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 .
Summary
Applicant’s remarks and claim amendments submitted April 2, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently, claims 1-6, 8, 10, 14, and 20 are canceled, claims 7, 9, 11-13, 17-19, and 21 are amended, resulting in claims 7, 9, 11-13, 15-19, and 21 pending for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 21, claim 1 recites the phrase “one of particles” in lines 12, 14, 16, 19, 20, 23, 24, 27, 28, 31, and 32. It is suggested that this phrase be amended to “one of the particles”
Appropriate correction 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 7, 9, 11-13, 15-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kita (US 2007/0224505 A1) in view of Hirohashi (US 2012/0328951 A1) and Morita (US 2011/0059367 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 11, Example 1 of Kita teaches a secondary battery comprising a positive and a negative electrode (Kita [122]), wherein the positive electrode comprises:
a first particle with a particle diameter greater than or equal to 15 µm (Kita Example 1, positive electrode active material (A), 18 µm)
a third particle with a particle diameter greater than or equal to 50 nm and less than or equal to 8 µm (Kita Example 1, positive electrode active material (C), 1 µm)
a second particle with a particle diameter greater than the particle diameter of the third particle and less than the particle diameter of the first particle (Kita Example 1, positive electrode active material (B), 5 µm)
wherein the first particle comprises lithium, cobalt, magnesium, and oxygen (Kita Example 1, positive electrode active material (A))
wherein the second particle comprises lithium, cobalt, magnesium, and oxygen (Kita Example 1, positive electrode active material (B))
wherein the third particle comprises lithium, cobalt, and oxygen (Kita Example 1, positive electrode active material (C))
Example 1 of Kita teaches that the positive electrode includes a carbonaceous material as a conductive aid (Kita [113]). Kita teaches that the conductive acid can be “graphite, carbon black, acetylene black, etc.” (Kita [66]). Kita does not explicitly recite what the carbonaceous material is in Example 1 and does not explicitly teach the addition of graphene to the positive electrode.
However, Hirohashi teaches a graphene compound comprising a vacancy formed of a nine- or more-membered ring of carbon, which satisfies the limitation of “a seven- or more-membered ring of carbon” recited in instant claim 11, (Hirohashi claim 4) that has high conductivity and is permeable to lithium ions (Hirohashi [2]). Hirohashi further teaches the graphene compound is used in a lithium-ion secondary battery (Hirohashi [2]). Hirohashi teaches that “ions of lithium or the like can be preferably made to pass; thus, a power storage device with excellent charging and discharging characteristics can be provided” as a result of using the graphene compound (Hirohashi abstract). Hirohashi further teaches that the graphene may have a plurality of these vacancies (“may have one or more holes”, Hirohashi [11]).
Since Kita and Hirohashi both teach secondary batteries, Kita teaches that adding a conductive aid is suitable, and Hirohashi teaches that graphene comprising a vacancy formed of a nine-or more-membered ring exhibits high conductivity and is permeable to lithium ions and can be used in electrodes, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the graphene compound of Hirohashi to Kita in order to obtain a secondary battery with performance suitable for a desired battery application.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a graphene compound having a plurality of nine-or more-membered rings of carbon, as taught by Hirohashi, in order to achieve the predictable result of a positive electrode comprising a conductive additive that allows for lithium ion permeation.
Example 1 of Kita does not teach a concentration of the magnesium being higher in a surface portion than in an inner portion in the first particle and the second particle. Example 1 of Kita teaches that the first and second particles exhibit no difference in concentration between the surface portion and the core portion (Kita [116]).
Kita teaches that the Mg (metal element M2) partially substitutes transition metal elements (Kita [14]). Morita teaches doping a lithium metal transition oxide with Mg such that the concentration of Mg is highest at the surface of the particle and has a concentration gradient toward the center of the particle (Morita [75-76]), which “produces a high synergistic effect or a novel effect on enhancement of cell characteristics” (Morita [62]) and stabilizes “the interface between the positive electrode active material and the electrolytic solution” (Morita [122]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tune the Mg concentration such that the Mg concentration is higher in a surface portion than in an inner portion in the first particle, the second particle, and the third particle in order to improve battery performance.
Example 1 of Kita does not teach the concentration of magnesium in the surface portion of the first particle being higher than the concentration of magnesium in the surface portion of the second particle. Kita teaches that the first particle (positive electrode active material (A)) had a lower content of Mg than the second particle (positive electrode active material (B)) (Kita Example 1). However, Kita teaches that their invention is not limited to the second particle having a higher Mg content (M2 content) than the first particle, and the first particle having a higher Mg content than the second particle is also suitable (“the former may contain a larger amount of the element M2 than the latter, and vise versa”, Kita [57]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the content of Mg be higher in the first particle compared to the second particle in the secondary battery of Kita since Kita teaches that both configurations of Mg content (first particle having higher Mg content or second particle having higher Mg content, relative to each other) are suitable.
Kita further teaches the third particle comprising magnesium (Kita Example 1, positive electrode active material (C)). Kita does not teach the concentration of the magnesium in the surface portion of the second particle being higher than a concentration of magnesium in a surface portion of the third particle.
As described above, Kita is open to alternative concentrations of Mg in different particles (first, second, or third) relative to each other. Additionally, there exists a finite number of predictable solutions or configurations of the relationship between the Mg concentrations of the second and third particles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try having the concentration of Mg in the surface portion of the second particle be higher than a concentration of Mg in a surface portion of the third particle with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Regarding claim 12, Kita in view of Hirohashi and Morita teaches all features of claim 7, as described above. Kita further teaches the first particle comprising titanium (Kita Example 1, positive electrode active material (A)).
Regarding claim 13, Kita in view of Hirohashi and Morita teaches all features of claim 7, as described above. Kita further teaches the second particle comprising titanium (Kita Example 1, positive electrode active material (B)).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Kita in view of Hirohashi and Morita teaches all features of claim 7, as described above. Kita does not expressly teach an embodiment wherein the secondary battery of Example 1 is used in an electronic device or a vehicle. However, Kita teaches that their inventive secondary batteries can be used in electronic device and vehicles and exhibit high voltage, high capacity, and high safety (Kita [110]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the secondary battery of Kita Example 1 in an electronic device or a vehicle to achieve the predictable result of an electronic device or vehicle comprising a secondary battery with high voltage, high capacity, and high safety.
Regarding claims 9 and 17, Example 1 of Kita teaches a secondary battery comprising a positive and a negative electrode (Kita [122]), wherein the positive electrode comprises:
a first particle with a particle diameter greater than or equal to 15 µm (Kita Example 1, positive electrode active material (A), 18 µm)
a third particle with a particle diameter greater than or equal to 50 nm and less than or equal to 8 µm (Kita Example 1, positive electrode active material (C), 1 µm)
a second particle with a particle diameter greater than the particle diameter of the third particle and less than the particle diameter of the first particle (Kita Example 1, positive electrode active material (B), 5 µm)
wherein the first particle comprises lithium, cobalt, aluminum, and oxygen (Kita Example 1, positive electrode active material (A))
wherein the second particle comprises lithium, cobalt, aluminum, and oxygen (Kita Example 1, positive electrode active material (B))
wherein the third particle comprises lithium, cobalt, and oxygen (Kita Example 1, positive electrode active material (C))
Example 1 of Kita teaches that the positive electrode includes a carbonaceous material as a conductive aid (Kita [113]). Kita teaches that the conductive acid can be “graphite, carbon black, acetylene black, etc.” (Kita [66]). Kita does not explicitly recite what the carbonaceous material is in Example 1 and does not explicitly teach the addition of graphene to the positive electrode.
However, Hirohashi teaches a graphene compound comprising a vacancy formed of a nine- or more-membered ring of carbon, which satisfies the limitation of “a seven- or more-membered ring of carbon” recited in instant claim 17, (Hirohashi claim 4) that has high conductivity and is permeable to lithium ions (Hirohashi [2]). Hirohashi further teaches the graphene compound is used in a lithium-ion secondary battery (Hirohashi [2]). Hirohashi teaches that “ions of lithium or the like can be preferably made to pass; thus, a power storage device with excellent charging and discharging characteristics can be provided” as a result of using the graphene compound (Hirohashi abstract).
Since Kita and Hirohashi both teach secondary batteries, Kita teaches that adding a conductive aid is suitable, and Hirohashi teaches that graphene comprising a vacancy formed of a nine-or more-membered ring exhibits high conductivity and is permeable to lithium ions and can be used in electrodes, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the graphene compound of Hirohashi to Kita in order to obtain a secondary battery with performance suitable for a desired battery application.
Example 1 of Kita does not teach a concentration of the magnesium being higher in a surface portion than in an inner portion in the first particle and the second particle. Example 1 of Kita teaches that the first and second particles exhibit no difference in concentration between the surface portion and the core portion (Kita [116]).
Kita teaches that the Al (metal element M2) partially substitutes transition metal elements (Kita [14]). Morita teaches doping a lithium metal transition oxide with Al such that the concentration of Al is highest at the surface of the particle and has a concentration gradient toward the center of the particle (Morita [75-76]), which “produces a high synergistic effect or a novel effect on enhancement of cell characteristics” (Morita [62]) and stabilizes “the interface between the positive electrode active material and the electrolytic solution” (Morita [122]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tune the Al concentration such that the Al concentration is higher in a surface portion than in an inner portion in the first particle, the second particle, and the third particle in order to improve battery performance.
Example 1 of Kita does not teach the concentration of aluminum in the surface portion of the first particle being higher than the concentration of aluminum in the surface portion of the second particle.
Kita teaches that the first particle (positive electrode active material (A)) had a lower content of Al than the second particle (positive electrode active material (B)) (Kita Example 1). However, Kita teaches that their invention is not limited to the second particle having a higher Al content (M2 content) than the first particle, and the first particle having a higher Al content than the second particle is also suitable (“the former may contain a larger amount of the element M2 than the latter, and vise versa”, Kita [57]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the content of Al be higher in the first particle compared to the second particle in the secondary battery of Kita since Kita teaches that both configurations of Al content (first particle having higher Al content or second particle having higher Al content, relative to each other) are suitable.
Kita further teaches the third particle comprising aluminum (Kita Example 1, positive electrode active material (C)). Kita does not teach the concentration of the aluminum in the surface portion of the second particle being higher than a concentration of aluminum in a surface portion of the third particle.
As described above for claim 9, Kita is open to alternative concentrations of Al in different particles (first, second, or third) relative to each other. Additionally, there exists a finite number of predictable solutions or configurations of the relationship between the Al concentrations of the second and third particles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try having the concentration of Al in the surface portion of the second particle be higher than a concentration of Al in a surface portion of the third particle with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Regarding claim 18, Kita in view of Hirohashi and Morita teaches all features of claim 9, as described above. Kita further teaches the first particle comprising titanium (Kita Example 1, positive electrode active material (A)).
Regarding claim 19, Kita in view of Hirohashi and Morita teaches all features of claim 9, as described above. Kita further teaches the second particle comprising titanium (Kita Example 1, positive electrode active material (B)).
Regarding claim 21, Example 1 of Kita teaches a secondary battery comprising a positive and a negative electrode (Kita [122]), wherein the positive electrode comprises:
a first particle group
a third particle group wherein a median diameter of the third particle group is less than or equal to 10 µm (Kita Example 1, positive electrode active material (C), 1 µm)
a second particle group wherein a median diameter of the second particle group greater than the median diameter of the third particle group and less than the median diameter of the first particle group (Kita Example 1, positive electrode active material (B), 5 µm)
wherein one of the particles belonging to the first particle group comprises lithium, cobalt, magnesium, and oxygen (Kita Example 1, positive electrode active material (A))
wherein one of the particles belonging to the second particle group comprises lithium, cobalt, magnesium, and oxygen (Kita Example 1, positive electrode active material (B))
wherein one of the particles belonging to the third particle group comprises lithium, cobalt, magnesium, and oxygen (Kita Example 1, positive electrode active material (C))
The median diameter of the first particle group in Kita Example 1 is not greater than or equal to 20 µm (Kita Example 1, positive electrode active material (A), 18 µm).
However, Kita teaches the median diameter of the first particle group is 11 µm or more (Kita [27]). The median diameter range of Kita substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 21. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Kita, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Example 1 of Kita teaches that the positive electrode includes a carbonaceous material as a conductive aid (Kita [113]). Kita teaches that the conductive acid can be “graphite, carbon black, acetylene black, etc.” (Kita [66]). Kita does not explicitly recite what the carbonaceous material is in Example 1 and does not explicitly teach the addition of graphene to the positive electrode.
However, Hirohashi teaches a graphene compound comprising a vacancy formed of a nine- or more-membered ring of carbon, which satisfies the limitation of “a seven- or more-membered ring of carbon” recited in instant claim 11, (Hirohashi claim 4) that has high conductivity and is permeable to lithium ions (Hirohashi [2]). Hirohashi further teaches the graphene compound is used in a lithium-ion secondary battery (Hirohashi [2]). Hirohashi teaches that “ions of lithium or the like can be preferably made to pass; thus, a power storage device with excellent charging and discharging characteristics can be provided” as a result of using the graphene compound (Hirohashi abstract). Hirohashi further teaches that the graphene may have a plurality of these vacancies (“may have one or more holes”, Hirohashi [11]).
Since Kita and Hirohashi both teach secondary batteries, Kita teaches that adding a conductive aid is suitable, and Hirohashi teaches that graphene comprising a vacancy formed of a nine-or more-membered ring exhibits high conductivity and is permeable to lithium ions and can be used in electrodes, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the graphene compound of Hirohashi to Kita in order to obtain a secondary battery with performance suitable for a desired battery application.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a graphene compound having a plurality of nine-or more-membered rings of carbon, as taught by Hirohashi, in order to achieve the predictable result of a positive electrode comprising a conductive additive that allows for lithium ion permeation.
Example 1 of Kita does not teach a concentration of the magnesium being higher in a surface portion than in an inner portion in the one of the first particle group and the one of the second particle group. Example 1 of Kita teaches that the first and second particles exhibit no difference in concentration between the surface portion and the core portion (Kita [116]).
Kita teaches that the Mg (metal element M2) partially substitutes transition metal elements (Kita [14]). Morita teaches doping a lithium metal transition oxide with Mg such that the concentration of Mg is highest at the surface of the particle and has a concentration gradient toward the center of the particle (Morita [75-76]), which “produces a high synergistic effect or a novel effect on enhancement of cell characteristics” (Morita [62]) and stabilizes “the interface between the positive electrode active material and the electrolytic solution” (Morita [122]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tune the Mg concentration such that the Mg concentration is higher in a surface portion than in an inner portion in the first particle, the second particle, and the third particle in order to improve battery performance.
Example 1 of Kita does not teach the concentration of magnesium in the surface portion of the one of the first particle group being higher than the concentration of magnesium in the surface portion of the one of the second particle group. Kita teaches that the first particle (positive electrode active material (A)) had a lower content of Mg than the second particle (positive electrode active material (B)) (Kita Example 1). However, Kita teaches that their invention is not limited to the second particle having a higher Mg content (M2 content) than the first particle, and the first particle having a higher Mg content than the second particle is also suitable (“the former may contain a larger amount of the element M2 than the latter, and vise versa”, Kita [57]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the content of Mg be higher in the first particle compared to the second particle in the secondary battery of Kita since Kita teaches that both configurations of Mg content (first particle having higher Mg content or second particle having higher Mg content, relative to each other) are suitable.
Kita does not teach the concentration of the magnesium in the surface portion of the one of the second particle group being higher than a concentration of magnesium in a surface portion of the one of the third particle group.
As described above, Kita is open to alternative concentrations of Mg in different particles (first, second, or third) relative to each other. Additionally, there exists a finite number of predictable solutions or configurations of the relationship between the Mg concentrations of the second and third particles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try having the concentration of Mg in the surface portion of the second particle be higher than a concentration of Mg in a surface portion of the third particle with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Response to Arguments
Response – Specification Objections
The objections to the abstract are overcome by applicant’s amendments to the abstract in the response received on April 2, 2026. The objections to the abstract are withdrawn.
Response – Claim Objections
The objections to claims 11-13, 17-19, and 21 due to informalities are overcome by applicant’s amendments to claims 11-13, 17-19, and 21 in the response received on April 2, 2026. The objections to claims 11-13, 17-19, and 21 are withdrawn.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 112
The rejections of claims 14 and 20 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 are overcome due to applicant’s cancelation of claims 14 and 20 in the response received April 2, 2026. These rejections of claims 14 and 20 are withdrawn.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 103
The rejections of claims 14 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kita in view of Hirohashi and Morita and in further view of Sun are overcome and withdrawn due to applicant’s cancelation of claims 14 and 20 in the response received April 2, 2026.
Applicant’s arguments filed April 2, 2026 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On page 10 of the response, Applicant appears to allege that Kita teaches against the surface magnesium concentration of the third particle being less than that of the second particle and references paragraphs [0054-0057] of Kita.
Per MPEP 2123 (II), “Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. Additionally, as described above, Kita is open to alternative concentrations of Mg in the different particles.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kita-1 (US 2007/0224504 A1): appears to disclose a secondary battery wherein the positive electrode comprises two or more lithium transition metal oxides having different particle sizes.
Abe (US 2019/0356014 A1): appears to disclose a secondary battery including positive electrode active materials with different diameters ([89]).
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 JULIA S CASERTO whose telephone number is (571)272-5114. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5 pm ET.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/J.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights