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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 19th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed March 19th, 2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The 112(b) rejection of Claim 1 is maintained.
The rejections based over Takano et al. are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-9 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 1, Applicant recites, “the positive electrode active material has a property of having oil absorption amount of 22 to 29 mL/100 g of N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone per 100 g of the lithium transition metal composite oxide powder”. Its unclear if N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone is a component of the lithium transition metal composite oxide power. Appropriate action is required.
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). 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 that the oil absorption amount is “of N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone per 100 g of the lithium transition metal composite oxide powder”, the Examiner is treating it as a product by process claim. It has been shown that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (MPEP 2113).
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 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.
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 3, 5, and 7-8 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 Kaneko et al. (US 2023/0142602 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 Claims 3 & 5, Takano et al. and Tsunozaki et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claims 1-2. Modified Takano et al. does not disclose that the lithium transition metal composite oxide powder has a filling density of 1.65 to 2.20 Mg/m3 when compressed at 0.01 MPa.
Kaneko et al. discloses that the powder filling density of a cathode electrode active material is preferably 1.6 to 2.20 Mg/m3 (Paragraph 0025). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to have a powder filling density of 1.6 to 2.20 Mg/m3 as disclosed by Kaneko in modified Takano et al. lithium transition metal composite oxide powder as this is a preferred powder filling density of a lithium transition metal composite oxide powder.
In view of Claims 7-8, Takano et al., Tsunozaki et al., and Kaneko et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claims 3 & 5. Takano et al. teaches a positive electrode containing the positive electrode active material for a lithium-ion secondary battery (Fig. 2 & Paragraph 0113).
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). 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 that the oil absorption amount is “of N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone per 100 g of the lithium transition metal composite oxide powder”, the Examiner is treating it as a product by process claim. It has been shown that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (MPEP 2113).
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 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.
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.
Claims 3, 5, and 7-8 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 Kaneko et al. (US 2023/0142602 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 Claims 3 & 5, Takano et al. and Nagai are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claims 1-2. Modified Takano et al. does not disclose that the lithium transition metal composite oxide powder has a filling density of 1.65 to 2.20 Mg/m3 when compressed at 0.01 MPa.
Kaneko et al. discloses that the powder filling density of a cathode electrode active material is preferably 1.6 to 2.20 Mg/m3 (Paragraph 0025). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to have a powder filling density of 1.6 to 2.20 Mg/m3 as disclosed by Kaneko in modified Takano et al. lithium transition metal composite oxide powder as this is a preferred powder filling density of a lithium transition metal composite oxide powder.
In view of Claims 7-8, Takano et al., Tsunozaki et al., and Kaneko et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claims 3 & 5. Takano et al. teaches a positive electrode containing the positive electrode active material for a lithium-ion secondary battery (Fig. 2 & Paragraph 0113).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that since U.S. Patent No. 9,825,296 B2 recites “D is an oil feed amount of N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP) with respect to the active material measured by an oil feed amount measurement method (JIS K5101-13-1)” that claim 1 is definite in regards to the phrase, “the positive electrode active material has a property of having an oil absorption amount of 22 to 29 mL/100 g of N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone per 100 g of the lithium transition metal composite oxide powder”. The Examiner respectfully points out to Applicant that the phrasing of Claim 1 is not definite because its unclear if N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone is a component of the lithium transition metal composite oxide power. If N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone is not a component of the lithium transition metal composite oxide powder it is unclear how the oil absorption properties of a component not forming a part of the lithium transition metal composite oxide powder can further limit said powder. Accordingly, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Tsunozaki does not disclose the positive electrode active material has a property of having an oil absorption amount of 22 to 29 mL/100 g of N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone per 100 g of the lithium transition metal composite oxide powder. The Examiner respectfully points out to Applicant that while Tsunozaki et al. discloses an oil absorption amount of lithium transition metal composite oxide powder is 12 to 52 mL/100g (Paragraph 0157) and while it is true that Tsunozaki does not disclose that this is an oil absorption amount verified by a measuring process utilizing N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone per 100 g of the lithium transition metal composite oxide powder, it is also true that claim 1 is directed towards a product of “A positive electrode active material”. The phrase, “of N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone per 100 g of the lithium transition metal composite oxide powder” is being treated as a product-by-process limitation, as the limitation is directed towards the method in confirming the oil absorption amount of the positive electrode active material.
Applicant’s attention is directed to MPEP 2113, It has been shown that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that since Claim 1 has been amended such that X is now titanium that the results in the affidavit are now fully supported and that the claimed range could achieve superior technical effects. The previous affidavit asserted that the oil absorption amount of N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone per 100 g of the lithium transition metal composite oxide powder in the claimed range of 22 to 29 mL/100 g is unexpected because it achieves high charge/discharge capacity and has good charge/discharge cycle characteristics. The following response was supplied in the Final Office Action dated 12/19/2026.
The Examiner would respectfully direct Applicant’s attention to MPEP 716.02(c) II, “Expected beneficial results are evidence of obviousness of a claimed invention, just as unexpected results are evidence of unobviousness thereof." In re Gershon, 372 F.2d 535, 538, 152 USPQ 602, 604 (CCPA 1967). A key aspect in 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). Tsunozaki et al. additional discloses that to improve the cycle characteristics and rate characteristics are dependent on how effective it is to form a covering layer on a lithium containing composite oxide (Paragraph 0003). Additionally, 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).
Therefore, high charge/discharge capacity and good charge/discharge cycle characteristics would have been expected beneficial results based on the evidence of obviousness provided by Tsunozaki and Nagai. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
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