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 .
Response to Amendment
Arguments have been entered. Arguments do not overcome the 103 rejection set forth in non-final office action mailed 09/05/2025.
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.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20100068624-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Hiratsuka’, as evidenced by ‘”Synthesis of LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 cathode material via flame-assisted spray pyrolysis method” hereinafter referred to as Purwanto” in view of (US20130045421A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Kobino’, in view of (JP-2009193805-A) hereinafter referred to as ‘Ichitaka’ in further view of (US 20230327104 A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Florido’
Regarding Claim 11,
Hiratsuka teaches a positive electrode active material, comprising: particles of a lithium composite oxide having a layered structure (Hiratsuka, “the following oxides were prepared: positive electrode active materials 14 to 16 of LiNi0.80Co0.15Al0.05O2”, see [0084]) , wherein the positive electrode active material has a tap density ,the particles of the lithium composite oxide include first lithium composite oxide particles having a layered structure, an average particle size of 3.0 μm to 6.0 μm (Hirataka, “The lithium nickel composite oxide of the invention has substantially the same mean primary particle size and DBP absorption amount as the raw material nickel hydroxide”, see [0045]) (Hirataka, “particle size of 1 to 5 μm”, see abstract)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 1 to 5 μm broadly overlaps the claimed range of 3.0 μm to 6.0 μm. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Hiratsuka does not teach the positive electrode active material has a tap density of 2.8 g/cm^3 to 3.0 g/cm^3
Kobino teaches the positive electrode active material has a tap density of 2.8 g/cm^3 to 3.0 g/cm^3 (Kobino, “The nickel-cobalt-manganese-based compound particles according to the present invention preferably have a tap density of 1.0 to 3.0 g/cm3”, see [0093])
Kobino teaches that the tap density within this range exhibit a high-density range and that above 3.0 g/cm^3 the material may pose practical problems. (Kobino, “then the tap density of the nickel-cobalt-manganese-based compound particles is less than 1.0 g/cm3, … Even though the tap density of the nickel-cobalt-manganese-based compound particles is more than 3.0 g/cm3, there will occur no significant problems. However, it may be difficult to practically produce such nickel-cobalt-manganese-based compound particles having a tap density of more than 3.0 g/cm3.”, see [0093])
Hiratsuka and Kobino are analogous as they both relate to the field of electrode materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tap density of the positive electrode material to make it practical to produce and sufficiently dense.
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 1.0 to 3.0 g/cc broadly overlaps the claimed range of 2.8 g/cm3 to 3.0 g/cm3. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Hiratsuka does not teach and the positive electrode active material has a dibutyl phthalate absorption value of 15.0 mL/100g to 27 mL/100g or a dibutyl phthalate absorption value of 14 mL/100g to 22 mL/100g
Ichitaka teaches a positive electrode active material has a dibutyl phthalate absorption value of 15.0 mL/100g to 27 mL/100g and 14 mL/100g to 22 mL/100g (Ichitaka, “By setting the DBP absorption amount of the mixed powder of the positive electrode active material and the conductive agent to 15 to 40 ml / 100 g, high electron conductivity and strong non-reactivity can be obtained regardless of the physical property values of the positive electrode active material and the conductive agent. It is possible to produce a positive electrode for a water electrolyte secondary battery.”, pg. 2)
Ichitaka also teaches that this range allows for high conductivity and strong non-reactivity.(Ichitaka, “By setting the DBP absorption amount of the mixed powder of the positive electrode active material and the conductive agent to 15 to 40 ml / 100 g, high electron conductivity and strong non-reactivity can be obtained regardless of the physical property values of the positive electrode active material and the conductive agent. It is possible to produce a positive electrode for a water electrolyte secondary battery.”, pg. 2).
Hiratsuka and Ichitaka are analogous as they both relate to the field of positive electrode materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the DBP absorption value to be in the range in order to produce a material with high conductivity.
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 15 to 40 mL/100 g broadly overlaps the claimed range of 15.0 mL/100g to 27 mL/100g and 14 mL/100g to 22 mL/100g. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Hirataka does not teach second lithium composite oxide particles having a layered structure, an average particle size of 10.0 µm to 22.0 µm,
Florido teaches a second lithium composite oxide particles having a layered structure, an average particle size of 10.0 um to 22.0 um (Floirdo, “the second particulate lithium nickel composite oxide material has a volume-based particle size distribution such that the D50 is in the range of and including 5 to 20 µm,”, see Clm. 21 ),
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 5 to 20 µm broadly overlaps the claimed range of 10.0 µm to 22.0 µm. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Florido teaches that this second particle reduces pressure inside the material (Florido, “The particles of the first aspect may additionally be advantageously combined with other lithium nickel composite oxide materials. Such combinations have been found to provide benefits during the formation of electrodes associated with a reduction in the pressure”, see [0019])
Modified Hiratsuka and Florido are analogous as they are both of the same field of positive electrode materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the material as taught in Hiratsuka to add a second material as taught in Florido in order to reduce the pressure of the composite.
Regarding Claim 12,
Modified Hiratsuka teaches the positive electrode active material according to claim 11, wherein the positive electrode active material has the dibutyl phthalate absorption value of 16.0 mL/100g to 18.5 mL/100g (Ichitaka, “By setting the DBP absorption amount of the mixed powder of the positive electrode active material and the conductive agent to 15 to 40 ml / 100.”, pg. 2).
Response to Arguments
Arguments filed on 10/24/2025 have been entered. Arguments are fully considered.
On pg. 4, The applicant argues:
“Therefore, the use of the first and second lithium composite oxide particles is advantageous. In order to arrive at the least one embodiment of the instant application, the technical idea that two types of lithium composite oxide particles each having a specific average particles size and the specific DBP absorption value are used in combination is required.”
However, this is not convincing. The applicant would need to demonstrate the criticality of the claimed ranges of the DBP absorption and further demonstrate that both ranges in combination are advantageous over one range with a given DBP absorption value (see MPEP 2144.05 (III)(A)). The specification states in the cited paragraph that there is improved performance but does not demonstrate through data the criticality of the DBP absorption value.
On pg. 5, the applicant states:
“In addition, Hiratsuka does not teach or suggest the use of two types of lithium composite oxide particles. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to modify the positive electrode active material the positive electrode active material in Hiratsuka.”
However, this is not convincing. Hiratsuka alone does not teach two composites. However, in combination with Florido, the invention is taught with both compositions. The applicant must consider all references in combination not individually (see MPEP 2145 (IV)).
On pg. 5, the applicant states:
“Therefore, two types of lithium composite oxides particles co-operate with each other, and this the use of two types of lithium composite oxide particles each having a specific average particles size and the specific DBP absorption value also are inseparable features. ”
However, this is not convincing. The examiner acknowledge the benefit of two composite materials as stated in the combination with Florido. Further, the examiner acknowledges the benefit of the DBP absorption values with the combination in Ichitaka. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art studying Hiratsuka, Florido, and Ichitaka to have modified the positive electrode material to have a size and DBP to improve performance. The invention as claimed does not demonstrate unexpected results regarding the DBP, and therefore the rejection is upheld (see MPEP 716.02(a))
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 SEAMUS PATRICK MCNULTY whose telephone number is (703)756-1909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00am to 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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.P.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights