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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasumiishi et al (2018/0277838).
Yashmiishi et al disclose a secondary battery comprising a cathode, an anode, and a non-aqueous electrolyte (instant claims 4 and 5; abstract, claims 5 and 6), wherein the cathode active material comprises an inorganic particle having a structure similar to that of the instant formula 1, having a carbonaceous film covering the surface of the particles.
PNG
media_image1.png
74
390
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the formula, y can be zero, and x 0.05 to 1, with the moles of Mn being 1-x-y, which would all fall within the scope of the instant claim 1.
Regarding the pore specific surface area, the reference teaches a volume of micropores is adjusted by the calcination temperature and time, which is preferably within the range of 550 o C to 750 o C, and does not provide a range of time ([0052], [0053]), but does use a three hours and 15 hours in examples, with comparative examples at 10 and 30 minutes, with a change of 5%, and a degree of change at a temperature 25 o C higher for three hours having only an additional 5% change over the comparative examples (see Table 1, Comparative examples 1 and 2 at 525 o C for 10 and 30 minutes, and example 1 at 550 o C for three hours). Furthermore, when the time is held constant, and the temperature adjusted, the percentage increase is also 5% (see examples 2 to 4).
The reference teaches that the temperature is 500 o C or higher, preferably 600 o C or higher, and 900 o C or lower for a time of 0.1 hours or longer, to 40 hours or lower, with examples at 800 o C for 30 minutes ([0074], [0076]). When the temperature is within this range, the organic compound is sufficiently carbonized and the charge and discharge rate performance is improved. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected at a temperature within the range at the high end as in the examples, that a time within a range less than three hours would likely meet the claim limitations absent evidence to the contrary.
Alternatively, given the range taught by the reference, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to prepare the material at a high temperature, and at a time within the three to 15 hour range through routine experimentation and optimization of the carbon material and its micropores to achieve a desired charge/ discharge rate property, with the resultant material meeting the limitations of the instant claims 1-3.
The density is taught by the instant specification to be affected and achieved by controlling the pressure of the press during compression molding (0054]). While the reference fails to provide specific pressure measurements, the specification teaches that the pressure is adjusted generally, to achieve the desired density (examples), therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed density through routine experimentation and optimization of the positive active material to achieve preferred diffusibility and adhesive properties (the reference does employ a press to prepare the positive electrode in examples).
Given the teachings of the reference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare the material of Yamiishi et al, choosing at the material, that having a formula as claimed, wherein y is 0. The resultant material and device would also meet the limitations of the instant claims.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroshi et al (JP 2017-069177 and its machine translation).
Hiroshi et al disclose a secondary battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a non-aqueous electrolyte (instant claims 4 and 5; abstract, [0043], claims), wherein the cathode active material comprises an inorganic particle having a structure similar to that of the instant formula 1, having a carbonaceous film covering the surface of the particles.
PNG
media_image2.png
84
524
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In the formula, y can be zero, and x 0.05 to 1, with the moles of Mn being 1-x-y, which would all fall within the scope of the instant claim 1.
Regarding the pore specific surface area, the reference teaches a volume of micropores is adjusted by the calcination temperature and time, which is preferably within the range of 550 o C to 750 o C, and does not provide a range of time ([0052], [0053]), but does use a three hours and 15 hours in examples, with comparative examples at 10 and 30 minutes, with a change of 5%, and a degree of change at a temperature 25 o C higher for three hours having only an additional 5% change over the comparative examples (see Table 1, Comparative examples 1 and 2 at 525 o C for 10 and 30 minutes, and example 1 at 550 o C for three hours). Furthermore, when the time is held constant, and the temperature adjusted, the percentage increase is also 5% (see examples 2 to 4).
The reference teaches that the temperature is 500 o C or higher, preferably 600 o C or higher, and 900 o C or lower for a time of 0.1 hours or longer, to 40 hours or lower, with examples at 800 o C for 30 minutes ([0011], [0036], [0049]). When the temperature is within this range, the organic compound is sufficiently carbonized and the charge and discharge rate performance is improved. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected at a temperature within the range at the high end as in the examples, that a time within a range less than three hours would likely meet the claim limitations absent evidence to the contrary.
Alternatively, given the range taught by the reference, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to prepare the material at a high temperature, and at a time within the three to 15 hour range through routine experimentation and optimization of the carbon material and its micropores to achieve a desired charge/ discharge rate property, with the resultant material meeting the limitations of the instant claims 1-3.
The density is taught by the instant specification to be affected and achieved by controlling the pressure of the press during compression molding ([0054]). While the reference fails to provide specific pressure measurements, the specification teaches that the pressure is adjusted generally, to achieve the desired density (examples), therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed density through routine experimentation and optimization of the positive active material to achieve preferred diffusibility and adhesive properties (the reference does employ a press to prepare the positive electrode in examples; [0068]).
Given the teachings of the reference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare the material of Hiroshi et al, choosing at the material, that having a formula as claimed, wherein y is 0. The resultant material and device would also meet the limitations of the instant claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued that references of record fail to teach the calcination temperature and time are related to the volume of micropores (response, page 8, paragraph 3). The reference teaches that the calcination temperature and time overlap with that of the instant invention, and the teaching of the reference for choosing those processing conditions need not be for the same reason as applicant. The reference need not teach choosing the temperature and time to solve the same problem as applicant. The fact that the reference material uses similar materials and a similar calcination temperature and time provides a similar method and materials, and regardless of why the reference selected the processing conditions, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected a similar resultant material after processing.
Applicant further argues on page 9, that information may not be gleaned from applicant’s own disclosure, however applicant is claiming properties, and one of skill in the art can look to the teachings in the specification to understand how the properties are achieved (how to make and sue the invention), to determine whether the invention as taught by the reference would possess similar properties. The rejection is not overcome simply because the reference material and method do not include the materials and steps for the same reason as applicant, and one of skill in the art may compare the method and material of a reference and compare to that of applicant to determine similarity. In the instant case, the references teach similar materials, and teach similar processing conditions taught to fall within the scope of applicant’s invention, and one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the similar material and method of the reference to also result in a final product also meeting the limitations of the instant claims for the pore specific surface area and density. This is not hindsight bias nor impermissible hindsight as argued by applicant (response, page 9, paragraph 1, page 13, paragraphs 1 and 2). The reference is not being modified to fit the teachings of the instant specification for the instant invention, but being compared to the teachings of what and how results in the claimed invention and properties. The references teach the methods and one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the material of the reference to inherently possess similar properties and meet the limitations of the instant claims given the similar material and method teachings.
Applicant has pointed to the examples in the instant specification as demonstrating that the pore specific surface area is not necessarily 20% or more and 50% or less when the calcination is performed (response, page 10, paragraphs 1 and 2). Applicant states that comparative samples 2, 3, and 4 in Table 1 the calcination temperature was in the range of 500 to 1000 o C, the time was in the range of 0.1 to 40 hours, and the pH during precursor production was in the range of 7.5 to 10.0, as taught by both Yasumiishi et al and Hiroshi.
As discussed above, Yasumiishui et al ([0059, [0074]and Hiroshi each teach preferred temperatures of 600 to 900 o C, with a preferred time of three hours, each of which fall within the preferred teachings by the instant invention and used in the inventive samples (inventive samples are at 550, 600, 650, 700, and 600 o C; see specification and response, Table 1).
However, upon considering the samples, there are additional variables which affect the production, namely the omission of NH3 or NH2NH2 in the samples, thus it is not only the temperature that changes with those samples, which are at 525, 775, and 800 o C, respectively, with no inventive samples at the temperature for a direct comparison with the amine compounds not included. While the references include only examples at 800 o C and 7.6, they are not limited to the only example, but to the broader, preferred teachings.
It is also noted that there is no range provided by the instant specification aside from that of the inventive samples, wherein the majority of inventive samples use the most preferred time, temperature, and pH (3 hr., 600 o C, 10). A general range of 550 to 750 o C and three hours can be established by the samples in Tables 1 and 2, with no examples close to this range outside of the preferred range as comparisons (time is 10 min, 30 min, and 15 hours to be compared to three, with a pH of 12 as compared to 10, or 10 without an additional processing compound, and a temperature of 525, 775, 800, with 15 hours compared to three). No fair comparison may be made. And these samples are not persuasive.
Furthermore, applicant has argued that the density is “critical”, and pointed to table 1, examples 5, 7, and 8 (example 6 has a different pH), and comparative examples 5, 6, and 7. Applicant argues that these samples demonstrate that the samples as compared to the comparisons show superiors initial power performance in a low temperature environment. However, it is unclear as to why there is a fluctuation as the conditions appear to be the same as examples 5, 7, 8 (for example, ex 5 is 1.70 and 8, whereas ex 8 is 2.10 and 11, so why with similar material and conditions is there a significant change), wherein the materials and conditions appear to be the same, yet the density and pore specific surface area fluctuate and fall just outside of the range for the density. It is unclear from the description of the examples and conditions as to why there is the fluctuation, even between inventive samples, and applicant did not note this in the response, and only focused broadly on the results. The samples do not appear to provide any clear demonstration and direct comparison to show that unexpected and superior results are achieved by the instant samples and any criticality in the conditions. Given that the teachings of materials and processing conditions as taught by the references, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to have expected similar properties as the examples in the specification fail to demonstrate that the conditions are critical and result in unexpected and superior results. The samples actually demonstrate that the results vary greatly even when the same samples are prepared teaching away from any criticality.
Applicant has further argued that the criticality is taught by the samples 9-13 as compared to comparative samples 8-10 in table 2 (response, pages 14 and 15). In the examples, each inventive sample s changes multiple variables (temperature and amount of carbon source) and there is no comparison that can be made between inventive samples to see any changes and criticality for the variables, let alone when compared to the comparative samples which have very different amounts of sucrose (carbon source) and temperatures varying greatly from each inventive samples. No determination of the criticality of any variable can be fairly made from the inventive samples and comparative samples in the instant specification in tables 1 and 2, and the arguments are unpersuasive as the references teach pH, time, and temperatures within the ranges of the instant examples and would be expected to have similar properties absent evidence to the contrary. The rejections of record are hereby maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 AMANDA C WALKE whose telephone number is (571)272-1337. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 5:30am to 4pm.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/AMANDA C. WALKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722