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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on February 24, 2026 have been received and entered. Claim 1 was amended to incorporate the limitations of claims 6 and 7, which were cancelled. Claim 8 was amended to correct its dependency. Claims 1-5 and 8 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Claim 1 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sawa et al. (JP 2018063942 A, see machine translation for citation).
The applicant arguments regarding claim 1 rejection can be seen on Remarks pages 5-10. First it is argued that that from Sawa [0075 and 0085], the range of the mass ratio of the specific compound (isocyanuric acid ester) to the fluorosulfonic acid salt of Sawa becomes from 0.05 to 8, even calculated from the respective narrowest range (i.e., 0.1~1.6/0.2~2.0, as emphasized above), and it is far broader than the claimed range 0.5 to 1.5. In addition it is argued that Sawa do not employ the fluorosulfonic acid salt in its examples, therefore failing to disclose an example falling within the claimed range.
Second, the criticality of the claimed range ensuring excellent characteristics of the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery is argued based on Table A which adds data for batteries E5, C6 and C7 to previously presented Table 1 [Specification p. 25]. The capacity retention rates (MR) were significantly high and the DCIR increase rates (∆DCIR) were significantly suppressed low for batteries E1-E5, as compared to the batteries C6 and C7 in which the second component/first component ratio was outside the claimed range.
Third, the applicant submits that Sawa also fails to disclose the composition of the lithium-transition metal composite oxide recited in claim 1 with sufficient specificity. Sawa states that "M is Mn, Al, Mg, Zr, Fe, Ti, or Er" (paragraph [0018]). Assuming two elements are selected among the above seven elements, 21 pairs of two elements can be created. Accordingly, the probability of selecting Mn and Al is 1/21. Furthermore, also in paragraph [0018], Sawa states that M is "[a]t least one element selected from the group consisting of'. Thus, there are as many as 127 possible combinations in total, as to selecting elements among the seven elements disclosed in Sawa. Further, in the specific examples in paragraph [0195] thereof, Sawa teaches as the positive electrode active material including Co and no Al with the composition of LiNi0.6Mn0.2Co0.2O2. As such, Sawa fails to teach the claimed lithium-transition metal composite oxide containing Ni, Mn, and Al with sufficient specificity. Furthermore, according to Table 1 of the instant specification (or Table A above), when the first and second components are used in combination, the cases where the active material included no Co such as LiNi0.92Mn0.03Al0.05O2 (e.g., E1-E4) clearly showed the tendencies being different from the cases where the active material included Co such as LiNi0.91Co0.04Al0.05O2 (e.g., C4 and C5).
Fourth, it is also argued that Sawa not only fails to disclose the claimed lithium-transition metal composite oxide with sufficient specificity, but also fails to teach the synergistic effects demonstrated by the claimed specific combination of the lithium-transition metal composite oxide with the first and second components for the cases where Co is present and where it is not (Table A). Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that it would be difficult for a skilled artisan to derive the claimed combination from the teachings of Sawa.
In response to the above arguments, first, from Sawa [0075 and 0085] the amount of specific compound (from which the isocyanuric acid ester can be obtained) in the nonaqueous electrolytic solution can be 0.1-1.6 % by mass, among other ranges, and the content of the fluorosulfate can be 0.2-2 % by mass, among other ranges. Taking the extreme values of both ranges the “mass ratio of the isocyanuric acid ester component to the fluorosulfonic acid component” would be 0.5-0.8, which overlaps the claimed range.
Second, the claimed range criticality does not commensurate in scope with the claims because the second component (TIC and DIC) and the first component (LiFSO3) are not defined on claim 1. Furthermore, it is argued that for batteries E1-E5, in which the second component/first component ratio was within the claimed range of 0.5 to 1.5, the capacity retention rates (MR) were significantly high and the DCIR increase rates (∆DCIR) were significantly suppressed low, as compared to the batteries C6 and C7 in which the second component/first component ratio was outside the claimed range (Remarks page 8), however for battery E4 the second component/first component ratio was 0, which also is outside of the claimed range, which implies another factor, additional to the claimed second component/first component ratio, having an effect on the capacity retention rates (MR) and the DCIR increase rates (∆DCIR).
Third, regarding the argued specificity of the lithium-transition metal composite oxide recited in claim 1, despite the possibilities or specific examples of Sawa, it is taught a lithium-transition metal composite oxide formula from which the claimed elements and amounts can be obtained [0018]. Furthermore, the argued tendencies for batteries E1-E4, not containing Co, and batteries C4-C5, containing Co, does not commensurate in scope with the claims because batteries E1-E4 and C5 employed a lithium-transition metal composite oxide including Nb and Sr, which is not defined on independent claim 1. Additionally, battery E4 do not employ a non-aqueous electrolyte “second component” and battery C4 do not employ Co and a “first and second component” for its non-aqueous electrolyte.
Fourth, regarding the argued synergistic effects demonstrated by the claimed specific combination of the lithium-transition metal composite oxide with the first and second components for the cases where Co is present and where it is not (Table A), there is no adequate basis for reasonably concluding that the great number and variety of compositions included in the claims would behave in the same manner as the tested composition. MPEP § 716.02(d)(I).
Applicant's arguments filed on February 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Upon further consideration, new ground of rejection is presented in view of Sawa et al. (JP 2018063942 A, see machine translation for citation).
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawa et al. (JP 2018063942 A, see machine translation for citation).
Regarding claim 1, Sawa teaches a power storage device (secondary battery) comprising a positive and negative electrode capable of occlude and release metal ions, and a nonaqueous electrolyte [0017]. The positive electrode is represented by Lia2Nib2Coc2Md2O2, where 0.90 ≤ a2 ≤ 1.10, 0.50 b2 ≤ 0.98, 0.01 ≤ c2 < 0.50, 0.01 ≤ d2 < 0.50, b2 + c2 + d2 = 1 and M is at least one element selected from the group consisting of: Mn, Al, Mg, Zr, Fe, Ti, or Er [0018]. From this description, if a2=1, b2=0.92, c2=0.04, d2=0.02 and M is selected to be Mn and Al, the following formula for the taught positive electrode is obtained LiNi0.92Co0.04Mn0.02Al0.02O2. Based on the obtained formula the limitations wherein “the positive electrode active material includes a lithium-transition metal composite oxide containing Ni, Mn, and Al, proportions of Ni, Mn, and Al in metal elements other than Li contained in the lithium- transition metal composite oxide are, respectively, Ni: 50 atm% or more, Mn: 10 atm% or less, and Al: 10 atm% or less”. Taking in consideration the metals other than Li, the Co content among all the metals is 0.04/1=0.04, which is less than 1.5 atm%.
Sawa further teaches that the nonaqueous electrolyte contains a compound represented by the following general formula (1) [0010]:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In formula (1) one of R1 to R3 may be the same as or different from each other, are substituted with an organic group [0012, 0051 and 0054]. Here, the organic group may be hydrogen and an allyl group, among other candidates [0055 and 0057]. From the previous description it is possible to obtain a “isocyanuric acid ester component having at least one unsaturated organic group with an unsaturated carbon- carbon bond.” The above specific compound, from which the “isocyanuric acid ester” is obtained can be contained in the nonaqueous electrolyte in a range of 0.1-1.6 % by mass, among other ranges [0075]. The nonaqueous electrolyte may additionally comprise a specific additive, which among other candidates, may be a fluorosulfate salt (fluorosulfonic acid salt) [0077 and 0084]. The employable content of the lithium fluorosulfate salt (fluorosulfonic acid salt) can be 0.2-2 % by mass, among other ranges [0075]. From the descriptions above, “a mass ratio of the isocyanuric acid ester component to the fluorosulfonic acid salt” would be between 0.5-0.8, which overlaps the claimed ratio.
Sawa is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, comprising: a positive electrode; a negative electrode; and a non-aqueous electrolyte, wherein the positive electrode includes a positive electrode active material, the positive electrode active material includes a lithium-transition metal composite oxide containing Ni, Mn, and Al, proportions of Ni, Mn, and Al in metal elements other than Li contained in the lithium- transition metal composite oxide are, respectively, Ni: 50 atm% or more, Mn: 10 atm% or less, and Al: 10 atm% or less, when the lithium-transition metal composite oxide contains Co, a content of Co in the metal elements other than Li is 1.5 atm% or less, and the non-aqueous electrolyte includes a fluorosulfonic acid salt and an isocyanuric acid ester component having at least one unsaturated organic group with an unsaturated carbon- carbon bond, where a mass ratio of the isocyanuric acid ester component to the fluorosulfonic acid salt overlaps the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the mass ratio of the isocyanuric acid ester component to the fluorosulfonic acid salt range disclosed by the Sawa because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 2, Sawa teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. From the general positive electrode formula (a) taught for claim 1, if a2=1, b2=0.92, c2=0.05, d2=0.01 and M is selected to be Mn, Al and Zr, the following formula for the taught positive electrode is obtained LiNi0.92Co0.05Mn0.01Al0.01Zr0.01O2. The formula obtained from Sawa’s teachings, can be obtained from LiαNi(1-x1-x2-y-z)Cox1Mnx2AlyMzO2+β if (1-x1-x2-y-z)=0.92, x1=0.05, x2=0.01, y=0.01, z=0.01, α=1, β=0 and M=Zr.
Regarding claim 3, Sawa teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 2. From the positive electrode formula obtained from Sawa’s teachings on claim 2, M can be selected as Mn, Al and Zr, from which the claimed limitation is met.
Regarding claim 4, Sawa teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Sawa further teaches lithium fluorosulfate and sodium fluorosulfate as examples of the fluorosulfate salt additives as presented for claim 1 [0083].
Regarding claim 5, Sawa teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Sawa further teaches that the content of the fluorosulfate (fluorosulfate salt included) is preferably 0.01% by mass or more and 2.5% by mass or less, among other ranges [0085].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the fluorosulfate (fluorosulfate salt included) content range disclosed by Sawa because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 8, Sawa teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. From claim 1 discussion if for the compound represented by general formula 1, if R1 to R3 are selected as an allyl group, triallyl isocyanurate is obtained. If R1 and R2 are selected as an allyl group, respectively, and R3 is selected as hydrogen, a diallyl isocyanurate is obtained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GILBERTO RAMOS RIVERA whose telephone number is (571) 272-2740. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00 pm.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/G.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights