DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-8, in the reply filed on 07/24/2025 is acknowledged.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure and the title are objected to because the abstract and title are directed to an anode piece yet the claims are directed to a positive piece. See objection the disclosure immediate below. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: uses opposite terminology for a cathode and an anode. Instant specification refers to a negative piece as a cathode and including cathode active material (e.g., silicon oxide and/or silicon carbon). The positive piece is referred to as an anode and contains active material the prior art refers to as cathode active material. In the lithium battery arts, the cathode is considered the positive electrode (e.g., LiCoO2, LiNiMnCoO2, LiFePO4, etc.) and the anode is the negative electrode (e.g., carbon, graphite, Si, etc.) Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: grammar. “An positive” should be changed to -A positive-. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 objected to because of the following informalities: “Lithium” (line 2) should not be capitalized. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 2 is 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. The term “extreme conditions” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “extreme conditions” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kinoshita et al. (US 2015/0147644).
Regarding claim 1, Kinoshita discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising:
a positive electrode containing a first and second positive electrode active material (abstract).
More specifically, first positive electrode active material includes a lithium-containing transition metal oxide represented by a Li2MnO3‒LiMO2 solid solution (a lithium-rich manganese-based solid solution). The second positive electrode active material includes a lithium-containing transition metal oxide (abstract). As the positive electrode active material, a mixture was used which was obtained by mixing first positive electrode active material and second positive electrode active material (para 0061; Example 1).
Regarding claim 2, Kinoshita discloses Li2.2Mn0.54Ni0.13Co0.13O2 (para 0061; Example 1).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, instant claims are proviso upon limitation lithium-rich solid electrolyte and lithium-separated silicon oxide not required by the independent claim; therefore, the limitations of instant claims do not come into force.
Regarding claim 8, Kinoshita discloses a negative electrode including carbon silicon (para 0042).
Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ito et al. (US 2015/0034864).
Regarding claim 1, Ito discloses a positive electrode active material and positive electrode for an electrical device comprising:
a solid solution lithium-containing transition metal oxide (A) represented by Li1.5[NiaCobMnc[Li]d]O3 (a lithium-rich manganese-based solid solution) (abstract; para 0164); and
a lithium-containing transition metal oxide (B) (abstract).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, instant claims are proviso upon limitation lithium-rich solid electrolyte and lithium-separated silicon oxide not required by the independent claim; therefore, the limitations of instant claims do not come into force.
Regarding claim 5, Ito discloses a particle diameter D50 of 6.0 µm (Table 2: Example 1).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (US 2015/0034864).
Regarding claim 6, Ito teaches the content of the solid solution lithium-containing transition metal oxide ranging from zero to 100% (Table 2), which overlaps Applicant’s claimed range of 0.1-20% by mass.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the recited concentration because a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. 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). Furthermore, "[ A ] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita et al. (US 2015/0147644) in view of Yushin et al. (US 2018/0205111).
Regarding claim 7, Kinoshita teaches the second positive electrode active material, for example, LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 (para 0036).
Kinoshita does not teach an area capacity.
Yushin, directed to electrolytes for metal-ion cells, teaches electrode capacities of 2-4 mAh/cm2 (moderate) and 4-10 mAh/cm2 (high) (para 0040).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a higher area capacity because it is advantageous in certain applications for increasing cell energy density (e.g., electric vehicle batteries and other high energy applications) and reducing cell manufacturing costs (para 0040).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS BARCENA whose telephone number is (571)270-5780. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8-5 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, Milton I Cano can be reached at (313)446-4937. 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.
/CARLOS BARCENA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723