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 1, 4, 8, and 13 are currently amended;
Claims 2, 9-12, and 14-17 are canceled;
Claims 18-21 are new.
Status of Rejections and Objections Pending Since the Office Action of 07/29/2025
The 103 rejections of claims 1-17 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s argument and amendment and replaced with a new 103 rejection.
Specification
The amendment filed 10/17/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
New claim 18 includes the limitation “the molar ratio Mn/Me of Mn to the transition metal element Me is 0.30” in line 4. There is no support for this limitation in the originally filed disclosure. Instead, the original disclosure includes “the molar ratio Mn/Me of Mn to the transition metal element Me is preferably 0.35 or more and less than 0.6” in paragraph [0024] of the instant specification.
New claim 19 includes the limitation “the molar ratio Mn/Me of Mn to the transition metal element Me is 0.30” in line 4. There is no support for this limitation in the originally filed disclosure. Instead, the original disclosure includes “the molar ratio Mn/Me of Mn to the transition metal element Me is preferably 0.35 or more and less than 0.6” in paragraph [0024] of the instant specification.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 18 and 19 both include the limitation “the molar ratio Mn/Me of Mn to the transition metal element Me is 0.30” that is not supported in the instant specification. Instead, the instant specification includes “the molar ratio Mn/Me of Mn to the transition metal element Me is preferably 0.35 or more and less than 0.6” in paragraph [0024].
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 18 includes the limitation “the molar ratio of Mn/Me to the transition metal element Me is 0.3” in line 4. However, claim 1, upon which claim 18 depends, includes the limitation “a molar ratio of Mn/Me of Mn to the transition metal element Me is 0.4 or more and less than 0.55” in lines 10-11. It is impossible for claim 18 to include a molar ratio of Mn/Me of 0.3 given the range in claim 1 if claim 18 includes all the limitations of claim 1 upon which it depends. Claim 19 dependent on claim 4 is rejected for the same reasoning. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Interpretation
For the sake of examination, claims 18 and 19 are interpreted to read:
“the molar ratio of Li/Me of Li to the transition metal (Me) is 1.2,
the molar ratio Mn/Me of Mn to the transition metal element Me is 0.55,
the molar ratio Co/Me of Co to the transition metal element Me is 0.15, and
the molar ratio Ni/Me of Ni to the transition metal element Me is 0.30.” as is presented in examples 1-6 of Table 1 in 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(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 [0062]).
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. (US-20180145318-A1), hereinafter US ‘318, as presented by the IDS.
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.
US ‘318 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 ([0035]). US ‘318 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 ([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 ([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 US ‘318, 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.
US ‘318 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 ([0035]). US ‘318 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 ([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 ([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 US ‘318, 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]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 10/17/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Endo in view of Sato and Endo in view of Sato and US ‘318.
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
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722