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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 28, 2026 has been entered.
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received April 28, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently, claims 1-15 are cancelled; claims 16-20 are withdrawn; claim 22 is amended; and claims 30-31 are new; resulting in claims 21-31 pending for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 21, it is noted that in the claim set filed April 28, 2026, there appears to be a typo. There is a return in the word “cracks” in line 6 of the claims, such that the “s” is in a separate line.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 21, and by dependency claims 22-31 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.
Regarding claim 21, the limitation that "25% of all particles have a number of cracks ranging from 5 to 30… wherein the crack level is determined by SEM picture(s) analyzed by an edge detection algorithm computing a gradient of image intensity to detect the cracks" is not supported in the originally filed disclosure. Paragraph [0105] of the published specification discloses that the edge detection algorithm "canny" is used to detect edges of secondary particles and define cracks, however, the instant specification does not define crack level as the number of cracks. The Applicant's remarks filed March 24, 2026 argue that once the algorithm detects cracks, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that the number of cracks per particle can be determined by counting the detected crack features, however, this process is not included in the originally filed disclosure. While it is acknowledged that the use of "canny" as an edge detection algorithm is known in the art, one skilled in the art would not readily recognize its use in determining a crack level or counting a number of cracks. Further, in looking to the examples, the crack levels provided for samples CAM.1, CAM.2, and B-CAM.1 are 5.9, 21.1, and 1.7, respectively. As the crack levels are provided as values with decimals, the values do not appear to align with the claim limitation of a number of cracks, which would be counted as an integer. To comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, or to be entitled to an earlier priority date or filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, 365, or 386, each claim limitation must be expressly, implicitly, or inherently supported in the originally filed disclosure (MPEP 2163 (II)(3)(b)).
Regarding claim 21, the limitation that "25% of all particles have a number of cracks ranging from 5 to 30" is considered new matter not supported by the original disclosure. Paragraph [0105] of the published specification discloses that the edge detection algorithm "canny" is used to detect edges of secondary particles and define cracks, however, the instant specification does not define crack level as the number of cracks. Further, in looking to the examples, the crack levels provided for samples CAM.1, CAM.2, and B-CAM.1 are 5.9, 21.1, and 1.7, respectively. As the crack levels are provided as values with decimals, the values do not appear to align with the claim limitation of a number of cracks, which would be counted as an integer.
Regarding claims 22-31, these claims are rejected based on their dependency on claim 21.
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 21, and by dependency claims 22-31 are 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.
Regarding claim 21, the limitation "the crack level" in line 4 lacks antecedent basis. The number of cracks is limited in lines 3-4 of the claim, however, "crack level" is not introduced in claim 21.
Regarding claim 21, the limitation requiring that “at least 25% of all cracks have a number of cracks ranging from 5 to 30” in lines 3-4 of the claim is indefinite as the amended language does not seem to align with the specification. Paragraph [0105] of the instant specification discloses that crack level is determined by analyzing SEM pictures of cracked particles and normalizing crack pixels by particle area. Based on the disclosure in the specification, it is not clear how the number of cracks is determined, or if it is a normalized value. In looking at the figures provided, Figure 1b identifies the edges of the particle, however it is not clear from looking at this figure how to count the number of cracks. Further, in looking to the examples, the crack levels provided for samples CAM.1, CAM.2, and B-CAM.1 are 5.9, 21.1, and 1.7, respectively, which seems to contradict the notion that cracks are counted after being identified. While the claim language “number of cracks” is not indefinite, the inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain (MPEP 2173.03).
Regarding claims 22-31, these claims are rejected based on their dependency on claim 21.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 21-27 and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiramatsu (US 2014/0072697 A1).
Regarding claims 21 and 24, Hiramatsu teaches a method for manufacturing an electrode for a battery including the steps of: a) dry-mixing an active material and a conductive aid; b) applying a pressure for pressing to the mixture obtained in the step a); c) mixing a solvent into the mixture after the step b) to prepare a slurry (in paste form) active material; and d) applying the slurry active material onto a current collector to form an active material layer (¶ [0010], Ln. 1-10). The conductive aid may include graphite such as natural graphite and artificial graphite; carbon black such as acetylene black, Ketjen Black, channel black, furnace black, lampblack, and thermal black; conductive fibers such as carbon fibers and metal fibers; carbon fluoride; metal powders such as aluminum; conductive whiskers such as zinc oxide; conductive metal oxides such as titanium oxide; and organic conductive materials such as phenylene derivatives (¶ [0030], Ln. 1-12), with acetylene black used in the examples. The pressure applied after dry-mixing is 5 MPa or more and 300 MPa or less (¶ [0012], Ln. 1-4). It is noted that parts of the manufacturing method referenced apply to the negative electrode, however Hiramatsu teaches that the positive electrode is formed according the same method (¶ [0089], Ln. 6-15). Hiramatsu teaches that the positive electrode active material may include a lithium-containing composite metal oxide (¶ [0034], Ln. 1-8), providing several examples of positive electrode active materials including LiNi1/3Mn1/3Co1/3O2 and LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 (¶ [0034], Ln. 23-25). Hiramatsu does not teach a specific embodiment including a lithium nickel transition metal oxide positive electrode dry-mixed with conductive carbon and pressed at a high pressure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to produce a positive electrode active material by dry-mixing a lithium-containing composite metal oxide such as LiNi1/3Mn1/3Co1/3O2 (meeting the limitations of claimed formula wherein x=0 and TM comprises nickel, Mn, and Co) or LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 (meeting the limitations of claimed formula wherein x=0 and TM comprises nickel, Al, and Co) with conductive carbon and applying a pressure of 100-300 MPa based on the teachings of Hiramatsu. Hiramatsu teaches the use of LiNi1/3Mn1/3Co1/3O2- and LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 and further teaches applying a pressure of 5-300 MPa, covering the higher pressure range of 100-300 MPa.
While it is acknowledged that at least 25% of all the cathode active material particles having a number of cracks ranging from 5 to 30 with the cracks containing carbon in electrically conductive form, and at least 60% of the particles showing cracks is not expressly recited by Hiramatsu, the properties would be inherent to the material taught by the reference. A cathode active material with at least 25% of all the cathode active material particles having a number of cracks ranging from 5 to 30 with the cracks containing carbon in electrically conductive form, and at least 60% of the particles showing cracks would be implicitly achieved by a cathode active material with substantially the same composition formed by the same process. The instant specification has not provided adequate teachings that the claimed properties are only obtainable with the claimed material.
As evidence that the claimed properties are inherent to the cathode active material taught by Hiramatsu, the reference teaches a positive electrode active material with substantially the same composition formed by substantially the same process. Page 4 of the instant specification discloses that the mixture including lithium transition metal oxide particles and conductive carbon is exposed to a pressure in the range from 100-500 MPa in order to cause cracks in at least some of the particles, with a crack level in the range of from 5 to 30 and referring to at least 25% of the particles. Additionally, Examples 1 and 2 of the instant specification teach that an active material including nickel, cobalt, manganese, titanium, and zirconium is mixed with carbon and pressed at 150 MPa (Example 1) and 300 MPa (Example 2) to produce active material with a crack level within the claimed range.
With respect to the pressure applied to the mixture of lithium transition metal oxide particles and conductive carbon, Hiramatsu teaches that the pressure applied to the dry-mixed positive electrode active material and conductive aid is 5-300 MPa (¶ [0012], Ln. 1-4). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to apply a pressure within 100-300 MPa, within the range taught by the reference and overlapping the necessary range of 100-500 MPa. 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(I)).
With respect to the composition, Hiramatsu teaches that the positive electrode active material may be a lithium-containing composite metal oxide, providing examples including LiNi1/3Mn1/3Co1/3O2 and LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 (¶ [0034], Ln. 23-25), meeting the claimed lithium transition metal oxide formula. Further, Hiramatsu teaches that the positive electrode active material is mixed with a conductive aid, providing carbon-containing examples (¶ [0030], Ln. 1-12) and using acetylene black in the first and second example (¶ [0100], [0107]). Therefore, Hiramatsu teaches a cathode active material layer with substantially the same composition and formed by substantially the same process, and thus would achieve the claimed limitation of at least 25% of the particles having a number of cracks in the range of from 5 to 30 and containing conductive carbon, and at least 60% of the particles showing cracks.
Regarding claims 22 and 30, Hiramatsu teaches all of the limitations of claim 21 above, including positive electrode active materials including lithium-containing composite metal oxides with nickel, manganese, and cobalt. Hiramatsu teaches that when the lithium-containing composite metal oxide follows the formula LiMeO2, Me may be MxMyMz, wherein x+y+z=1 (¶ [0034], Ln. 15-23). Hiramatsu further provides specific examples including LiNi1/3Mn1/3Co1/3O2 and LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 (¶ [0034], Ln. 23-25). LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 meets the limitations of claimed general formula (I), wherein a is approximately 0.84, b is approximately 0.16, c is 0, M1 is Al, and d is 0.05.
Regarding claim 23, Hiramatsu teaches all of the limitations of claim 21 above and, as Hiramatsu teaches the steps of: a) dry-mixing an active material and a conductive aid; b) applying a pressure for pressing to the mixture obtained in the step a), prior to the addition of binder, Hiramatsu teaches that the cracks formed in the positive electrode active material do not contain polymer binder.
Regarding claims 25 and 31, Hiramatsu teaches all of the limitations of claim 22 above, including positive electrode active materials including lithium-containing composite metal oxides with nickel, manganese, and cobalt. Hiramatsu teaches that when the lithium-containing composite metal oxide follows the formula LiMeO2, Me may be MxMyMz, wherein x+y+z=1 (¶ [0034], Ln. 15-23). Hiramatsu further provides specific examples including LiNi1/3Mn1/3Co1/3O2 and LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 (¶ [0034], Ln. 23-25). Hiramatsu does not teach a specific embodiment in which the positive electrode active material meets the limitations of claim 25 or that the value of d ranges from 0.001-0.005 as claimed in claim 31.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a positive electrode active material with a high nickel content and additional transition metals including Mn, Co, and Al based on the teachings of Hiramatsu. In looking to the specific lithium-containing composite metal oxides provided by the reference (LiNi1/3Mn1/3Co1/3O2 and LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2), one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to include a positive electrode active material with a high nickel content, as provided in LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2, and include an additional transition metal such as Mn, as provided in LiNi1/3Mn1/3Co1/3O2. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that these elements are commonly included in positive electrode active materials for lithium ion batteries and would be motivated to include a nickel-rich positive electrode active material in order to increase the energy density. In including an additional transition metal, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to reduce the amount of Co and Al in the positive electrode active material to balance out the addition of Mn, and to include Mn and Co at the same content, provided the examples of LiNi1/3Mn1/3Co1/3O2 and LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to include Ni such that a is 0.8, Co such that b is less than 0.15, Mn such that c is the same as b, and Al such that d is less than 0.05, overlapping the claimed ranges in claim 25. Further, in including Mn in the same amount as Co, it would be obvious that the content of Al would be very low, within the claimed range of 0.001-0.005 in claim 31. 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(I)).
Regarding claim 26, Hiramatsu teaches a positive electrode active material meeting the limitations of claim 21 above, and further teaches that in forming the electrode, the pressed active material is mixed with solvent, binder, and other additives (¶ [0053], Ln. 1-5).
Regarding claim 27, Hiramatsu teaches a positive electrode meeting the limitations of claim 26 above, and further teaches that the positive electrode is used in a lithium ion secondary battery having the structure of a negative electrode current collector (10), a negative electrode active material layer (12), a solid electrolyte layer (14), a positive electrode active material layer (16), and a positive electrode current collector (18) (¶ [0027], Ln. 1-6; Fig. 1).
Claims 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiramatsu (US 2014/0072697 A1) as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Miyamoto, et al. (US 2022/0259066 A1).
Regarding claims 28-29, Hiramatsu teaches all of the limitations of claim 27 above and further teaches that the electrolyte is a solid electrolyte layer (¶ [0027], Ln. 1-6). Hiramatsu does not expressly teach that the solid electrolyte contains sulfur and phosphorus or is selected from the group included in claim 29.
Miyamoto teaches an all-solid-state lithium ion secondary battery including a positive electrode, negative electrode, and solid electrolyte layer (¶ [0009], Ln. 1-4). Miyamoto teaches that the positive electrode active material includes a lithium transition metal composite oxide including nickel and cobalt (¶ [0007], Ln. 1-6). For the solid electrolyte material, Miyamoto teaches that a sulfide solid electrolyte material may be used, providing examples including Li2S-P2S5, Li2S-P2S5-LiI, Li2S-P2S5--Li2O, Li2S-P2S5--Li2O-LiI, Li2S-SiS2-P2S5--LiI, Li2S-P2S5-ZmSn (wherein m and n are positive numbers and Z is at least one selected from Ge, Zn, and Ga), and Li2S-SiS2-Li3PO4 among other examples (¶ [0046], Ln. 1-12), specifically using Li2S-P2S5 in the examples (¶ [0127], Ln. 1-5). Miyamoto teaches that the sulfide solid electrolyte preferably has an ion conductor containing Li, S, and at least one selected from P, Si, Ge, Al, and B, and that the ion conductor preferably has an anion structure, resulting in a sulfide solid electrolyte with high chemical stability (¶ [0047], Ln. 1-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the solid electrolyte of- Hiramatsu to include a sulfide solid electrolyte, such as Li2S-P2S5, based on the teachings of Miyamoto. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to apply the teachings of Miyamoto to the battery of Hiramatsu as both references teach lithium ion secondary batteries including positive electrode active materials with lithium-nickel-cobalt transition metal oxides. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use a sulfide solid electrolyte in order to include a solid electrolyte with high chemical stability.
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 112
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9 of the remarks filed April 28, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) has been withdrawn. However, in light of the arguments and claim amendments, new issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) are presented in the office action above.
In light of the amendment to claim 22 in the claim set filed April 28, 2026, the previous rejection of claim 22 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 has been withdrawn. However, the previous rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is maintained in the office action above, and new issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are presented in the office action above.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-11 of the remarks filed April 28, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 21 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 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that paragraph [0105] of the published specification describes how the cracks are identified and normalized, and then one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to count them. While it is acknowledged that the published specification describes the use of the algorithm to identify edges of cracks and normalize crack pixels by particle area, the disclosure does not clarify how a number of cracks is obtained. In looking at the figures provided, Figure 1b identifies the edges of the particle, however it is not clear from looking at this figure how to count the number of cracks. Further, in looking to the examples, the crack levels provided for samples CAM.1, CAM.2, and B-CAM.1 are 5.9, 21.1, and 1.7, respectively. Thus, the notion that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how to count the number of cracks does not seem to align with the values provided with decimals.
Response-Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-14 of the remarks filed April 28, 2026, with respect to claims 21-24 and 26-29, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 over Ku (US 2021/0242490 A1) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH J JACOBSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291.
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.
/SARAH J JACOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/MARK RUTHKOSKY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights