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, 3-8, 13, and 18-21 are currently pending;
Claims 18-19 are amended.
Status of Objections and Rejections Pending Since the Office Actin of 01/23/2026
The objection to the specification, written description rejection, and improper dependent form rejection are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment;
The obviousness rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 13, and 18-19 are maintained in view of Applicant’s argument;
The obviousness rejection of claims 20-21 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s argument and replaced with an identical rejection under WO-2016190419-A1, as cited in the IDS and in the same family of the previously cited US-20180145318-A1; the publication date of WO-2016190419-A1 of 12/01/2016 is more than a year earlier than the earliest claimed priority date of the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in regards to the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 13,and 18-19.
In response to applicant's argument that it would not have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Sato with the teachings of Endo due to the requirements of the lithium metal composite oxide contradicting between the two references, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Sato teaches that the desired porosity is achieved with a particular particle size distribution obtained by grinding the raw material powder (Sato [0028]-[0029]). This porosity is therefore not specific to the Mn/Me molar ratio of the lithium composite oxide, but rather the grinding process. Therefore, it would be obvious to combine the references of Endo and Sato such that Endo incorporates that porosity of Sato in order to improve charge and discharge characteristics without compromising capacity, providing high battery performance (Sato [0045]; [0063]; [0068]) The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
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, 3-8, 13, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo (US-20160190551-A1) in view of Sato et el. (JP-WO2014061580-A1), hereinafter Sato.
Regarding claim 1, Endo teaches that a positive active material for a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery ([0087] nonaqueous electrolyte battery) containing a lithium transition metal composite oxide ([0019]), wherein the lithium transition metal composite oxide has an α-NaFeO2 structure ([0019]), a molar ratio Li/Me of Li and a transition metal (Me) in the lithium transition metal composite oxide is 1.1 or more and 1.4 or less ([0035] Li/Me is more than 1 but less than 1.6), the lithium transition metal composite oxide contains Ni and Mn or Ni, Co, and Mn as the transition metals (Me) ([0019]), a molar ratio Mn/Me of Mn to the transition metal element Me is 0.4 or more and less than 0.55 ([0035]; [0037]), a molar ratio Co/Me of Co to the transition metal element Me is 0 or more and 0.15 or less ([0036] 0.05 to 0.40), and a molar ratio Ni/Me of Ni to the transition metal element Me is 0.3 or more and 0.55 or less ([0035] includes Mn, Co, and Ni; Given [0037] wherein Mn/Me is 0.5 to 0.8 and [0036] wherein Co/Me is 0.05 to 0.40, Ni/Me must be in the range of 0.0 to 0.45). 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).
Endo is silent in regards to a porosity of the lithium transition metal composite oxide is 5 to 15%.
Sato is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of using lithium transition metal oxides as a positive active material for a lithium secondary battery ([0046]). Sato teaches that a porosity of the lithium transition metal composite oxide is 5 to 15% ([0068] porosity is most preferably 5% to 15%).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further defined the porosity of Endo to be 5% to 15% such as in Sato. Doing so brings excellent battery characteristics in a simple manner (Sato [0063]).
Regarding claim 3, Endo teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Endo fails to specify that, wherein using lithium metal as a counter electrode, (i) charge and discharge in which an end-of-charge voltage is 4.6 V and an end- of-discharge voltage is 2.0 V, and (ii) charge and discharge in which the end-of-charge voltage is 4.45 V and the end-of-discharge voltage is 2.0 V are performed in this order, and an electric amount is 200 mAh/g or more in the discharge of (ii). However, these parameters would be inherent in Endo. Endo does teach that an electric amount is 200 mAh/g or more with the maximum ultimate potential of a positive electrode during charging is less than 4.5 V (vs. Li/Li+) ([0107]). As such, given this in combination with the similar composition ([0035]-[0037]) to the claimed positive active material, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art that the prior art would have an electric amount of 200 mAh/g or more in the discharge of (ii) as performed in the order claimed.
Regarding claim 4, Endo teaches a method of producing a positive active material for a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery ([0087] nonaqueous electrolyte battery) containing a lithium transition metal composite oxide ([0019]), comprising mixing a lithium compound with a transition metal hydroxide precursor ([0046]; [0056]) and firing the mixture at 750 to 1000°C ([0072]-[0073]) to prepare the lithium transition metal composite oxide having an α -NaFeO2 structure([0019]), a molar ratio Li/Me of Li and a transition metal (Me) of 1.1 ≤ Li/Me ≤ 1.4 ([0035] Li/Me is more than 1 but less than 1.6), wherein the lithium transition metal composite oxide contains Ni and Mn or Ni, Co, and Mn as the transition metals (Me) ([0019]), a molar ratio Mn/Me of Mn to the transition metal element Me is 0.4 or more and less than 0.55 ([0035]; [0037]), a molar ratio Co/Me of Co to the transition metal element Me is 0 or more and 0.15 or less ([0036] 0.05 to 0.40), and a molar ratio Ni/Me of Ni to the transition metal element Me is 0.3 or more and 0.55 or less ([0035] includes Mn, Co, and Ni; Given [0037] wherein Mn/Me is 0.5 to 0.8 and [0036] wherein Co/Me is 0.05 to 0.40, Ni/Me must be in the range of 0.0 to 0.45). 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).
Endo is silent in regards to a porosity of the lithium transition metal composite oxide is 5 to 15%.
Sato is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of using lithium transition metal oxides as a positive active material for a lithium secondary battery ([0046]). Sato teaches that a porosity of the lithium transition metal composite oxide is 5 to 15% ([0068] porosity is most preferably 5% to 15%).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further defined the porosity of Endo to be 5% to 15% such as in Sato. Doing so brings excellent battery characteristics in a simple manner (Sato [0062]).
Regarding claim 5, Endo teaches all of the limitations of claim 4. Endo also teaches that the transition metal hydroxide precursor contains Ni and Mn or Ni, Co, and Mn as the transition metals (Me) ([0055]; [0080]; Co, Ni, and Mn in a precursor).
Endo is silent in regards to a mixture of αMe(OH)2 and βMe(OH)2. However, it would be inherent for the transition metal hydroxide precursor to be a mixture of αMe(OH)2 and βMe(OH)2. Endo teaches that, when using a hydroxide precursor, that the pH range is controlled to 10 to 12 ([0060]). The instant specification shows that reacting at a pH of 10.2 or less produces a mixture of αMe(OH)2 and βMe(OH)2 (Instant specification [0031]). As such, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art that a mixture of αMe(OH)2 and βMe(OH)2 could be inherent in the transition metal hydroxide precursor of Endo.
Regarding claim 6, Endo teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Endo also teaches a positive electrode for a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery containing the positive active material according to claim 1 ([0037]).
Regarding claim 7, Endo teaches all of the limitations of claim 6. Endo also teaches a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising the positive electrode for a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 6 ([0001]; [0087]).
Regarding claim 8, Endo teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Endo also teaches that the molar ratio Li/Me of Li and the transition metal (Me) is 1.1 or more and 1.35 or less ([0035] Li/Me is more than 1 but less than 1.6). 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 13, Endo teaches all of the limitations of claim 4. Endo also teaches the molar ratio Li/Me of Li and the transition metal (Me) is 1.1 or more and 1.35 or less ([0035] Li/Me is more than 1 but less than 1.6). 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 18, modified Endo teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Endo also teaches the molar ratio of Li/Me of Li to the transition metal (Me) is 1.2 ([0035] Li/Me is more than 1 but less than 1.6), the molar ratio Mn/Me of Mn to the transition metal element Me is 0.55 ([0035]; [0037]), the molar ratio Co/Me of Co to the transition metal element Me is 0.15 ([0036] 0.05 to 0.40), and the molar ratio Ni/Me of Ni to the transition metal element Me is 0.30 ([0035] includes Mn, Co, and Ni; Given [0037] wherein Mn/Me is 0.5 to 0.8 and [0036] wherein Co/Me is 0.05 to 0.40, Ni/Me must be in the range of 0.0 to 0.45). 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 19, modified Endo teaches all of the limitations of claim 4. Endo also teaches the molar ratio of Li/Me of Li to the transition metal (Me) is 1.2 ([0035] Li/Me is more than 1 but less than 1.6), the molar ratio Mn/Me of Mn to the transition metal element Me is 0.55 ([0035]; [0037]), the molar ratio Co/Me of Co to the transition metal element Me is 0.15 ([0036] 0.05 to 0.40), and the molar ratio Ni/Me of Ni to the transition metal element Me is 0.30 ([0035] includes Mn, Co, and Ni; Given [0037] wherein Mn/Me is 0.5 to 0.8 and [0036] wherein Co/Me is 0.05 to 0.40, Ni/Me must be in the range of 0.0 to 0.45). 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).
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo in view of Sato as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Endo et al. (WO-2016190419-A1), hereinafter WO ‘419, as presented by the IDS, cited using US-20180145318-A1 (US ‘318) of the same patent family.
Regarding claim 20, modified Endo teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Endo also teaches that the half width of diffraction peak belonging to the (003) plane when space group R3-m is used for a crystal structure model based on a X-ray diffraction pattern is 0.18° to 0.22° ([0042]). Endo fails to disclose wherein the lithium transition metal composite oxide has a half-value width of a diffraction peak belonging to a (104) plane of 0.2° or more and 0.6° or less when a space group R3-m is used for a crystal structure model based on a X-ray diffraction pattern.
WO ‘419 is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of lithium transition metal composite oxides for positive active material for nonaqueous electrolyte secondary batteries (US ‘318 [0035]). WO ‘419 teaches wherein the lithium transition metal composite oxide has a half-value width of a diffraction peak belonging to a (104) plane of 0.2° or more and 0.6° or less when a space group R3-m is used for a crystal structure model based on a X-ray diffraction pattern (US ‘318 [0052] FWHM (104) of 0.21 to 0.55). Further, US ‘318 discloses that the value of FWHM (003)/FWHM (104) is 0.72 or less (US ‘318 [0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Endo and provide a value of FWHM (003)/FWHM (104) is 0.72 or less such as in WO ‘419, consequently defining the FWHM (104) as 0.2° or more and 0.6° or less (Endo teaches FWHM (003) of 0.18° to 0.22° (Endo [0042]), therefore the FWHM (104) given the provided value would be at minimum 0.18°/0.72 to 0.22°/0.72 or at minimum 0.25° to .31°). Doing so makes it possible to increase the discharge capacity per volume (US ‘318 [0052]).
Regarding claim 21, modified Endo teaches all of the limitations of claim 4. Endo also teaches that the half width of diffraction peak belonging to the (003) plane when space group R3-m is used for a crystal structure model based on a X-ray diffraction pattern is 0.18° to 0.22° ([0042]). Endo fails to disclose wherein the lithium transition metal composite oxide has a half-value width of a diffraction peak belonging to a (104) plane of 0.2° or more and 0.6° or less when a space group R3-m is used for a crystal structure model based on a X-ray diffraction pattern.
WO ‘419 is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of lithium transition metal composite oxides for positive active material for nonaqueous electrolyte secondary batteries (US ‘318 [0035]). WO ‘419 teaches wherein the lithium transition metal composite oxide has a half-value width of a diffraction peak belonging to a (104) plane of 0.2° or more and 0.6° or less when a space group R3-m is used for a crystal structure model based on a X-ray diffraction pattern (US ‘318 [0052] FWHM (104) of 0.21 to 0.55). Further, US ‘318 discloses that the value of FWHM (003)/FWHM (104) is 0.72 or less (US ‘318 [0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Endo and provide a value of FWHM (003)/FWHM (104) is 0.72 or less such as in WO ‘419, consequently defining the FWHM (104) as 0.2° or more and 0.6° or less (Endo teaches FWHM (003) of 0.18° to 0.22° (Endo [0042]), therefore the FWHM (104) given the provided value would be at minimum 0.18°/0.72 to 0.22°/0.72 or at minimum 0.25° to .31°). Doing so makes it possible to increase the discharge capacity per volume (US ‘318 [0052]).
Alternatively, claims 1, 3-8, 13, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo (US-20160190551-A1) in view of Sugimoto et al. (US-20130171521-A1), hereinafter Sugimoto.
Regarding claim 1, Endo teaches that a positive active material for a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery ([0087] nonaqueous electrolyte battery) containing a lithium transition metal composite oxide ([0019]), wherein the lithium transition metal composite oxide has an α-NaFeO2 structure ([0019]), a molar ratio Li/Me of Li and a transition metal (Me) in the lithium transition metal composite oxide is 1.1 or more and 1.4 or less ([0035] Li/Me is more than 1 but less than 1.6), the lithium transition metal composite oxide contains Ni and Mn or Ni, Co, and Mn as the transition metals (Me) ([0019]), a molar ratio Mn/Me of Mn to the transition metal element Me is 0.4 or more and less than 0.55 ([0035]; [0037]), a molar ratio Co/Me of Co to the transition metal element Me is 0 or more and 0.15 or less ([0036] 0.05 to 0.40), and a molar ratio Ni/Me of Ni to the transition metal element Me is 0.3 or more and 0.55 or less ([0035] includes Mn, Co, and Ni; Given [0037] wherein Mn/Me is 0.5 to 0.8 and [0036] wherein Co/Me is 0.05 to 0.40, Ni/Me must be in the range of 0.0 to 0.45). 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).
Endo is silent in regards to a porosity of the lithium transition metal composite oxide is 5 to 15%.
Sugimoto is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of using lithium transition metal oxides as a positive active material for a lithium secondary battery ([0029]). Sugimoto teaches that a porosity of the lithium transition metal composite oxide is 5 to 15% ([0111] porosity 5% to 15%).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further defined the porosity of Endo to be 5% to 15% such as in Sugimoto. Doing so allows for sufficient charging and discharging efficiency while obtaining a high volume capacity (Sugimoto [0111]).
Regarding claim 3, Endo teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Endo fails to specify that, wherein using lithium metal as a counter electrode, (i) charge and discharge in which an end-of-charge voltage is 4.6 V and an end- of-discharge voltage is 2.0 V, and (ii) charge and discharge in which the end-of-charge voltage is 4.45 V and the end-of-discharge voltage is 2.0 V are performed in this order, and an electric amount is 200 mAh/g or more in the discharge of (ii). However, these parameters would be inherent in Endo. Endo does teach that an electric amount is 200 mAh/g or more with the maximum ultimate potential of a positive electrode during charging is less than 4.5 V (vs. Li/Li+) ([0107]). As such, given this in combination with the similar composition ([0035]-[0037]) to the claimed positive active material, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art that the prior art would have an electric amount of 200 mAh/g or more in the discharge of (ii) as performed in the order claimed.
Regarding claim 4, Endo teaches a method of producing a positive active material for a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery ([0087] nonaqueous electrolyte battery) containing a lithium transition metal composite oxide ([0019]), comprising mixing a lithium compound with a transition metal hydroxide precursor ([0046]; [0056]) and firing the mixture at 750 to 1000°C ([0072]-[0073]) to prepare the lithium transition metal composite oxide having an α -NaFeO2 structure([0019]), a molar ratio Li/Me of Li and a transition metal (Me) of 1.1 ≤ Li/Me ≤ 1.4 ([0035] Li/Me is more than 1 but less than 1.6), wherein the lithium transition metal composite oxide contains Ni and Mn or Ni, Co, and Mn as the transition metals (Me) ([0019]), a molar ratio Mn/Me of Mn to the transition metal element Me is 0.4 or more and less than 0.55 ([0035]; [0037]), a molar ratio Co/Me of Co to the transition metal element Me is 0 or more and 0.15 or less ([0036] 0.05 to 0.40), and a molar ratio Ni/Me of Ni to the transition metal element Me is 0.3 or more and 0.55 or less ([0035] includes Mn, Co, and Ni; Given [0037] wherein Mn/Me is 0.5 to 0.8 and [0036] wherein Co/Me is 0.05 to 0.40, Ni/Me must be in the range of 0.0 to 0.45). 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).
Endo is silent in regards to a porosity of the lithium transition metal composite oxide is 5 to 15%.
Sugimoto is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of using lithium transition metal oxides as a positive active material for a lithium secondary battery ([0029]). Sugimoto teaches that a porosity of the lithium transition metal composite oxide is 5 to 15% ([0111] porosity 5% to 15%).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further defined the porosity of Endo to be 5% to 15% such as in Sugimoto. Doing so allows for sufficient charging and discharging efficiency while obtaining a high volume capacity (Sugimoto [0111]).
Regarding claim 5, Endo teaches all of the limitations of claim 4. Endo also teaches that the transition metal hydroxide precursor contains Ni and Mn or Ni, Co, and Mn as the transition metals (Me) ([0055]; [0080]; Co, Ni, and Mn in a precursor).
Endo is silent in regards to a mixture of αMe(OH)2 and βMe(OH)2. However, it would be inherent for the transition metal hydroxide precursor to be a mixture of αMe(OH)2 and βMe(OH)2. Endo teaches that, when using a hydroxide precursor, that the pH range is controlled to 10 to 12 ([0060]). The instant specification shows that reacting at a pH of 10.2 or less produces a mixture of αMe(OH)2 and βMe(OH)2 (Instant specification [0031]). As such, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art that a mixture of αMe(OH)2 and βMe(OH)2 could be inherent in the transition metal hydroxide precursor of Endo.
Regarding claim 6, Endo teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Endo also teaches a positive electrode for a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery containing the positive active material according to claim 1 ([0037]).
Regarding claim 7, Endo teaches all of the limitations of claim 6. Endo also teaches a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising the positive electrode for a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 6 ([0001]; [0087]).
Regarding claim 8, Endo teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Endo also teaches that the molar ratio Li/Me of Li and the transition metal (Me) is 1.1 or more and 1.35 or less ([0035] Li/Me is more than 1 but less than 1.6). 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 13, Endo teaches all of the limitations of claim 4. Endo also teaches the molar ratio Li/Me of Li and the transition metal (Me) is 1.1 or more and 1.35 or less ([0035] Li/Me is more than 1 but less than 1.6). 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 18, modified Endo teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Endo also teaches the molar ratio of Li/Me of Li to the transition metal (Me) is 1.2 ([0035] Li/Me is more than 1 but less than 1.6), the molar ratio Mn/Me of Mn to the transition metal element Me is 0.55 ([0035]; [0037]), the molar ratio Co/Me of Co to the transition metal element Me is 0.15 ([0036] 0.05 to 0.40), and the molar ratio Ni/Me of Ni to the transition metal element Me is 0.30 ([0035] includes Mn, Co, and Ni; Given [0037] wherein Mn/Me is 0.5 to 0.8 and [0036] wherein Co/Me is 0.05 to 0.40, Ni/Me must be in the range of 0.0 to 0.45). 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 19, modified Endo teaches all of the limitations of claim 4. Endo also teaches the molar ratio of Li/Me of Li to the transition metal (Me) is 1.2 ([0035] Li/Me is more than 1 but less than 1.6), the molar ratio Mn/Me of Mn to the transition metal element Me is 0.55 ([0035]; [0037]), the molar ratio Co/Me of Co to the transition metal element Me is 0.15 ([0036] 0.05 to 0.40), and the molar ratio Ni/Me of Ni to the transition metal element Me is 0.30 ([0035] includes Mn, Co, and Ni; Given [0037] wherein Mn/Me is 0.5 to 0.8 and [0036] wherein Co/Me is 0.05 to 0.40, Ni/Me must be in the range of 0.0 to 0.45). 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).
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo in view of Sugimoto as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Endo et al. (WO-2016190419-A1), hereinafter WO ‘419, as presented by the IDS, cited using US-20180145318-A1 (US ‘318) of the same patent family.
Regarding claim 20, modified Endo teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Endo also teaches that the half width of diffraction peak belonging to the (003) plane when space group R3-m is used for a crystal structure model based on a X-ray diffraction pattern is 0.18° to 0.22° ([0042]). Endo fails to disclose wherein the lithium transition metal composite oxide has a half-value width of a diffraction peak belonging to a (104) plane of 0.2° or more and 0.6° or less when a space group R3-m is used for a crystal structure model based on a X-ray diffraction pattern.
WO ‘419 is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of lithium transition metal composite oxides for positive active material for nonaqueous electrolyte secondary batteries (US ‘318 [0035]). WO ‘419 teaches wherein the lithium transition metal composite oxide has a half-value width of a diffraction peak belonging to a (104) plane of 0.2° or more and 0.6° or less when a space group R3-m is used for a crystal structure model based on a X-ray diffraction pattern (US ‘318 [0052] FWHM (104) of 0.21 to 0.55). Further, US ‘318 discloses that the value of FWHM (003)/FWHM (104) is 0.72 or less (US ‘318 [0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Endo and provide a value of FWHM (003)/FWHM (104) is 0.72 or less such as in WO ‘419, consequently defining the FWHM (104) as 0.2° or more and 0.6° or less (Endo teaches FWHM (003) of 0.18° to 0.22° (Endo [0042]), therefore the FWHM (104) given the provided value would be at minimum 0.18°/0.72 to 0.22°/0.72 or at minimum 0.25° to .31°). Doing so makes it possible to increase the discharge capacity per volume (US ‘318 [0052]).
Regarding claim 21, modified Endo teaches all of the limitations of claim 4. Endo also teaches that the half width of diffraction peak belonging to the (003) plane when space group R3-m is used for a crystal structure model based on a X-ray diffraction pattern is 0.18° to 0.22° ([0042]). Endo fails to disclose wherein the lithium transition metal composite oxide has a half-value width of a diffraction peak belonging to a (104) plane of 0.2° or more and 0.6° or less when a space group R3-m is used for a crystal structure model based on a X-ray diffraction pattern.
WO ‘419 is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of lithium transition metal composite oxides for positive active material for nonaqueous electrolyte secondary batteries (US ‘318 [0035]). WO ‘419 teaches wherein the lithium transition metal composite oxide has a half-value width of a diffraction peak belonging to a (104) plane of 0.2° or more and 0.6° or less when a space group R3-m is used for a crystal structure model based on a X-ray diffraction pattern (US ‘318 [0052] FWHM (104) of 0.21 to 0.55). Further, US ‘318 discloses that the value of FWHM (003)/FWHM (104) is 0.72 or less (US ‘318 [0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Endo and provide a value of FWHM (003)/FWHM (104) is 0.72 or less such as in WO ‘419, consequently defining the FWHM (104) as 0.2° or more and 0.6° or less (Endo teaches FWHM (003) of 0.18° to 0.22° (Endo [0042]), therefore the FWHM (104) given the provided value would be at minimum 0.18°/0.72 to 0.22°/0.72 or at minimum 0.25° to .31°). Doing so makes it possible to increase the discharge capacity per volume (US ‘318 [0052]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON L KYLE whose telephone number is (571)272-0164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 AM - 5 PM ET.
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.
/M.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights