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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 2-13 are pending
Claim 6 has been amended
New claim 13 has been added
Status of Amendments
The amendment filed 3 October 2025 has been fully considered, but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
Status of Objections and Rejections Pending Since Office Action of 29 July 2025
The informality objection of claim 6 has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment and accompanying explanation.
The 103 rejections in view of Endo in view of Okada have been withdrawn. However, a new grounds of rejection over Dai has been set forth.
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(s) 1 and 3-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al. (US 20170263928 A1), hereinafter Dai.
Regarding claim 1, Dai teaches a positive active material [0003] for a nonaqueous electrolyte, in this case a conducting polymer electrolyte [0123], energy storage device, in this case a lithium-ion battery [0003], containing a lithium transition metal composite oxide having an α-NaFeO2 structure, in this case an R3m structure such as α-NaFeO2 [0133], the positive active material for a nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device further comprising aluminum (Formula (VIII)) [0061],
wherein the lithium transition metal composite oxide contains at least one selected from the group consisting of nickel and cobalt, and manganese (Formula (VIII)) [0061],
the positive active material having a content of manganese in a transition metal in the lithium transition metal composite oxide that is 0.6 or less in terms of molar ratio, as required by condition (1), in this case 0<x≦0.30 [0062], and a charged state potential of 4.35 V vs. Li/Li+ in which there is no charge history in which the potential reaches 4.5 V vs. Li/Li+, as required by conditions (1) and (2), in this case being incorporated into batteries to have voltages greater than 4.2 V [0142] and having increased stability for at least 4.4 V vs. Li/Li+ [0228]. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Examiner acknowledges that there are examples in which the cell is charged to 4.5 V or above through first charge, as in example 17, or during rate testing, as in example 14, but notes that these do not take away from the teaching of a lower voltage battery and are not taught as being mandatory to gain the expected benefits.
Dai is silent as to the value of an oxygen positional parameter of the positive active material. However, Dai teaches the positive active material as being produced by a substantially identical process. Dai teaches formula (VIII) as being a solid-solution between Li2MnO3 and (1-x)LiCo1-yMyO2 [Dai 0196] where M is Al [0006] (and seen by comparing Formula (VII) to Formula (VIII)), corresponding to a part of aluminum being solid-solved in the lithium transition metal composite oxide in the instant specification [instant 0136]. The active material may be heated at a temperature of 800 to 1200° C [Dai 0185], compared to the 900° C of the instant specification [instant 0136]. The active material may be placed in an Al2O3 boat, in this case a crucible, and heated to 120° C for 2 hours and 500° C for 4 hours [Dai 0239], compared to the active material of the instant specification being in the alumina boat for the initial heat up to 900° C followed by a daylong cooldown period [instant 0136]. The active material may then be passed through a mesh sieve and lightly ground with a mortar and pestle [Dai 0239] to a diameter of 5 μm to 30 μm [Dai 0217-0218] compared to the active material of the instant specification being ground using an automatic mortar [instant 0136] to a particle diameter of 0.1 μm to 20 μm [instant 0059].
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Further, "products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the positive active material of Dai to have an oxygen positional parameter of the positive active material determined from crystal structure analysis by a Rietveld method when a space group R3-m is used for a crystal structure model based on an X-ray diffraction pattern that is 0.265 or more and 0.269 or less or an absolute value of a difference between an oxygen positional parameter of the positive active material determined from crystal structure analysis by a Rietveld method when a space group R3-m is used for a crystal structure model based on an X-ray diffraction pattern and an oxygen positional parameter of a positive active material, which contains no aluminum and has the same composition as the positive active material in terms of a molar ratio of a transition metal element contained, determined from the crystal structure analysis that is 0.002 or less.
Regarding claim 3, Dai teaches the positive active material for a nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device according to claim 1, wherein the content of manganese in the transition metal in the lithium transition metal composite oxide is 0.3 or more and 0.7 or less in terms molar ratio, in this case 0<x≦0.30 [0062]. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 4, Dai teaches the positive active material for a nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device according to claim 1, wherein a ratio of the number of moles of lithium to the number of moles of transition metal in the lithium transition metal composite oxide is 1.0 or more and 1.4 or less, in this case the compound of Formula (VIII) which teaches the moles of Li present as 0.95≦α≦1.30 compared to the moles of transition metal being 1 minus the moles of Al [0061]. Therefore, the ratio would be 0.95 or more, without aluminum present, and 1.44 or less, with the maximum amount of aluminum present. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 5, Dai teaches the positive active material for a nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device according to claim 1, wherein a ratio of the number of moles of aluminum to the number of moles of transition metal in the lithium transition metal composite oxide is 0.1 or more and 2 or less, in this case the compound of Formula (VIII) which teaches the moles of Al present as 0≦y≦0.10 compared to the moles of transition metal being 1-y [0061]. Therefore, the ratio would be 0 or more and 0.11 or less. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 6, Dai teaches the positive active material for a nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device according to claim 5, wherein the positive active material is a particle containing the lithium transition metal composite oxide [0214], and a ratio of the number of moles of aluminum to a sum of the number of moles of transition metal and the number of moles of aluminum is larger in the vicinity of a surface of the particle than that in the vicinity of a center of the particle. In this case, Dai teaches coating the core material with aluminum oxide [0137] which would inherently raise the number of moles of aluminum in the vicinity of the surface, considering the aluminum that is present initially is distributed uniformly throughout the particle. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect a ratio of the number of moles of aluminum to a sum of the number of moles of transition metal and the number of moles of aluminum to be inherently larger in the vicinity of a surface of the particle than that in the vicinity of a center of the particle.
Regarding claim 7, Dai teaches a positive electrode for a nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device comprising the positive active material according to claim 1, in this case a cathode including the cathode active material disposed over a current collector [0055].
Regarding claim 8, Dai teaches a nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device comprising the positive electrode for a nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device according to claim 7, in this case a battery cell including the cathode [0056].
Regarding claims 9, 11, and 12, Dai teaches the nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device according to claim 8. Dai further teaches charging the energy storage device at a maximum positive electrode potential of greater than 4.2 V [0142], which overlaps with the claimed range of less than 4.5 V vs. Li/Li+. This is considered to meet the positive electrode potential at an end-of-charge of claim 9, the method for using of claim 11, and the method for manufacturing of claim 12.
Regarding claim 10, Dai teaches an energy storage apparatus comprising a plurality of nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage devices; and one or more of the nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage devices according to claim 8, in this case a battery pack formed by electrically coupling the taught battery cell with one or more other battery cells [0120].
Regarding claim 13, Dai teaches the positive active material for a nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device according to claim 1, wherein, in the positive active material, a part of aluminum is solid-solved in the lithium transition metal composite oxide, and another part of aluminum is present on a surface of the lithium transition metal composite oxide as a component different from the lithium transition metal composite oxide. In this case Dai teaches formula (VIII) for the core material as being a solid-solution between Li2MnO3 and (1-x)LiCo1-yMyO2 [Dai 0196] where M is Al [0006] (and seen by comparing Formula (VII) to Formula (VIII)) along with an aluminum oxide coating on the surface [0137].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 3-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUSTIN KENWOOD VAN KIRK whose telephone number is (703)756-4717. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571)272-3433. 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.
/DUSTIN VAN KIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722