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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 1/27/26. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not found persuasive. Claims 17-27 are pending. This Action is Final, as necessitated by amendment.
Claims Analysis
Claim 17 recites “wherein [(D90-D10)/the volume-average particle diameter MV] as an indicator indicating a spread of particle size distribution of the positive electrode active material”, which has not been given patentable weight. The present specification at [0035] teaches the composite hydroxide (a precursor) has [(D90-D10)/the volume-average particle diameter MV] as an indicator indicating a spread of particle size distribution of at least 0.7. Thus, this limitation appears to be limiting a precursor material of the claimed positive electrode active material. The present specification at [0089] discusses the nickel manganese composite hydroxide (a precursor). Limitations regarding “a precursor” to the claimed lithium-nickel-manganese composite oxide have not been given patentable weight.
Claim 21 recites a product-by-process limitation that, in the absence of unexpected results, has not been given patentable weight. See MPEP 2113. Limitations regarding “a precursor” to the claimed lithium-nickel-manganese composite oxide have not been given patentable weight.
Regarding at least claim 17, there is a strong, direct relationship between a material's average void density and its dibutyl phthalate (DBP) absorption value, particularly in particulate materials like carbon black and silica. A higher void density, which represents the volume of empty space within and between particles, results in a higher DBP absorption value.
DBP absorption is an empirical method that quantifies the "structure" of fine particulate materials by measuring how much DBP they can absorb before reaching a specific viscosity. The average void density of these materials directly determines this absorption capacity in the following ways:
Total void volume: The DBP test measures the total volume of empty space available within a sample, including the voids inside individual aggregates (the primary structure) and the voids between agglomerated aggregates (the secondary structure).
Aggregate structure: For materials like carbon black, a higher degree of aggregation and more complex, branched aggregate shapes lead to a higher total void volume. This "higher structure" creates more internal and external space for DBP to fill, resulting in a higher absorption number.
Packing and pelletization: The way a material is packed or pelletized also influences the DBP number. A loosely packed material with more inter-aggregate voids will have a higher DBP absorption than a denser, more compressed version of the same material, even if the primary aggregate structure is identical.
In summary, the average void density and its characteristics (size, distribution, and overall volume) are the fundamental properties that the DBP absorption test is designed to measure. A higher density of voids, or more complex aggregate shapes, provides more volume for DBP to fill, resulting in a higher absorption value. See the attached AI Overview for “average void density versus DBP absorption”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 17-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 17 recites “wherein [(D90-D10)/the volume-average particle diameter MV] as an indicator indicating a spread of particle size distribution of the positive electrode active material”, which is indefinite. It is unclear how the [(D90-D10)/the volume-average particle diameter MV] is “an indicator indicating a spread of particle size distribution of the positive electrode active material”. The present specification at [0035] teaches the composite hydroxide (a precursor) has [(D90-D10)/the volume-average particle diameter MV] as an indicator indicating a spread of particle size distribution of at least 0.7. Thus, this limitation appears to be limiting a precursor material of the claimed positive electrode active material. It is unclear how the property of the precursor material “indicates” a spread of particle size distribution. The present specification at [0089] discusses the nickel manganese composite hydroxide (a precursor).
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the secondary particle" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests “each of the secondary particles is”. See also claims 26 and 27 that each recite “the secondary particle”.
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.
Claim 17-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara et al., US 2005/0221182 A1 in view of Takahata et al., US 2014/0255783.
Fujiwara teaches a positive electrode active material powder for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, wherein an amount of a liquid reagent absorbed by the powder is 20 to 40 ml per 100 g of the powder. The absorption amount is a value measured using a device according to test method A or B regarding DBP absorption based on JIS K6217 (abstract).
The positive electrode active material is, for example, Li--Mn composite oxide, Li--Co composite oxide, Li--Ni composite oxide, Li--Mn--Ni composite oxide, Li--Co--Al composite oxide and Li--Mg--Co composite oxide [0014].
The positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery of Fujiwara comprises a lithium-containing composite oxide powder having a certain absorption amount. The lithium-containing composite oxide contains lithium as a first metal element and a metal element other than lithium as a second metal element. The second metal element preferably contains at least a transition metal element. The second metal element may be a single element or a combination of a plurality of elements. Examples of the transition metal element suitable as the second metal element include Co, Ni and Mn. The lithium-containing composite oxide that can provide remarkable effects is represented by the general formula: LiaMOb, where M is a metal element other than Li.
The lithium-containing composite oxide is in the form of a powder (secondary particles formed from primary particles). The average particle size of the powder, the particle distribution thereof and the shape thereof are not specifically limited. However, in order to achieve an intended absorption amount, the lithium-containing composite oxide preferably has an average particle size of 5 to 15 mm, a specific surface area of 0.3 to 1.2 m2/g, and a tap density of 1.5 to 2.5 g/cm3. The shape of the particle constituting the powder may be spherical, nearly spherical, oval, indefinite, flake (plate-shaped), or any shape other than the above. See [0021]-[0025].
The positive electrode active material is obtained by synthesizing a powder having a certain absorption amount. In the synthesis of the powder, for example, the intended absorption amount of a liquid reagent is first determined. Then, the raw materials are selected and the synthesis conditions are set so as to achieve the intended absorption amount. The conditions for the synthesis cannot be specified because they vary depending on the raw materials used, and various factors can affect the synthesis such as temperature and baking atmosphere. However, a person skilled in the art can select the raw materials and find the synthesis conditions for preparing the powder having the intended absorption amount, once the intended absorption amount of a liquid reagent is determined [0022].
Fujiwara does not explicitly teach a lithium nickel manganese oxide having the general formula (2) of claim 17 wherein the subscripts for x and y are satisfied. However, the invention would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made because Fujiwara teaches the positive electrode active material is Li--Mn--Ni composite oxide [0014]. Fujiwara further teaches the lithium-containing composite oxide contains lithium as a first metal element and a metal element other than lithium as a second metal element. The second metal element preferably contains at least a transition metal element. The second metal element may be a single element or a combination of a plurality of elements. Examples of the transition metal element suitable as the second metal element include Co, Ni and Mn. The lithium-containing composite oxide that can provide remarkable effects is represented by the general formula: LiaMOb, where M is a metal element other than Li [0023-0024]. Thus one of skill would have found Formula (2) obvious in view of the teachings of Fujiwara.
Furthermore, Takahata teaches a positive electrode active material include a composite oxide comprising lithium and at least one species of transition metal (preferably at least one species among nickel, cobalt and manganese). Examples include a lithium-containing bi-component composite oxide containing two species of transition metal, such as one represented by a nickel/manganese-based LiNixMn1-xO2 (0<x<1) and LiNixMn2-xO4 (0<x<2) or a lithium-containing tri-component transition metal oxide comprising nickel, cobalt and manganese as transition metals, such as one represented by a general formula: Li(LiaMnxCoyNiz)O2 (in the formula, a, x, y, z are real numbers that satisfy a+x+y+z=1. A tri-component lithium transition metal oxide comprising nickel, cobalt and manganese as transition metals is more preferable [0031]. Figure 8 and Table 1 teaches a DBP absorption number A (ml/100g).
Fujiwara teaches in order to achieve an intended absorption amount, the lithium-containing composite oxide preferably has an average particle size of 5 to 15 mm, a specific surface area of 0.3 to 1.2 m2/g, and a tap density of 1.5 to 2.5 g/cm3. The shape of the particle constituting the powder may be spherical, nearly spherical, oval, indefinite, flake, or any shape other than the above. See [0021]-[0025]. One of skill would have found the claimed average void density obvious in view of the composite oxide properties, including absorption amount, recited by Fujiwara [0021-0025]. Furthermore, claim 17 recites “the average void density being determined by…to obtain the average void density”, which indicates a method of measuring. The method of measuring the average void density does not further limit the structure of the claimed positive electrode active material having a void density of 20-40%.
Claim 17 recites “wherein [(D90-D10)/the volume-average particle diameter MV] as an indicator indicating a spread of particle size distribution of the positive electrode active material”, which has not been given patentable weight. Limitations regarding “a precursor” to the claimed lithium-nickel-manganese composite oxide have not been given patentable weight. See claims analysis above.
Claim 21 recites a product-by-process limitation that, in the absence of unexpected results, has not been given patentable weight. See MPEP 2113. Limitations regarding “a precursor” to the claimed lithium-nickel-manganese composite oxide have not been given patentable weight. Regarding claims 24 and 25, Fujiwara teaches in order to achieve an intended absorption amount, the lithium-containing composite oxide preferably has an average particle size of 5 to 15 mm.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “the Examiner appears to assert that the [(D90-D10)/the volume-average particle diameter MV] limitation lacks descriptive support in the specification”. However, it is unclear how Applicant reaches this conclusion. The Examiner never indicated claim 17 lacks descriptive support. Examiner has pointed out the sections of the present specification that discuss the [(D90-D10)/the volume-average particle diameter MV] limitation. See discussion above.
[0065] discusses “the variation index” of the nickel-manganese composite hydroxide when “within the above range”. [0094] teaches “similarly” and is not commensurate in scope with the recitation of claim 17 regarding how the average void density if determined. Furthermore, claim 17 recites “as an indicator indicating a spread of particle size distribution”.
Applicant’s argument the morphology of the lithium metal composite oxide is “influenced by” the morphology of the precursor hydroxide does not provide any persuasive evidence that the discussed limitation is not representative of a precursor hydroxide. Similarly, Applicant’s argument the particle size distribution of the oxide can be controlled by adjusting that of the precursor hydroxide does not provide any persuasive evidence that the discussed limitation is not representative of a precursor hydroxide.
The limitation [(D90-D10)/the volume-average particle diameter MV] is supported in the specification for the precursor hydroxide, as discussed above. It is still unclear how the limitation is “an indicator indicating a spread of particle size distribution of the positive electrode active material”. At least claim 17 remains rejected as being indefinite.
Applicant argues Fujiwara fails to explicitly disclose the claimed average void density. Examiner notes the claims have not been rejected as anticipated by Fujiwara. Applicant argues Fujiwara fails to render inherent or obvious the claimed average void density and submits that the claimed void density of a lithium-nickel-manganese composite oxide cannot be inherent or obvious in view of a DBP absorption amount as disclosed by Fujiwara. However, Applicant does not provide support and/or evidence for this argument. One of skill would have known there is a strong, direct relationship between a material's average void density and its dibutyl phthalate (DBP) absorption value, particularly in particulate materials. A higher void density, which represents the volume of empty space within and between particles, results in a higher DBP absorption value. DBP absorption is an empirical method that quantifies the "structure" of fine particulate materials by measuring how much DBP they can absorb before reaching a specific viscosity. The average void density of these materials directly determines this absorption capacity, as evidenced by the attached AI Overview (see claims analysis section above).
Applicant cites Figure 2 of Fujiwara and concludes the reference teaches particles of irregular sizes and shapes. However, Fujiwara teaches in order to achieve an intended absorption amount, the lithium-containing composite oxide preferably has an average particle size of 5 to 15 mm, a specific surface area of 0.3 to 1.2 m2/g, and a tap density of 1.5 to 2.5 g/cm3. The shape of the particle constituting the powder may be spherical, nearly spherical, oval, indefinite, flake, or any shape other than the above. See [0021]-[0025]. Regarding Figure 4, Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention and do not distinguish over Fujiwara. In addition, Fujiwara is not limited to the LiCoO2 of Example 1. See above for teachings of Fujiwara as discussed by the Examiner. Furthermore, the Li1.06Ni0.35Co0.35Mn0.30O2 of the Examples of the present invention is not commensurate in scope with General Formula (2) of the claimed invention. It is unclear how the discussed method steps (see page 10 of amendment of 2/4/25) relate to the obviousness rejection of the product claims. The claims are directed toward a positive electrode active material.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the last three lines of claim 17 (particle size) are not found persuasive. Fujiwara teaches the lithium-containing composite oxide is in the form of a powder. The average particle size of the powder, the particle distribution thereof and the shape thereof are not specifically limited. However, in order to achieve an intended absorption amount, the lithium-containing composite oxide preferably has an average particle size of 5 to 15 mm, a specific surface area of 0.3 to 1.2 m2/g, and a tap density of 1.5 to 2.5 g/cm3. The shape of the particle constituting the powder may be spherical, nearly spherical, oval, indefinite, flake, or any shape other than the above. See [0021]-[0025].
Applicant argues Fujiwara does not teach “wherein [(D90-D10)/the volume-average particle diameter MV] as an indicator indicating a spread of particle size distribution of the positive electrode active material”, as recited by claim 17. However, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. The present specification at [0035] teaches the composite hydroxide (a precursor) has [(D90-D10)/the volume-average particle diameter MV] as an indicator indicating a spread of particle size distribution of at least 0.7. Thus, this limitation is limiting a precursor material of the claimed positive electrode active material. The present specification at [0089] discusses the nickel manganese composite hydroxide (a precursor). Limitations regarding “a precursor” to the claimed lithium-nickel-manganese composite oxide have not been given patentable weight.
Examiner never stated the surface area was a crucial factor. Regarding claim 21, the examiner stated “if claim 17 were amended to recite the positive electrode active material has a specific surface area of at least 15 m2/cm3, the rejection in view of the cited prior art would be withdrawn.” This statement was in response to the Applicant’s rebuttal arguments of 6/24/24 regarding the specific surface area taught by Fujiwara. No specific arguments are provided regarding claim 22.
Applicant argues the “claimed range of [(D90-D10)/MV] is one of the critical features of the claimed invention, as the present specification demonstrates that when the index is within the above range” the cycle and output characteristics are inhibited from degrading [0065]. Again, [0065] discusses “the variation index” of the nickel-manganese composite hydroxide when “within the above range”. Thus, this argument is not found persuasive.
Fujiwara teaches the lithium-containing composite oxide is in the form of a powder (secondary particles formed from primary particles). The average particle size of the powder, the particle distribution thereof and the shape thereof are not specifically limited. However, in order to achieve an intended absorption amount, the lithium-containing composite oxide preferably has an average particle size of 5 to 15 mm, a specific surface area of 0.3 to 1.2 m2/g, and a tap density of 1.5 to 2.5 g/cm3. The shape of the particle constituting the powder may be spherical, nearly spherical, oval, indefinite, flake (plate-shaped), or any shape other than the above. See [0021]-[0025].
Figure 4B is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. Fujiwara is not limited to any specific teaching and/or figure. The prior art does not require a specific example within a claimed range to support an obviousness rejection. Again, it is unclear how production methods are relevant to the pending claims that are directed toward a positive electrode active material. Fujiwara teaches a positive electrode active material powder for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, wherein an amount of a liquid reagent absorbed by the powder is 20 to 40 ml per 100 g of the powder. The absorption amount is a value measured using a device according to test method A or B regarding DBP absorption based on JIS K6217 (abstract).
Conclusion
Examiner notes [0049] of the PG Pub of the present application regarding the claimed void density.
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 TRACY DOVE whose telephone number is (571)272-1285. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-3:00.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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.
/TRACY M DOVE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights