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 .
Claim Status
Claim 1 is amended, Claims 9-13 are new and Claims 1-13 are pending examination as discussed below.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 1, the term “substantially no Co” is being interpreted to mean “that the lithium-transition metal composite oxide contains only 0.01 mol% or less of Co based on the total amount of the metal elements excluding Li.”, as defined in the specification in paragraph [0025].
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 2012/0049109 (Sugiura) in view of US 2012/0282524 (Kono).
Regarding claims 1, 6, 7, 8 and 9, Sugiura teaches a non-aqueous lithium battery with respective current collectors and a positive active material that comprises a lithium transition metal composite oxide having a layered rock salt structure (Abstract, [0007, 0016, 0031, 0037, 0104-0105]). Since the active material is taught to be made without Co, it contains substantially no Co, and it can include at least Ni, Al, Sr, Mn and Nb. ([0016]).
Sugiura teaches using a conductive material of acetylene black in the cathode, but is silent to using a carbon fiber.
Kono teaches a non-aqueous lithium battery similar to Sugiura and teaches that carbon fiber or acetylene black, amongst others can be used for the same purpose ([0123]). Since Sugiura teaches the claimed invention except that acetylene black is used instead of carbon fiber. Kono teaches that the carbon fibers and the acetylene black are equivalent products/methods known in the art. Therefore, because the two products/methods were art recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the carbon fiber for the acetylene black.
Furthermore, Kono also teaches the inclusion of Sr in the electrode in the amount of at least 0.01 mol% – less than 3 mol%. The inclusion of Sr improves the crystal structure of the lithium composite oxide ([0078]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to choose Sr as an additive as taught by Sugiura to improved the properties of the electrode.
Regarding claim 2, Kono teaches the carbon fiber is added in the mixture is 0.01 parts by mass to 1 part by mass based on 100 parts by mass of the positive electrode active material ([0124]).
Regarding claim 3, Kono teaches the positive electrode mixture layer further includes a particulate conductive agent, and a content of the particulate conductive agent in the positive electrode mixture layer is 3 parts by mass or less based on 100 parts by mass of the positive electrode active material ([0123-0124]). This limitation is met because Kono teaches the conductive agent can be combinations of two or more and the amounts added are overlapping amounts. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP 2144.05)
Regarding claim 4, Sugiura teaches using Sr in the positive active material but is silent to the molar amount included.
Kono teaches a very similar lithium transition metal composite oxide cathode material that can include Sr and teaches including it in a perferable amount of 0.01 – 3 mol% (Abstract, [0011, 0078]). The Sr in this amount promotes the growth of primary particles and impoves the crystal properties of the composite oxide. This further decreases the likelihood of swelling when stored at high temperatures.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the amounts of Sr in Sugiura as suggested by Kono to improve the properties of the cathode material and thereby the battery.
Regarding claim 5, Sugiura teaches using Ni in an amount of at least 80 mol% ([0017]). Furthermore, Kono also teaches using Ni in an amount of at least 80 mol% to improve the capacity of the battery ([0063]).
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 2012/0049109 (Sugiura) in view of US 2012/0282524 (Kono) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US 2016/0164101 (Nagano).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Sugiura is silent to the crystalline diameter.
Nagano teaches a lithium transition metal composite oxide positive electrode for a non-aqueous battery, where the crystalline diameter is between 20nm – 310nm (200 – 3100 Angstroms) (Abstract; [0037]). This size decreases the displacement amount of the active materials of the time of expansion and skrinkage, which improves the cycle characteristics.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to look at the crystalline size of Nagano for the electrode of Sugiura in order to improve the cycle characteristics.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, while Sugiura is silent to the sizes of the carbon fibers, Nagano teaches using carbon fibers from 1.8 to 5.8 microns ([0044-0046]). These sizes improve the output characteristics of the battery.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-8 of this application is patentably indistinct from claims 1-8 of Application No. 17926760. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
The instant claims 1-8 are rendered obvious over the claims of the pending application (‘760), because while the ‘760 application includes Ca in the claims and the instant includes Sr, both claims are not exclusionary and as such can include the other’s elements and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to do so.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the teaching of no Co in the cited paragraphs of Sugiura isn’t enough to teach the claimed invention since Sugiura also teaches using Co. Applicant also argues the teaching of including Sr isn’t enough since Sr isn’t included in any examples.
However, disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or non-preferred embodiments. A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use (MPEP 2124). Sugiura teaches a positive electrode lithium composite oxide without cobalt (Co) and as such meets the claim limitations.
Regarding the inclusion of Sr, as stated in the rejection above, Sugiura teaches Sr can be included and Kono also teaches it can be included and provides reasons for including it.
Regarding the Double Patenting rejection, the arguments are not found persuasive since both claimed inventions use the comprising language and as such are open to the inclusion of other elements.
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 KEITH WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-3458. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 4pm.
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.
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.
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights