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
Applicant’s amendment, filed 08/22/2025, has been entered. Claims 1, 2, and 4-6 are currently pending. Claim 3 is cancelled. Support for the amended claims is found in the claims as originally filed as well as paragraph 0028 of the instant specification.
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 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiratsuka (WO 2019044205, US 20200185712 used as English equivalent) in view of Han et al. (US 20200185714 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hiratsuka discloses a positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (abstract, paragraph 0008), including: large particles and small particles of a lithium-transition metal composite oxide (paragraph 0010, figure 1, secondary particles 30 and primary particles 31), wherein the large particles are secondary particles formed by aggregation of primary particles having a diameter of 1 µm or less (paragraphs 0010, 0082, aggregate of primary particles with a diameter of 0.5µm, within the claimed range), the secondary particles having a median diameter on a volumetric basis of 10 µm to 25 µm (paragraphs 0025, 0097, table 1, particle diameter of 10 µm, within the claimed range), and the small particles include primary particles having a diameter of 1 µm to 5 µm (paragraph 0023, 1 to 2µm, within the claimed range). Hiratsuka does not explicitly disclose that the particles having a diameter of 1 µm to 5 µm are not aggregating, and that in the small particles, a proportion of the primary particles not aggregating is 50 mass% or more and 70 mass% or less.
Han discloses a positive electrode active material comprising large-diameter secondary particles and small-diameter primary particles of a lithium composite transition metal oxide (Han paragraphs 0030, 0036-0037, 0060). Han further discloses that the small-diameter particles have a diameter of 2-8 µm (Han paragraph 0039) and that a weight ratio of the small-diameter primary particles to the large-diameter secondary particles is 1:9 to 5:5 (Han paragraph 0061, equivalent to 50 mass% of the primary particles not aggregating, and 50% in the form of aggregated secondary particles, overlapping the claimed range). The reference teaches that when the ratio is in this range, energy density is increased and advantageous lifespan properties are provided (Han paragraph 0061). Han and Hiratsuka are analogous because they both disclose positive electrode active materials comprising primary and secondary particles of a lithium transition metal oxide.
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 active material disclosed by Hiratsuka to include the non-aggregating primary particles in the ratio disclosed by Han. Doing so would increase energy density and provide advantageous lifespan properties. Furthermore, 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 4, modified Hiratsuka discloses the limitations of claim 1. Hiratsuka is silent regarding wherein a mass ratio between the large particles and the small particles is 60:40 to 95:5.
Han discloses a positive electrode active material comprising large-diameter secondary particles and small-diameter primary particles of a lithium composite transition metal oxide (Han paragraphs 0030, 0036-0037, 0060). Han further discloses that a weight ratio of the small-diameter primary particles to the large-diameter secondary particles is 1:9 to 5:5 (Han paragraph 0061, overlapping the claimed range). The reference teaches that when the ratio is in this range, energy density is increased and advantageous lifespan properties are provided (Han paragraph 0061). Han and Hiratsuka are analogous because they both disclose positive electrode active materials comprising primary and secondary particles of a lithium transition metal oxide.
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 active material disclosed by Hiratsuka to have the ratio between the large particles and small particles as disclosed by Han. Doing so would increase energy density and provide advantageous lifespan properties. Furthermore, 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 5, modified Hiratsuka discloses the limitations of claim 1. Hiratsuka further discloses that the lithium-transition metal composite oxide is represented by the general formula LiaNixCoyMzO2-b, wherein 0<a≤1.2, 0.3≤x≤0.95, 0≤y≤0.3, 0≤z≤0.5, 0≤b<0.05, x+y+z=1, and M includes at least one or elements selected from Mn, Zr, Mo, W, Nb, Al, Cr, V, Ti, Fe, and Ga (paragraphs 0022, 0072, Li1.01Ni0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2, within the claimed ranges).
Regarding claim 6, modified Hiratsuka discloses the limitations of claim 1. Hiratsuka further discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, comprising: a positive electrode including the positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (paragraphs 0010-0012); a negative electrode; and a non-aqueous electrolyte (paragraph 0017).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiratsuka (WO 2019044205, US 20200185712 used as English equivalent) in view of Han et al. (US 20200185714 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miyamoto et al. (JP 2005135691 A).
Regarding claim 2, modified Hiratsuka discloses the limitations of claim 1. Hiratsuka is silent regarding wherein the small particles have a median diameter on a volumetric basis of 3 µm to 7 µm.
Miyamoto discloses a positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous secondary battery (Miyamoto paragraph 0001) comprising a first lithium transition metal oxide and a second lithium transition metal oxide (Miyamoto paragraph 0009). Miyamoto further discloses that the first lithium transition metal oxide is composed of primary particles, the primary particles having a median diameter on a volumetric basis of 0.1 to 10 µm (Miyamoto paragraphs 0011, 0019, 0029-0030, 0130), overlapping the claimed range. The reference teaches that by using the disclosed active material configuration, the electrode plate density and high-temperature characteristics are improved and dry-out is suppressed (Miyamoto paragraph 0019). Miyamoto and Hiratsuka are analogous because they both disclose positive electrode active materials comprising primary and secondary particles of a lithium transition metal oxide.
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 active material disclosed by Hiratsuka to include the small particle size disclosed by Miyamoto. Doing so would improve the electrode plate density and high-temperature characteristics are as well as suppress dry-out.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that the claim is nonobvious over Yamauchi and Miyamoto as amended. Applicant asserts that the combination fails to teach the claimed range of primary particles not aggregating. However, Hiratsuka in view of Han does teach the claimed configuration (see claim 1 rejection).
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 BENJAMIN T LUSTGRAAF whose telephone number is (571)272-0165. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
/B.T.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/Maria Laios/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727