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 April 23, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently, claim 1 is amended; claims 2-3 and 7 are cancelled; and claim 5 is withdrawn; resulting in claims 1, 4, and 6 pending for examination.
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 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) and the coating (12) surrounds the positive electrode active material particles. Horikawa teaches multiple processes of forming the coating, including bonding the electron conductive oxide to the surface of the positive electrode active material particles, and then heating (¶ [0080], Ln. 1-8). In Example 1, the process includes dissolving the raw materials used for the electron conductive oxide in water, adding the positive electrode active material to the solution, heating the solution, then removing the water and heating again at a higher temperature (¶ [0094], Ln. 1-13, ¶ [0095], Ln. 1-2). As the electron conductive oxide and positive electrode active material particles are combined in a solution and heated, and then heated further once the solvent is removed, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that there would be electron conductive oxide present inside the positive electrode active material particles as well as on the surface. At least a small amount of electron conductive oxide would be present inside the secondary particles of the positive electrode active material particles.
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).
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 112
The previous rejection of claim 7 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 is overcome by Applicant’s cancellation of claim 7 in the response filed April 23, 2026.
Response-Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 103
In light of the Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 in the response filed April 23, 2026, the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Horikawa, et al. (US 2018/0316003 A1) has been modified above. Applicant's arguments filed April 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that Horikawa does not teach the presence of SrMnO3 inside and outside secondary particles of the lithium transition metal composite oxide based on the teaching of Horikawa that the first electron conductive oxide is on the surface of the positive electrode active material particles and based on the process taught by Horikawa.
With respect to the argument, see page 5 of the remarks, that SrMnO3 is not present inside the secondary particles of the lithium transition metal composite oxide based on the teaching of Horikawa the first electron conductive oxide is on the surface of the positive electrode active material particles, this argument is not persuasive. While it is acknowledged that Horikawa teaches that the first electron conductive oxide is present on the surface of the positive electrode active material particles, as shown in Figure 1, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that, based on the process taught by Horikawa, at least a small amount of electron conductive oxide would be present inside the secondary particles as well as on the surface. The Applicant points out that the references teaches that the electron conductive oxide on the surface of the particles creates an electron conduction path linking to the second electron conductive oxide (¶ [0009], Ln. 7-11), however, this disclosure does not indicate that the first electron conductive oxide may not be present inside the secondary particles of positive electrode active material as well as on the surface. Horikawa teaches multiple processes of forming the coating, including bonding the electron conductive oxide to the surface of the positive electrode active material particles, and then heating (¶ [0080], Ln. 1-8). In Example 1, the process includes dissolving the raw materials used for the electron conductive oxide in water, adding the positive electrode active material to the solution, heating the solution, then removing the water and heating again at a higher temperature (¶ [0094], Ln. 1-13, ¶ [0095], Ln. 1-2). As the electron conductive oxide and positive electrode active material particles are combined in a solution and heated, and then heated further once the solvent is removed, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that there would be electron conductive oxide present inside the positive electrode active material particles to some extent.
The Applicant additionally notes that Comparative Examples 2 and 3 of the instant applicant provide a comparable preparation method to that of Horikawa, further noting that the discharge capacity and capacity maintenance rates of the Examples are remarkable improved over the Comparative Examples. This argument is not persuasive. In looking to Comparative Examples 2 and 3, XRD testing is used to show that no SrMnO3 peak is present. In contrast, the positive electrode active material particles of Horikawa necessarily include the electron conductive oxide, with SrMnO3 provided as an example. Thus, the process of Horikawa results in the presence of the SrMnO3, differing from the Comparative Examples of the instant application. Further, it is not clear from the results presented in the instant application that the SrMnO3 must be on the inside of the secondary particles of the lithium transition metal composite oxide as well as the outside of the particles in order to achieve the desired discharge capacity and capacity maintenance rate.
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