DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s response filed 8 July 2026 is acknowledged. Claim 1 has been amended, claim 4 has been canceled, and claims 1-3 and 5 remain pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8 July 2026 has been entered.
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.
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) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natsui et al. (US 2020/0044249, hereinafter “Natsui”), in view of Nakajima et al. (US 6,346,348; hereinafter “Nakajima”) and Inagaki et al. (JP 2002-203552 A; hereinafter “Inagaki”; listed in the IDS filed 9 October 2025; using the submitted English machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Natsui teaches a positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, including:
a lithium-transition metal composite oxide (see [0041]-[0056]), wherein
the lithium-transition metal composite oxide is represented by general formula LixMnyNizMe2-x-y-zOaFb wherein 1 ≤ x ≤ 1.2, 0.4 ≤ y ≤ 0.7, 0.277 ≤ z ≤ 0.4, 0 < b ≤ 0.2, 1.9 ≤ a + b ≤ 2.1, and Me is at least one element selected from Al, Ti, Ge, Nb, Sr, Mg, Si, P, and Sb (see [0041]-[0056] – Natsui’s formula of LixMey-OαQβ wherein 1.05 ≤ x ≤ 1.4, 0.6 ≤ y ≤ 0.95, 1.33 ≤ α < 2, and 0 < β ≤ 0.67 overlaps with the claimed invention using Li1.05Mn0.4Ni0.4Ti0.15O1.9F0.1, wherein Me is Mn, Ni, and Ti (see [0044]-[0048]), and Q is F, for example).
Natsui is silent to wherein the oxide has a BET specific surface area of 1m2/g or more and 4 m2/g or less, and has an average pore size of 100 nm or less.
Nakajima teaches a specific surface area preferably in the range of 0.5-6.0 m2/g as determined by a BET's adsorption method using a nitrogen gas. If the BET specific surface area falls below the above-specified range, the excessively small specific surface area of the positive electrode material may lower the charge-discharge reactivity thereof. On the other hand, if the BET specific surface area goes beyond the above-specified range, the positive electrode material, because of its excessively high reactivity, may be caused to partly dissolve into an electrolyte solution (see 2:37-53). Therefore, the BET specific surface area is also a result effective variable.
In view of Nakajima’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the oxide of Natsui to include wherein the oxide has a BET specific surface area of 1m2/g or more and 4 m2/g or less, as taught by Nakajima, because the BET specific area is a result effective variable (see 2:37-53), and it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP §2144.05(II).
The combination of Natsui and Nakajima is silent to wherein the active material has an average pore size of 100 nm or less.
Inagaki teaches a positive electrode active material (see [0029]) using particles in which 80% or more of the pore volume has a pore diameter of 1 nm to 100 nm, or in which the average pore diameter is in the range of 3 to 30 nm. By utilizing this range, the positive electrode active material is smoothly and sufficiently impregnated with the electrolyte, making it difficult for the material to enter an overcharged state and effectively suppressing gas generation (see [0029]).
In view of Inagaki’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the oxide of the combination of Natasui and Nakajima to include wherein the oxide has an average pore size of about 3 to 30 nm, as taught by Inagaki, because the positive electrode active material is smoothly and sufficiently impregnated with the electrolyte, making it difficult for the material to enter an overcharged state and effectively suppressing gas generation (see [0029]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Natsui, Nakajima, and Inagaki teaches wherein the lithium-transition metal composite oxide has an average pore size of 50 nm or less (Sohn: about 10 nm to about 1000 nm; see [0007] and [0013]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Natsui, Nakajima, and Inagaki teaches wherein the lithium-transition metal composite oxide has a BET specific surface area of 3 m2/g or more and 4 m2/g or less (Nakajima: - the BET specific area is a result effective variable (see 2:37-53), and it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP §2144.05(II)).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Natsui, Nakajima, and Inagaki teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, comprising:
a positive electrode including the positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1 (see rejection for claim 1 above);
a negative electrode (Natsui: see [0134]); and
a non-aqueous electrolyte (Natsui: see [0134] and [0144]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 4-7 of the remarks, Applicant argues that Natsui teaches away from amended independent claim 1 that now excludes Co from the lithium composite oxide.
The Examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive. Natsui clearly teaches that the lithium composite oxide according to the first embodiment is represented by LixMey-OαQβ, where Me may be one or two or more elements selected from the group consisting of Mn, Co, Ni, Fe, Cu, V, Nb, Mo, Ti, Cr, Zr, Zn, Na, K, Ca, Mg, Pt, Au, Ag, Ru, W, B, Si, P, and Al (see [0042]-[0044]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN HA whose telephone number is (571)270-5934. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458 . 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.
/S.S.H/Examiner, Art Unit 1735 28 August 2026
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights