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 .
The Applicant has amended independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-6; and added new claims 8-10. The pending claims are claims 1-10.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakamura et al., JP 2018160379.
Regarding claim 1, Nakamura et al., teaches an anode (abstract) comprising an anode current collector (0010; 0025) and an anode active material layer (0003; 0010) arranged on the anode current collector (0010), wherein: the anode active material layer includes a Li composite layer containing a Li composite (0071) including a Li element (0008) and a dope element (0008; 0026); and in the Li composite layer (0008), when C1 designates a concentration of the dope element (0008) in a first surface that is an opposite side of the anode current collector side (0010), and C2 designates a concentration of the dope element in a second surface that is the anode current collector side (0026; 0028), C2 is larger than C1 (0029; 0057; 0090; 0092; 0094).
Regarding claim 2, Nakamura et al., teaches wherein in a direction from the second surface toward the first surface, a concentration of the dope element in the Li composite layer decreases continuously or stepwise (0010; 0028; 0090).
Regarding claim 3, Nakamura et al., teaches wherein C1 is larger than 0 atm% (0083).
Regarding claim 5, Nakamura et al., teaches wherein C1is 0 atm% (0083).
Regarding claim 6, Nakamura et al., teaches wherein the Li composite layer contains, as the dope element, at least one of Si, Sn, Al (0008; 0026).
Regarding claim 7, Nakamura et al., teaches battery (abstract; 0007; 0018) comprising: a cathode (0021; 0023) including a cathode current collector (0070) and a cathode active material layer (0070); an anode including an anode current collector (0010; 0025) and an anode active material layer (0025-0026); and an electrolyte layer (0021) arranged between the cathode active material layer (0070) and the anode active material layer (0025), wherein: the anode is the anode according to claim 1 (0057; 0059).
Regarding claim 9, Nakamura et al., teaches the Li composite is a Li alloy (0035-0036; 0071).
Thus, the claims are anticipated.
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) 4, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al., JP 2018160379.
Regarding claim 4, Nakamura et al., does not teach wherein a ratio of C2 with respect to C1, which is C2/C1 is 1.25 or more and 100 or less.
However, a ratio of the concentration C1 with respect to the concentration C2, which is C2/C1, would be within an optimizable claimed range. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Thus, the concentrations, C1 and C2, would be optimized to provide the ratio of concentration, C2/C1, in the claimed range.
Regarding claim 8, Nakamura et al., teaches the Li composite layer (0071).
Nakamura does not teach vapor deposition layer.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would provide a lithium composite layer with a method well-known in the art such as vapor deposition, which is a product-by-process.
"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al., JP 2018160379, in view of Lee et al., US 2017/0176543.
Regarding claim 10, Nakamura et al., teaches the Li composite layer (0035-0036; 0071).
Nakamura does not teach Mg as the dope element.
Lee et al., teaches a dope element of Mg (0026-0028; claim 5 of Lee).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to insert the teachings of Lee et al., into the teachings of Nakamura et al., because Lee teaches Mg as a dopant: “When the lithium composite metal oxide is further doped with the above-mentioned metal elements as described above, structural stability of the positive electrode active material is improved. As a result, battery output properties may be enhanced.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that “Nakamura is silent about the “concentration distribution of the dope element,” as instantly claimed. Indeed, Nakamura is silent on dope elements ("dopants") in general.” However, Lee et al., teaches a dope element such as Mg (0026-0028; claim 5 of Lee). Lee teaches Mg as a dopant: “When the lithium composite metal oxide is further doped with the above-mentioned metal elements as described above, structural stability of the positive electrode active material is improved. As a result, battery output properties may be enhanced.”
However, a ratio of the concentration C1 with respect to the concentration C2, which is C2/C1, would be within the claimed range. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Thus, the concentrations, C1 and C2, would be optimized to provide the ratio of concentration, C2/C1, in the claimed range.
The Applicant argues that “the LiPF6 does not correspond to the Li composite in the present claims.”
However, the lithium composite in Nakamura et al., is present in paragraph (0071), which recites lithium cobalt oxide, lithium nickel oxide, lithium manganese spinel, and composite metal oxides (0071). .
Applicant argues “Nakamura fails to disclose a concentration gradient of a dope element.”
However, Nakamura teaches “a concentration of the dope element” since different surfaces have different concentrations, which would provide a gradient (0008; 0010; 0026)Additionally, it teaches a concentration gradient in paragraphs 0010; 0028; 0090.
Applicant argues that “Nakamura fails to disclose a ratio of C2/C1 of 1.25 or more and 100 or less.”
However, a ratio of the concentration C1 with respect to the concentration C2, which is C2/C1, would be within the claimed range. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Thus, the concentrations, C1 and C2, would be optimized to provide the rate of concentration, C2/C1, in the claimed range.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA J MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1288. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-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.
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.
ANGELA J. MARTIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/ANGELA J MARTIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727