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
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 0817/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
2. Applicant’s amendments with respect to claims filed on 08/17/2026 have been entered. Claims 7-17 and 27-29 remain pending in this application and are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. Claim 29 has been withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 12 and 28 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 12, the recitation “the positive electrode is the electrode according to claim 7” in claim 12, lines 5-6 should read “the positive electrode is the positive electrode according to claim 7”.
Regarding claim 28, the recitation “the positive electrode is an electrode according to claim 27” in claim 28, lines 5-6 should read “the positive electrode is the positive electrode according to claim 27”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claim(s) 7-17 and 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. (Pub. No. JP 2012069488 A) in view of Woo et al. (Pub. No. US 20200381781 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Yamada teaches a positive electrode (positive electrode sheet, see [00122]) for an electrochemical device (see [00123], where the positive electrode sheet is used for a non-aqueous secondary battery), wherein the positive electrode comprises a complex oxide (A) (lithium manganate, see [00122]) capable of occluding and releasing lithium ions (as evidenced by [93] of Yamada 498*, see [93] of Yamada 498* lithium transition metal oxides are capable of desorbing and inserting Li ions), the positive electrode is produced using an aqueous slurry (it should be noted that in a product-by-process claim it is the patentability of the product and not of the recited process steps which must be established, therefore this process limitation is not given patentable weight), and the aqueous slurry has a pH of less than 10.5 after storage at 25oC for 3 days after preparation (it should be noted that in a product-by-process claim it is the patentability of the product and not of the recited process steps which must be established, therefore this process limitation is not given patentable weight), but fails to teach: a neutralizing dispersant; and a complex oxide (A) capable of occluding and releasing lithium ions, wherein the neutralizing dispersant contains: at least one water-soluble compound (B′) selected from oxides, sulfides, inorganic acids, and inorganic acid salts containing a group 13 element (B) of the periodic table; and at least one water-soluble polymer (C) selected from the group consisting of an alkali metal salt, alkaline-earth metal salt, or ammonium salt of alginic acid, methylcellulose, carboxymethyl cellulose, carboxymethyl starch, or carrageenan, pullulan, guar gum, and xanthan gum,
However, Yamada does teach a negative electrode (negative electrode, see [0014]) comprising a neutralizing dispersant (water-soluble polymer (C) and Group 13 element-containing compound, see [0042]); wherein the neutralizing dispersant (water-soluble polymer (C) and Group 13 element-containing compound, see [0042]) contains: at least one water-soluble compound (B′) (Group 13 element-containing compound, see [0042], see [0050] it is dissolved in water making it water-soluble) selected from oxides (oxides, see [0036]), sulfides (sulfides, see [0036]), inorganic acids (inorganic acids, see [0036]), and inorganic acid salts (inorganic acid salts, see [0036]) containing a group 13 element (B) of the periodic table (group 13 element (B), see [0036]); and at least one water-soluble polymer (C) (water-soluble polymer (C), see [0042]) selected from the group consisting of an alkali metal salt, alkaline-earth metal salt, or ammonium salt of alginic acid, methylcellulose (methyl cellulose, see [0039]), carboxymethyl cellulose (carboxymethyl cellulose, see [0039]), carboxymethyl starch, or carrageenan (carrageenan, see [0039]), pullulan (pullulan, see [0039]), guar gum (guar gum, see [0039]), and xanthan gum (xanthan gum, see [0039]), wherein a film (water-soluble polymer (C) film, see [0053]) of the water-soluble polymer (C) (water-soluble polymer (C), see [0042]) is formed on a surface of a material capable of occluding and releasing lithium ions (carbon material, see [0050], although it is not explicitly mentioned the film is formed on a surface of the carbon material, the water soluble polymer film (C) has the group 13 elements dispersed in the film see [0053], and mixture is mixed with the carbon material and is a form of a binder so adheres or forms to the surface of the carbon material), and the group 13 element (B) of the periodic table (group 13 element (B), see [0036]) is present in the film of the water-soluble polymer (C) (water-soluble polymer (C) film, see [0053] where the group 13 element is dispersed in the film).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yamada such that the neutralizing dispersant is applied to the complex oxide of the positive electrode and therefore form the water-soluble polymer (C) film on the positive electrode active material as Yamada teaches the neutralizing dispersant/water-soluble polymer (C) film prevents contact between the electrolytic solution to suppress side reactions and improve battery characteristics such as input/output characteristics (see [0064], further see [0065] the group 13 element is present by being dissolved in the water soluble polymer (C) film). Further, as evidenced by **Woo both positive and negative electrodes experience side with an electrolyte which reduce characteristics of lithium secondary batteries.
*Additional Evidence Provided by Yamada 498* (Pub. No. JP 2012094498 A). (See [93] of Yamada 498 which shows lithium transition metal composite oxides are capable of desorbing and inserting Li ions).
** Additional Evidence Provided by Woo further teaches that both positive (cathode, [0159]) and negative electrodes (anode, [0159]) experience side reactions (side reaction, see [0159]) with an electrolyte (electrolyte, see [0159]) which reduce characteristics (lifetime characteristics, see [0159]) of lithium secondary batteries (lithium secondary battery, see [0159]).
Regarding claim 8, Yamada as evidenced by Woo teaches wherein the group 13 element (B) of the periodic table (group 13 element (B), see [0036]) includes boron (boron, see [0036]).
Regarding claim 9, Yamada as evidenced by Woo teaches a conductive additive (acetylene black, see [00122]) and a binder (polyvinylidene fluoride, see [00122]), wherein an electrode mixture (slurry, see [00122]) is composed of the neutralizing dispersant (water-soluble polymer (C) and Group 13 element-containing compound, see [0042]), the complex oxide (A) (lithium manganate, see [00122]), the conductive additive (acetylene black, see [00122]), and the binder (polyvinylidene fluoride, see [00122]), but fails to explicitly disclose the boron content in the electrode mixture is not less than 0.001 wt% and not more than 5 wt%.
However, Yamada further teaches the group 13 element (B) of the periodic table (group 13 element (B), see [0036]) is present in 0.1 wt% or more and 5 wt% or less (0.1 wt% or more and 5 wt% or less, see [0076]). Although this is not specific to boron content, as seen above, it is known in the art to include boron, therefore this range would be expected to overlap or match the claimed range.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yamada as evidenced by Woo such that the group 13 element (B) of the periodic table is present in 0.1 wt% or more and 5 wt% and therefore the boron content overlaps the claimed range as taught by Yamada as and a prima facie case of obviousness exists “in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” (MPEP 2144.05.I) and further it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the range as a result effective variable for improvement of input/output characteristics and battery capacity (see [0077] of Yamada).
The examiner would like to note that the negative electrode mixture presented in Yamada also allows the inclusion of a binder (see [0052] olefinically unsaturated bond, see [0046] describes binder properties of the molecule) and conductive additive (conductive agent, see [0048]) in the solution, therefore in combining the neutralizing dispersant with the positive electrode it would be within the scope to include the binder and conductive additives.
Regarding claim 10, Yamada as evidenced by Woo fails to explicitly teach wherein when the content of the water-soluble compound (B′) containing the group 13 element (B) of the periodic table is taken as 100 parts by weight, the content of a boron-containing water-soluble compound is 51 parts by weight to 100 parts by weight.
However, Yamada discloses an example wherein when the content of the water-soluble compound (B′) (group 13 element (B), see [0036]) containing the group 13 element (B) of the periodic table (group 13 element (B), see [0036]) is taken as 100 parts by weight, the content of a boron-containing water-soluble compound (boron oxide, see [00125]) is 100 parts by weight (boron oxide is the only group 13 element-containing compound (B’) present, therefore makes 100 parts by weight of the compound, see [00125]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yamada as evidenced by Woo to such that when the content of the water-soluble compound (B′) containing the group 13 element (B) of the periodic table is taken as 100 parts by weight, the content of a boron-containing water-soluble compound is 100 parts by weight as Yamada teaches it is known in the art to do so.
Regarding claim 11, Yamada as evidenced by Woo fails to teach wherein the complex oxide (A) is a complex oxide having a composition represented by Li.sub.aNi.sub.bCo.sub.cMn.sub.dM.sub.1-b-.sub.c-.sub.dO.sub.2 or a complex oxide having a composition represented by either Li.sub.4+xTi.sub.5O.sub.12 or Li.sub.2+xTi.sub.3O.sub.7, where, in the above chemical formulae, M is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Al, Mg, Ti, Fe, V, Cr, Nb, Mo, W, Cu, Zn, Ga, In, Sn, Zr, Ru, and La, 0.8 ≤ a ≤ 1.0, 0 < b ≤ 1.0, 0 ≤ c ≤ 0.4, 0 ≤ d ≤ 0.35, 0 < b + c + d ≤ 1.0, and 0 ≤ x ≤ 3.
However, Yamada further teaches another complex oxide (A) (positive electrode active material, see [0092]) for an electrode (positive electrode, see [0091]) wherein the complex oxide (A) (positive electrode active material, see [0092]) is a complex oxide (LiNiO.sub.2, [0093]) having a composition represented by Li.sub.aNi.sub.bCo.sub.cMn.sub.dM.sub.1-b-.sub.c-.sub.dO.sub.2 (LiNiO.sub.2, see [0093]) or a complex oxide having a composition represented by either Li.sub.4+xTi.sub.5O.sub.12 or Li.sub.2+xTi.sub.3O.sub.7, where, in the above chemical formulae, M is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Al, Mg, Ti, Fe, V, Cr, Nb, Mo, W, Cu, Zn, Ga, In, Sn, Zr, Ru, and La, 0.8 ≤ a ≤ 1.0 (1.0, LiNiO.sub.2, see [0093]), 0 < b ≤ 1.0 (1.0, LiNiO.sub.2, see [0093]), 0 ≤ c ≤ 0.4 (0, LiNiO.sub.2, see [0093]), 0 ≤ d ≤ 0.35 (0, LiNiO.sub.2, see [0093]), 0 < b + c + d ≤ 1.0 (1.0, LiNiO.sub.2, see [0093]), and 0 ≤ x ≤ 3.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yamada as evidenced by Woo to substitute the complex oxide (A) as taught by Yamada as evidenced by Woo for a complex oxide with the formula LiNiO.sub.2 as an art effective equivalent complex oxide because Yamada teaches it is known in the art to use LiNiO.sub.2 as a positive electrode active material (see [0093] of Yamada).
Regarding claim 12, Yamada as evidenced by Woo teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, see [00123]) comprising: a positive electrode (positive electrode sheet, see [00123]); a negative electrode (negative electrode sheet, see [00123]); and an electrolyte (electrolytic solution, see [00123]) interposed between the positive electrode (positive electrode sheet, see [00123]) and the negative electrode (negative electrode sheet, see [00123], see [00123] a separator is interposed between the positive and negative electrode sheet, see [00101] when a separator is used the electrolytic solution impregnates the separator, therefore the electrolytic solution is also interposed between the positive and negative electrode sheets), wherein the positive electrode (positive electrode sheet, see [00123]) is the electrode according to claim 7 (positive electrode sheet, see [00122], see [00123] the positive in the battery are the same as the sheets prepared above, see modifications above, see rejection of claim 7 above).
Regarding claim 13, Yamada as evidenced by Woo fails to teach wherein when the content of the water-soluble compound (B′) containing the group 13 element (B) of the periodic table is taken as 100 parts by weight, the content of a boron-containing water-soluble compound is 51 parts by weight to 100 parts by weight.
However, Yamada discloses an example wherein when the content of the water-soluble compound (B′) (Group 13 element-containing compound, see [0042], see [0050] it is dissolved in water making it water-soluble) containing the group 13 element (B) of the periodic table (group 13 element (B), see [0036]) is taken as 100 parts by weight, the content of a boron-containing water-soluble compound (boron oxide, see [00125]) is 100 parts by weight (boron oxide is the only group 13 element-containing compound (B’) present, therefore makes 100 parts by weight of the compound, see [00125]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yamada as evidenced by Woo to such that when the content of the water-soluble compound (B′) containing the group 13 element (B) of the periodic table is taken as 100 parts by weight, the content of a boron-containing water-soluble compound is 100 parts by weight as Yamada teaches it is known in the art to do so.
Regarding claim 14, Yamada as evidenced by Woo fails to teach wherein the complex oxide (A) is a complex oxide having a composition represented by Li.sub.aNi.sub.bCo.sub.cMn.sub.dM.sub.1-b-c-dO.sub.2 or a complex oxide having a composition represented by either Li.sub.4+xTi.sub.5O.sub.12 or Li.sub.2+xTi.sub.3O.sub.7, where, in the above chemical formulae, M is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Al, Mg, Ti, Fe, V, Cr, Nb, Mo, W, Cu, Zn, Ga, In, Sn, Zr, Ru, and La, 0.8 ≤ a ≤ 1.0, 0 < b ≤ 1.0, 0 ≤ c ≤ 0.4, 0 ≤ d ≤ 0.35, 0 < b + c + d ≤ 1.0, and 0 ≤.sub.× ≤ 3.
However, Yamada further teaches another complex oxide (A) (positive electrode active material, see [0092]) for an electrode (positive electrode, see [0091]) wherein the complex oxide (A) (positive electrode active material, see [0092]) is a complex oxide (LiNiO.sub.2, [0093]) having a composition represented by Li.sub.aNi.sub.bCo.sub.cMn.sub.dM.sub.1-b-.sub.c-.sub.dO.sub.2 (LiNiO.sub.2, see [0093]) or a complex oxide having a composition represented by either Li.sub.4+xTi.sub.5O.sub.12 or Li.sub.2+xTi.sub.3O.sub.7, where, in the above chemical formulae, M is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Al, Mg, Ti, Fe, V, Cr, Nb, Mo, W, Cu, Zn, Ga, In, Sn, Zr, Ru, and La, 0.8 ≤ a ≤ 1.0 (1.0, LiNiO.sub.2, see [0093]), 0 < b ≤ 1.0 (1.0, LiNiO.sub.2, see [0093]), 0 ≤ c ≤ 0.4 (0, LiNiO.sub.2, see [0093]), 0 ≤ d ≤ 0.35 (0, LiNiO.sub.2, see [0093]), 0 < b + c + d ≤ 1.0 (1.0, LiNiO.sub.2, see [0093]), and 0 ≤ x ≤ 3.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yamada as evidenced by Woo to substitute the complex oxide (A) as taught by Yamada as evidenced by Woo for a complex oxide with the formula LiNiO.sub.2 as an art effective equivalent complex oxide because Yamada teaches it is known in the art to use LiNiO.sub.2 as a positive electrode active material (see [0093] of Yamada).
Regarding claim 15, Yamada as evidenced by Woo fails to teach wherein the complex oxide (A) is a complex oxide having a composition represented by Li.sub.aNi.sub.bCo.sub.cMn.sub.dM.sub.1-b-c-dO.sub.2 or a complex oxide having a composition represented by either Li.sub.4+xTi.sub.5O.sub.12 or Li.sub.2+xTi.sub.3O.sub.7, where, in the above chemical formulae, M is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Al, Mg, Ti, Fe, V, Cr, Nb, Mo, W, Cu, Zn, Ga, In, Sn, Zr, Ru, and La, 0.8 ≤ a ≤ 1.0, 0 < b ≤ 1.0, 0 ≤ c ≤ 0.4, 0 ≤ d ≤ 0.35, 0 < b + c + d ≤ 1.0, and 0 ≤.sub.× ≤ 3.
However, Yamada further teaches another complex oxide (A) (positive electrode active material, see [00952]) for an electrode (positive electrode, see [0091]) wherein the complex oxide (A) (positive electrode active material, see [0092]) is a complex oxide (LiNiO.sub.2, [0093]) having a composition represented by Li.sub.aNi.sub.bCo.sub.cMn.sub.dM.sub.1-b-.sub.c-.sub.dO.sub.2 (LiNiO.sub.2, see [0093]) or a complex oxide having a composition represented by either Li.sub.4+xTi.sub.5O.sub.12 or Li.sub.2+xTi.sub.3O.sub.7, where, in the above chemical formulae, M is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Al, Mg, Ti, Fe, V, Cr, Nb, Mo, W, Cu, Zn, Ga, In, Sn, Zr, Ru, and La, 0.8 ≤ a ≤ 1.0 (1.0, LiNiO.sub.2, see [0093]), 0 < b ≤ 1.0 (1.0, LiNiO.sub.2, see [0093]), 0 ≤ c ≤ 0.4 (0, LiNiO.sub.2, see [0093]), 0 ≤ d ≤ 0.35 (0, LiNiO.sub.2, see [0093]), 0 < b + c + d ≤ 1.0 (1.0, LiNiO.sub.2, see [0093]), and 0 ≤ x ≤ 3.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yamada as evidenced by Woo to substitute the complex oxide (A) as taught by Yamada as evidenced by Woo for a complex oxide with the formula LiNiO.sub.2 as an art effective equivalent complex oxide because Yamada teaches it is known in the art to use LiNiO.sub.2 as a positive electrode active material (see [0093] of Yamada).
Regarding claim 16, Yamada as evidenced by Woo fails to teach wherein the complex oxide (A) is a complex oxide having a composition represented by Li.sub.aNi.sub.bCo.sub.cMn.sub.dM.sub.1-b-c-dO.sub.2 or a complex oxide having a composition represented by either Li.sub.4+xTi.sub.5O.sub.12 or Li.sub.2+xTi.sub.3O.sub.7, where, in the above chemical formulae, M is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Al, Mg, Ti, Fe, V, Cr, Nb, Mo, W, Cu, Zn, Ga, In, Sn, Zr, Ru, and La, 0.8 ≤ a ≤ 1.0, 0 < b ≤ 1.0, 0 ≤ c ≤ 0.4, 0 ≤ d ≤ 0.35, 0 < b + c + d ≤ 1.0, and 0 ≤.sub.× ≤ 3.
However, Yamada further teaches another complex oxide (A) (positive electrode active material, see [0092]) for an electrode (positive electrode, see [0091]) wherein the complex oxide (A) (positive electrode active material, see [0092]) is a complex oxide (LiNiO.sub.2, [0093]) having a composition represented by Li.sub.aNi.sub.bCo.sub.cMn.sub.dM.sub.1-b-.sub.c-.sub.dO.sub.2 (LiNiO.sub.2, see [0093]) or a complex oxide having a composition represented by either Li.sub.4+xTi.sub.5O.sub.12 or Li.sub.2+xTi.sub.3O.sub.7, where, in the above chemical formulae, M is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Al, Mg, Ti, Fe, V, Cr, Nb, Mo, W, Cu, Zn, Ga, In, Sn, Zr, Ru, and La, 0.8 ≤ a ≤ 1.0 (1.0, LiNiO.sub.2, see [0093]), 0 < b ≤ 1.0 (1.0, LiNiO.sub.2, see [0093]), 0 ≤ c ≤ 0.4 (0, LiNiO.sub.2, see [0093]), 0 ≤ d ≤ 0.35 (0, LiNiO.sub.2, see [0093]), 0 < b + c + d ≤ 1.0 (1.0, LiNiO.sub.2, see [0093]), and 0 ≤ x ≤ 3.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yamada as evidenced by Woo to substitute the complex oxide (A) as taught by Yamada as evidenced by Woo for a complex oxide with the formula LiNiO.sub.2 as an art effective equivalent complex oxide because Yamada teaches it is known in the art to use LiNiO.sub.2 as a positive electrode active material (see [0093] of Yamada).
Regarding claim 17, Yamada as evidenced by Woo fails to teach the complex oxide (A) is a complex oxide having a composition represented by Li.sub.aNi.sub.bCo.sub.cMn.sub.dM.sub.1-b-c-dO.sub.2 or a complex oxide having a composition represented by either Li.sub.4+xTi.sub.5O.sub.12 or Li.sub.2+xTi.sub.3O.sub.7, where, in the above chemical formulae, M is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Al, Mg, Ti, Fe, V, Cr, Nb, Mo, W, Cu, Zn, Ga, In, Sn, Zr, Ru, and La, 0.8 ≤ a ≤ 1.0, 0 < b ≤ 1.0, 0 ≤ c ≤ 0.4, 0 ≤ d ≤ 0.35, 0 < b + c + d ≤ 1.0, and 0 ≤.sub.× ≤ 3.
However, Yamada further teaches another complex oxide (A) (positive electrode active material, see [0092]) for an electrode (positive electrode, see [0091]) wherein the complex oxide (A) (positive electrode active material, see [0092]) is a complex oxide (LiNiO.sub.2, [0093]) having a composition represented by Li.sub.aNi.sub.bCo.sub.cMn.sub.dM.sub.1-b-.sub.c-.sub.dO.sub.2 (LiNiO.sub.2, see [0093]) or a complex oxide having a composition represented by either Li.sub.4+xTi.sub.5O.sub.12 or Li.sub.2+xTi.sub.3O.sub.7, where, in the above chemical formulae, M is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Al, Mg, Ti, Fe, V, Cr, Nb, Mo, W, Cu, Zn, Ga, In, Sn, Zr, Ru, and La, 0.8 ≤ a ≤ 1.0 (1.0, LiNiO.sub.2, see [0093]), 0 < b ≤ 1.0 (1.0, LiNiO.sub.2, see [0093]), 0 ≤ c ≤ 0.4 (0, LiNiO.sub.2, see [0093]), 0 ≤ d ≤ 0.35 (0, LiNiO.sub.2, see [0093]), 0 < b + c + d ≤ 1.0 (1.0, LiNiO.sub.2, see [0093]), and 0 ≤ x ≤ 3.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yamada as evidenced by Woo to substitute the complex oxide (A) as taught by Yamada as evidenced by Woo for a complex oxide with the formula LiNiO.sub.2 as an art effective equivalent complex oxide because Yamada teaches it is known in the art to use LiNiO.sub.2 as a positive electrode active material (see [93] of Yamada).
Regarding claim 18, Yamada as evidenced by Woo teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, see [00123]) comprising: a positive electrode (positive electrode sheet, see [00123]); a negative electrode (negative electrode sheet, see [00123]); and an electrolyte (electrolytic solution, see [00123]) interposed between the positive electrode (positive electrode sheet, see [00123]) and the negative electrode (negative electrode sheet, see [00123], see [00123] a separator is interposed between the positive and negative electrode sheet, see [00101] when a separator is used the electrolytic solution impregnates the separator, therefore the electrolytic solution is also interposed between the positive and negative electrode sheets), wherein at least one of the positive electrode (positive electrode sheet, see [00123]) and the negative electrode (negative electrode sheet, see [00123]) is the electrode according to claim 8 (positive electrode sheet, see [00122], see [00123] the positive and negative electrode sheets in the battery are the same as the sheets prepared above, see modifications above).
Regarding claim 27, Yamada as evidenced by Woo teaches wherein a film (water-soluble polymer (C) film, see [0053]) of the water-soluble polymer (C) (water-soluble polymer (C), see [0042]) is formed on a surface of the complex oxide (A) (lithium manganate, see [00122], see modifications above where the film is applied to the positive electrode active material), and the group 13 element (B) of the periodic table (group 13 element (B), see [0036]) is present in the film of the water-soluble polymer (C) (water-soluble polymer (C) film, see [0053] where the group 13 element is dispersed in the film).
Regarding claim 28, Yamada as evidenced by Woo teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, see [00123]) comprising: a positive electrode (positive electrode sheet, see [00123]); a negative electrode (negative electrode sheet, see [00123]); and an electrolyte (electrolytic solution, see [00123]) interposed between the positive electrode (positive electrode sheet, see [00123]) and the negative electrode (negative electrode sheet, see [00123], see [00123] a separator is interposed between the positive and negative electrode sheet, see [00101] when a separator is used the electrolytic solution impregnates the separator, therefore the electrolytic solution is also interposed between the positive and negative electrode sheets), wherein the positive electrode (positive electrode sheet, see [00123]) is the electrode according to claim 7 (positive electrode sheet, see [00122], see [00123] the positive in the battery are the same as the sheets prepared above, see modifications above, see rejection of claim 7 above).
Relevant or Related Art
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure, though not necessarily pertinent to applicant’s invention as claimed.
Ho et al. (Pub. No. US 20230061306 A1) – See [0006] discloses benefits and drawbacks of using aqueous solutions to form cathode slurries for lithium/nickel containing cathode active materials. In further portions of the disclosure, for example in [0009-0017], a method of forming a cathode for a secondary battery in an aqueous slurry using a lithium transition metal oxide is disclosed.
Response to Arguments
7. For clarity of the record, the claim limitations of the positive electrode being produced using an aqueous slurry and the slurry having specific characteristics is not required, as the limitations are being interpreted as a product-by-process claim limitation and in a product by process it is the product not the process which is given patentable weight. Further, Yamada teaches a neutralizing dispersant being applied to a negative electrode to suppress side reactions with the electrolyte and as evidenced by Woo it is known in the art that both positive and negative electrode experience side reactions with electrolyte solutions, therefore it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the neutralizing dispersant for the negative electrode as taught by Yamada to also be applied to the positive electrode to suppress side reactions with the electrolyte solution.
For clarity of record, the applicant stated in the Remarks filed 08/17/2026 that it was agreed to during the interview on 08/18/2026 that amending the claims to “a positive electrode” overcomes the cited and applied art. The Examiner would like to point to the Examiner Interview Summary Office Action mailed on 08/18/2026 the Examiner stated that the proposed amendment of “a positive electrode” does appear to overcome the current rejection of record, that being the Final-Rejection mailed on 06/15/2026.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS CALEB MARROQUIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5:00 EST.
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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at 571-270-7078. 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.
/DOUGLAS C MARROQUIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
