DETAILED ACTION
The following Office action concerns Patent Application Number 18/006,766. Claims 1-12 are pending in the application.
Claims 4-12 have been withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to non-elected inventions.
The previous grounds of rejection are maintained in this action and discussed below.
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 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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Maruta (US 6,472,100) in view of Song et al (US 2014/0227594).
Maruta teaches a precursor for a positive electrode active material comprising a nickel-aluminum alloy (col. 2, lines 43-50). The molar amount of aluminum or cobalt in the active material is less than or equal to 30 % (col. 2, lines 61-65). Nickel-aluminum alloy with 30 % aluminum satisfies formula 1 with a=0.7, b=0.3, c=0, d=0. It would have been obvious to use up to 30 % aluminum in the precursor since the active material contains up to 30 % aluminum.
Maruta does not teach that the precursor is a particle.
However, Song et al teaches a precursor for a positive electrode active material wherein the precursor is a particle having an average diameter of 5-40 µm (abstract, par. 13, 16).
Maruta teaches a precursor for an active material and further teaches that the active material is a particle. However, Maruta is silent regarding the form and size of the precursor. Song et al teaches that the precursor is a particle having a size. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by design need to combine the precursor particle size of Song et al with the precursor of Maruta in order to obtain a precursor having known suitable size and shape.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Maruta (US 6,472,100) in view of Song et al (US 2014/0227594) and McDonald (US 5,824,166).
Maruta in view of Song et al teaches a Ni-Al precursor as described above. Maruta in view of Song et al does not teach the crystal structure of the precursor.
However, McDonald teaches that nickel-aluminum alloys have a face-centered cubic structure (col. 4, line 64 to col. 5, line 12). It would have been obvious to combine the FCC crystal structure of McDonald with the Ni-Al precursor of Maruta in view of Song et al because FCC is the known crystal structure of Ni-Al alloys.
Response to Arguments
The applicant argues that Maruta et al does not teach a metal compound. Maruta et al specifically teaches a nickel-aluminum alloy (col. 2, line 47). A metal alloy is a metal compound.
The applicant argues that neither Maruta et al or Song et al teach that the precursor composition has the form of a single particle, because they teach secondary particles. However, the examiner was unable to find any disclosure regarding a precursor in the form of a secondary particle in either reference. As discussed above, Song et al teaches that the precursor has the form of a particle. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
No new ground(s) of rejection was 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Examiner’s Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William Young whose telephone number is (571) 270-5078. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8:30 AM to 5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew, can be reached at 571-272-2817. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000./WILLIAM D YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761 May 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights