles). Further, in response to applicant's argument that one would not have been motivated to use solely the first electron conductive oxide and not the second electron conductive oxide, it is noted that the claim recites that the positive electrode active material comprises a lithium-transition metal composite oxide and includes SrMnO3 inside or outside secondary particles of the lithium-transition metal composite oxide, without excluding the presence of other components (MPEP 2111.03(I)).
Conclusion
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