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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of species Al in the reply filed on Dec. 4, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “the listed candidates for the M element all have the function of improving the stability of … sulfur and phosphorus.” This is not found persuasive because the requirement of unity of invention is not fulfilled due to lack of the same or corresponding specifical technical features among those species (the species have different chemical compositions and structures, even if all species have the same function as alleged by Applicant).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on Mar. 30, 2023, and Jun. 10 and Sep. 12, 2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3 and 11 are objected to because of the following:
Claims 1 and 11 recite “the lithium-containing composite oxide including a central portion”. According to the specification, however, it does appear that the lithium-containing composite oxide itself is a central portion, which is covered by a surface layer. The said surface layer does not belong to the lithium-containing composite oxide.
In claim 3, the “2 to 7 mol%” should read “2 mol% to 7 mol%”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 6 is 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.
It is unclear as to the unit for “concentration” recited in claim 6, which renders the claim indefinite. For purposes of examination, the said unit is being interpreted as referring to “mole” or “atm%”.
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 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 10-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami et al. (US 20160268586 A1, hereafter Kawakami).
Regarding claim 1, Kawakami teaches a secondary battery comprising a power generating element (“solid state battery”, see, e.g., Title and [0073]), the power generating element comprising:
a positive electrode (“cathode”) which includes a positive electrode active material layer ([0073]) containing a positive electrode active material (“cathode active material”, [0037], [0074]) composed of a lithium-containing composite oxide (e.g., represented by LiNi1/2Mn1/2O2, [0038]), a solid electrolyte layer ([0073]) which contains a sulfide solid electrolyte containing sulfur and phosphorus (e.g., Li2S-P2S5, [0076]), and a negative electrode (“anode”) which includes a negative electrode active material layer (“anode active material layer”, [0073]) containing a negative electrode active material ([0078]), wherein the positive electrode, the solid electrolyte layer, and the negative electrode are laminated in this order ([0073]).
Kawakami further teaches the lithium-containing composite oxide as a central portion is covered by a coating of LixPOy ([0036]). The central portion may have a composition represented by LiNi1/2Mn1/2O2 ([0038]), which reads on the chemical formula (1) as instantly claimed when y=0 and p=0. The coating of LixPOy reads on the surface layer region as claimed and contains element P as instantly claimed.
Kawakami further teaches element P is present in a molar concentration larger than that of Ni in a surface layer region (i.e., a coating of LixPOy, mentioned above) having a depth within 100 nm from a surface of a particle of the lithium-containing composite oxide (Fig. 3A, and [0060]-[0063]). Kawakami teaches that Ni is present in the surface layer region (“… to diffuse the Ni element into the coating material”, see at least Abstract, [0047], etc.).
Regarding claims 3 and 5-6, Kawakami teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1, and further teaches changing temperature can change the amount of Ni diffused into the surface layer region (“coating”, [0049]). Thus, temperature is a result-effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have readily adjusted temperature to arrive at the claimed amounts of Ni in the surface layer region in claims 3 and 5. Further, since the amount of Ni in the surface layer region is adjustable, the molar ratio of O to Ni can be accordingly adjusted to arrive at different values including the range as claimed in claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Kawakami teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the lithium-containing composite oxide is in a form of primary particle (See Fig. 1), and an average particle size (D50) of the lithium-containing composite oxide may be in the range of 0.1 µm to 50 µm ([0040]). The claimed range of 10 µm or less overlaps the range of 0.1 µm to 50 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 10, Kawakami teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the secondary battery is an all solid lithium-ion secondary battery formed of a cathode active material layer, and anode active material layer and a solid electrolyte layer formed between the cathode active material layer and the anode active material layer ([0073]).
Regarding claim 11, Kawakami teaches a positive electrode active material for a secondary battery comprising a lithium-containing composite oxide as a central portion and a surface layer region coated on the lithium-containing composite oxide (See, at least, Fig. 1, Title and Abstract).
Kawakami teaches the lithium-containing composite oxide has a composition represented by LiNi1/2Mn1/2O2 ([0038]), which reads on the chemical formula (1) as instantly claimed when y=0 and p=0. Kawakami teaches the surface layer region is a coating of LixPOy ([0036]), which contains element P as instantly claimed.
Kawakami further teaches element P is present in a molar concentration larger than that of Ni in a surface layer region (i.e., a coating of LixPOy, mentioned above) having a depth within 100 nm from a surface of a particle of the lithium-containing composite oxide (Fig. 3A, and [0060]-[0063]). Kawakami teaches that Ni is present in the surface layer region (“… to diffuse the Ni element into the coating material”, see at least Abstract, [0047], etc.).
Regarding claim 13, Kawakami teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1, and further teaches changing temperature can change the amount of Ni diffused into the surface layer region (“coating”, [0049]). Thus, temperature is a result-effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have readily adjusted temperature to arrive at the claimed amounts of Ni in the surface layer region in claim 13.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ryoshi et al. (US 20200313180 A1, hereafter Ryoshi).
Regarding claim 4, Kawakami teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1, but is silent to B as the added element.
Ryoshi discloses that by coating a surface of a lithium-containing composite oxide with Li3BO3 can suppress a deterioration of battery characteristics (“an increase in reaction of a positive electrode and a decrease in battery capacity”, [0015]) “due to the atmosphere” ([0015]-[0019]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have used Li3BO3 coating taught by Ryoshi as an alternative to the coating of Kawakami in order to suppress a deterioration of battery charactersitics.
Claims 8 and 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cho et al. (US 20150228969 A1, hereafter Cho).
Regarding claim 8, Kawakami teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1, but is silent as to the instantly claimed ratio of the content of the positive electrode active material.
However, adjusting the said ratio involves merely ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. For example, Cho discloses that a solid content of a positive active material has a weight ratio of 92% (i.e., 92/(92+4+4)=92%, [0101]). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily adjusted amounts of various components in the positive electrode of Kawakami, as taught by Cho, to arrive at the solid content ratio as instantly claimed through routine experimentations.
Regarding claim 9, Kawakami teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1, but is silent to the lithium-containing composite oxide having a molar fraction of Ni as instantly claimed.
In the same field of endeavor, however, Cho discloses that a lithium-containing composite oxide represented by the formula recited in [0059] and having a high molar fraction of Ni being equal to or greater than 60 mol% and equal to or less than 90 mol% (equivalent to 0.6≤x≤0.9 as instantly claimed) ([0057]-[0058]) not only has a low cost but also benefits for high capacity ([0057]). Kawakami discloses that the cathode (positive electrode) active material is not particularly limited ([0038]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have employed a lithium-containing composite oxide having a high molar fraction of Ni being equal to or greater than 60 mol% and equal to or less than 90 mol% taught by Cho as an alternative to the lithium-containing composite oxide of Kawakami, in order to achieve high capacity.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHONGQING WEI whose telephone number is (571)272-4809. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ZHONGQING WEI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727