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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed July 27th, 2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The 112(b) of claims 1-9 is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The previous grounds for rejection relying on Kaneko et al. have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
New rejections follow.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano et al. (WO 2019/131779 A1) in view of Tsunozaki et al. (US 2014/0113193 A1) in view of Shizuka et al. (US 2010/0209771 A1). Citations below are made to Takano et al. (US 2020/0251733 A1) which corresponds to the national stage of this application, and is therefore a translation thereof.
In view of Claim 1, Takano et al. discloses a positive electrode active material for a lithium ion secondary battery comprising a lithium transition metal composite oxide powder represented by compositional formula (1) (Paragraph 0015 – Li1+aNixCoyM11-x-y-zM2zO2+a), where M1 corresponds to M and M2 corresponds to X, while satisfying -0.1<a<0.1, 0.8<b<1.0, 0<c<0.2, 0<d<0.2, 0<e<0.05, b+c+d+e=1, and-0.2<a<0.2, while secondary particles in which a plurality of primary particles are aggregated (Paragraph 0015), a sphericity represented by a ratio A/B of a short axis A and a long axis B of the secondary particles is 1.0 from an SEM image (Paragraph 0045 – measurements based on SEM, Paragraph 0046 – aspect ratio of 1.0). Takano et al. teaches that M1 is selected from Mn and Aluminum (Paragraph 0016 – M is selected from Mn and Al) and X is selected as Ti (Paragraph 0016 – M2 is at least one element selected from the group consisting of…Ti).
Tsunozaki et al. discloses an oil absorption amount of lithium transition metal composite oxide powder is 12 to 52 mL/100g (Paragraph 0157) and that configuration results in a more uniform covering layer that makes filtration unnecessary, improving productivity and that this makes the stirring more easily conducted (Paragraph 0069). Tsunozaki et al. teaches that this configuration has high initial capacity and a high initial charge and discharge efficiency and has excellent cycle retention rate (Paragraph 0155-0156 – the covering layer comprises the lithium transition metal composite oxide powder that’s using a specific oil absorption amount). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the oil absorption amount be in the range of 12 to 52 mL/100g as disclosed by Tsunozaki et al. in Takano et al. lithium transition metal composite oxide powder for the advantages of having a configuration of a lithium transition metal composite oxide powder that results in a more uniform covering layer that makes filtration unnecessary, improving productivity and that this makes the stirring more easily conducted and with high initial capacity and a high initial charge and discharge efficiency and has excellent cycle retention rate.
In regards to the limitation, “the lithium transition metal composite oxide powder has an oil absorption amount of 22 to 29 mL/100 g”, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 I. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ranged disclosed by Tsunozaki et al. because selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
Takano et al. does not teach that the lithium transition metal composite oxide powder has a powder filling density of 1.75 to 2.20 Mg/m3 when compressed at 0.01 MPa.
Shizuka et al. discloses a lithium transition metal composite oxide powder with a powder filling density of 1.7 to 2.2 Mg/m3 when compressed at 0.01 MPa (Paragraph 0271-0272). Shizuka et al. teaches that a bulk density exceeding this upper limit is preferable for improving the powder filling property and the electrode density but the specific surface area may decrease and the number of voids in the particles may decrease excessively, possibly resulting in degradation of battery performance. When the bulk density is lower than the lower limit, the powder filling property and the electrode preparation may be adversely affected (Paragraph 0271). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the lithium transition metal composite oxide powder of modified Takano et al. with a powder filling density of 1.7 to 2.2 Mg/m3 because a bulk density exceeding this upper limit is preferable for improving the powder filling property and the electrode density but the specific surface area may decrease and the number of voids in the particles may decrease excessively, possibly resulting in degradation of battery performance. When the bulk density is lower than the lower limit, the powder filling property and the electrode preparation may be adversely affected.
In view of Claim 2, Takano et al. and Tsunozaki et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Takano et al. teaches that the lithium transition metal composite oxide powder has a specific surface area of 0.6 m2/g or less (Paragraph 0010), and can have an average particle size of 5 to 25 microns (Paragraph 0067).
In view of Claim 4, Takano et al. and Tsunozaki et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Takano et al. teaches a positive electrode containing the positive electrode active material for a lithium ion secondary battery (Fig. 2 & Paragraph 0113).
In view of Claim 6, Takano et al. and Tsunozaki et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 2. Takano et al. teaches a positive electrode containing the positive electrode active material for a lithium ion secondary battery (Fig. 2 & Paragraph 0113).
In view of Claim 9, Takano et al. and Tsunozaki et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. In regards to the limitation, “an oil absorption amount of N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone per 100 g of the lithium transition metal composite oxide powder is 23 to 29 mL/100 g”, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 I. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ranged disclosed by Tsunozaki et al. because selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano et al. (WO 2019/131779 A1) in view of Nagai (US 2013/0209888 A1) in view of Shizuka et al. (US 2010/0209771 A1). Citations below are made to Takano et al. (US 2020/0251733 A1) which corresponds to the national stage of this application, and is therefore a translation thereof.
In view of Claim 1, Takano et al. discloses a positive electrode active material for a lithium ion secondary battery comprising a lithium transition metal composite oxide powder represented by compositional formula (1) (Paragraph 0015 – Li1+aNxCoyM11-x-yM2zO2+a), where M1 corresponds to M and M2 corresponds to X, while satisfying -0.1<a<0.1, 0.8<b<1.0, 0<c<0.2, 0<d<0.2, 0<e<0.05, b+c+d+e=1, and-0.2<a<0.2, while secondary particles in which a plurality of primary particles are aggregated (Paragraph 0015), a sphericity represented by a ratio A/B of a short axis A and a long axis B of the secondary particles is 1.0 from an SEM image (Paragraph 0045 – measurements based on SEM, Paragraph 0046 – aspect ratio of 1.0).
Nagai discloses that when positive electrode active material has oil absorption between 20 to 40 mL/100 g that high rate cycle characteristics or low rate cycle characteristics were increased (Paragraph 0197). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have an oil absorption between 20 to 40 mL/100 g as disclosed by Nagai in Takano et al. lithium transition metal composite oxide powder for the advantage of having increased high rate cycle characteristics and increased low rate cycle characteristics.
In regards to the limitation, “the lithium transition metal composite oxide powder has an oil absorption amount of 22 to 29 mL/100 g”, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 I. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ranged disclosed by Tsunozaki et al. because selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
Takano et al. does not teach that the lithium transition metal composite oxide powder has a powder filling density of 1.75 to 2.20 Mg/m3 when compressed at 0.01 MPa.
Shizuka et al. discloses a lithium transition metal composite oxide powder with a powder filling density of 1.7 to 2.2 Mg/m3 when compressed at 0.01 MPa (Paragraph 0271-0272). Shizuka et al. teaches that a bulk density exceeding this upper limit is preferable for improving the powder filling property and the electrode density but the specific surface area may decrease and the number of voids in the particles may decrease excessively, possibly resulting in degradation of battery performance. When the bulk density is lower than the lower limit, the powder filling property and the electrode preparation may be adversely affected (Paragraph 0271). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the lithium transition metal composite oxide powder of modified Takano et al. with a powder filling density of 1.7 to 2.2 Mg/m3 because a bulk density exceeding this upper limit is preferable for improving the powder filling property and the electrode density but the specific surface area may decrease and the number of voids in the particles may decrease excessively, possibly resulting in degradation of battery performance. When the bulk density is lower than the lower limit, the powder filling property and the electrode preparation may be adversely affected.
In view of Claim 2, Takano et al. and Nagai are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Takano et al. teaches that the lithium transition metal composite oxide powder has a specific surface area of 0.6 m2/g or less (Paragraph 0010), and can have an average particle size of 5 to 25 microns (Paragraph 0067).
In view of Claim 4, Takano et al. and Nagai are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Takano et al. teaches a positive electrode containing the positive electrode active material for a lithium ion secondary battery (Fig. 2 & Paragraph 0113).
In view of Claim 6, Takano et al. and Nagai are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 2. Takano et al. teaches a positive electrode containing the positive electrode active material for a lithium ion secondary battery (Fig. 2 & Paragraph 0113).
In view of Claim 9, Takano et al. and Nagai are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. In regards to the limitation, “an oil absorption amount of N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone per 100 g of the lithium transition metal composite oxide powder is 23 to 29 mL/100 g”, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 I. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ranged disclosed by Tsunozaki et al. because selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new grounds for rejection being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P MALLEY JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-1638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm 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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at 571-272-1307. 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.
/DANIEL P MALLEY JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights