3DETAILED 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 without traverse of Group I (claims 1-6) in the reply filed on 11/20/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected Groups II-VI, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/20/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 6, line 4, the ellipses “…” after formula (1) should be deleted because it is unclear why it is present, and it may improperly suggest that something else is included in the formula.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tobishima (JP 2008226463 with English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Tobishima discloses a positive electrode composite active material (cathode layer) constituting a part of a positive electrode (cathode) of a lithium ion secondary battery using a nonaqueous electrolyte (organic electrolyte) (title; abstract), the positive electrode composite active material (4) comprising: a positive electrode active material (3) (see Fig. 1; [0026]); and an oxide-based solid electrolyte (2, also referred to as a lithium ion conductive solid electrolyte) (see Fig. 1; [0026]), wherein the positive electrode active material (3) is coated with the oxide-based solid electrolyte (2) (see Fig. 1; [0008]; [0026]). Tobishima further discloses that the oxide-based solid electrolyte is represented by Li1.3Al0.3Ti1.7(PO4)3 ([0137]; [0142]; [0010]; see Examples 1-3 in Table 1), suggesting the claimed formula Li1+p+q+rAlpGaq(Ti, Ge)2-p-qSirP3-rO12, particularly when p=0.3, q=0, and r=0. Tobishima further discloses that the oxide-based solid electrolyte is layered on the positive electrode active material (3) with a thickness equal to the particle size of the particles (2) (see Fig. 1; [0026]). Tobishima further discloses that the average particle size of the particles (2) containing the oxide-based solid electrolyte is 0.05 µm to 5 µm ([0043]-[0045]), which is equal to 50 nm to 5,000 nm, overlapping the claimed range of 5 nm or more and 50 nm or less. In the case where the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Therefore, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality for the claimed range, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen a thickness of the oxide-based solid electrolyte layer disclosed by Tobishima to fall within the claimed range based on the overlapping range disclosed by Tobishima. Tobishima further discloses that the oxide-based solid electrolyte (lithium ion conductive solid electrolyte) can be composed of an amorphous portion and a crystalline portion mixed with each other ([0050]). Furthermore, while Tobishima does not specifically disclose that the amorphous portion is in contact with the positive electrode active material, given that the primary particles (2) that contain the amorphous portion of the oxide-based solid electrolyte are in contact with the positive electrode active material (3) (see Fig. 1; [0009]; [0045]) and that the amorphous portion is present in the primary particles (2) in a microphase-separated state ([0023]; [0033]-[0034]), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for at least a part of the amorphous portion of the oxide-based solid electrolyte to also be in contact with the positive electrode active material (3). Thus, Tobishima satisfies all of the limitations in claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Tobishima discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Tobishima further discloses that the positive electrode active material (3) is represented by the formula LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 ([0059]), which suggests the claimed formula Li1+xMyMn2-x-yO4, particularly when x=0, y=0.5, and M is represented by Ni.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi et al. (WO 2020/049843 with citations made from English equivalent US 2021/0202947) (Kikuchi) in view of Tanoue et al. (US 2016/0093914) (Tanoue) (of record).
Regarding claim 1, Kikuchi discloses a positive electrode composite active material (coated positive electrode active material) constituting a part of a positive electrode of a lithium ion secondary battery using a nonaqueous electrolyte (title; abstract), the positive electrode composite active material (coated positive electrode active material) comprising: a positive electrode active material; and an oxide-based solid electrolyte (abstract; [0012]; [0017]), wherein the oxide-based solid electrolyte is represented by Li1.3Al0.3Ti1.7(PO4)3 ([0056]; see also [0030]), suggesting the claimed formula Li1+p+q+rAlpGaq(Ti, Ge)2-p-qSirP3-rO12, particularly when p=0.3, q=0, and r=0, wherein the oxide-based solid electrolyte is layered (abstract; [0012]; [0017]; [0020]-[0024]; [0031]). Regarding the claimed amorphous portion and crystalline portion of the oxide-based solid electrolyte, the instant application is clear that the amorphous portion and the crystalline portion are obtained through a pulverization step resulting in LATP fine powder having a dBET of 3 to 25 nm (see [0164], [0188]-[0189], and [0081] of the PGPub of the instant application) and a heat treatment step in which a grinded product of the electrolyte dispersion obtained through the pulverization step and a positive electrode active material are heated to 300oC or higher and 600oC or lower for 30 minutes to 3 hours (see [0164]-[0169] of the PGPub). If the composition and structure of the prior art are substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP 2112.01). Therefore, since Kikuchi discloses a substantially identical pulverization step resulting in LATP powder having a dBET of 23 nm ([0056]-[0057]) and a substantially identical heat treatment step in which a grinded product of the electrolyte dispersion obtained in the pulverization step and a positive electrode active material are heated 300oC or higher and 600oC or lower for 30 minutes to 3 hours ([0024]; [0059]), it is considered inherent that the oxide-based solid electrolyte disclosed by Kikuchi includes a mixture of an amorphous portion and a crystalline portion, wherein the amorphous portion is in contact with the positive electrode active material. Kikuchi fails to explicitly disclose, however, that a coating thickness of the oxide-based solid electrolyte is 5 nm or more and 50 nm or less.
However, this configuration is known in the art. For instance, Tanoue teaches a similar positive electrode composite active material (title; abstract) comprising a positive electrode active material and an oxide-based solid electrolyte (abstract; [0008]), wherein the oxide-based solid electrolyte is layered and has a coating thickness of 1 to 80 nm ([0029]), encompassing the claimed range of 5 nm or more and 50 nm or less. A prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05. Tanoue further teaches that configuring the thickness of the oxide-based solid electrolyte in this way helps to prevent exposed portions of the positive electrode active material on the surface of the raw material powder while maintaining good conductivity ([0029]; [0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the coating thickness of the oxide-based solid electrolyte disclosed by Kikuchi to be within the claimed range, as taught by Tanoue, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would prevent exposed portions of the positive electrode active material on the surface of the raw material powder while also maintaining good conductivity.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, modified Kikuchi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Regarding the claimed integrated intensity ratios of 1% to 5% and 50% or more, the instant application is clear that these intensity ratios are the result of pulverizing the oxide-based solid electrolyte material to have an average particle size of 10 nm or less, resulting in crystal structure destruction (see [0080]-[0088] and [0038]-[0042] of the PGPub of the instant application). As set forth above, modified Kikuchi discloses a substantially identical pulverization step as the instant application (Kikuchi: [0056]-[0057]) (compare with [0188]-[0189] of the PGPub of the instant application), and modified Kikuchi further discloses that the oxide-based solid electrolyte can have an average particle size of 1 to 100 nm (Kikuchi: [0031]), which overlaps the disclosed range of 10 nm or less. If the composition and structure of the prior art are substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP 2112.01). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the oxide-based solid electrolyte disclosed by modified Kikuchi to have satisfied the claimed integrated intensity ratios because modified Kikuchi discloses an oxide-based solid electrolyte that can be substantially identical to that of the instant application.
Regarding claim 4, modified Kikuchi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Modified Kikuchi further discloses that the oxide-based solid electrolyte has an average particle size of 1 to 100 nm (Kikuchi: [0031]), overlapping the claimed range of 10 nm or less. In the case where the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Kikuchi to have satisfied the claimed particle size range based on the overlapping range disclosed by modified Kikuchi. Modified Kikuchi further discloses that the positive electrode active material has a median diameter of 5 µm or more (Kikuchi: [0029]), suggesting the claimed range of 5 µm or more.
Regarding claim 5, modified Kikuchi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Modified Kikuchi further discloses that the positive electrode active material is a lithium ion conductive active material having an operation potential of 4.5 V or more (abstract; [0012]; [0025]-[0026]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Kikuchi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Modified Kikuchi further discloses that the positive electrode active material is a substitutional lithium manganese compound represented by the formula (1):
Li1+xMyMn2-x-yO4, (1)
wherein in the formula (1), x and y respectively satisfy x and y, and M is at least one selected from the group consisting of Al, Mg, Zn, Ni, Co, Fe, Ti, Cu, and Cr (Kikuchi: [0026]-[0027]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDON C DARBY whose telephone number is (571)272-1225. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at (571) 270-5545. 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.
/B.C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749