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 § 102/103
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Liu (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20180145324 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Liu discloses a positive electrode active material comprising a complex oxide (high nickel material) (Abstract). Liu teaches the positive electrode material may be LiNixM1-xO2, where 0.5 ≤ x < 1, M is selected from at least one of Co, Mn, Al, Mg, Ti, and Zr (Paragraph 0010).
The formula of Liu corresponds to the formula of the instant claim, as M of Liu and Me of the instant claim share the following elements which may be substituted for these variables: Mn, Co, and Al. The subscript of nickel of Liu, X, lies within the range of the subscript X of nickel of the instant claim, meeting the instant limitation.
Further Liu teaches in example 4 wherein the high nickel material has a chemical formula of LiNi0.5Co0.5O2, which meets the limitations of the instant formula when Me is Co.
The instant application defines being a “main component” as being the most abundant component by mass ratio (Paragraph 0043). Liu teaches in example 1 the method for preparing the positive electrode active material where the high nickel material is mixed with NH4H2PO4 in order to complete the precipitation of the lithium resides, wherein a molar ratio of NH4H2PO4 added to the high nickel material is 1:3 (Paragraphs 0035-0038). Thus, Liu teaches the high nickel material is the most abundant component, meeting the instant claimed limitation (> 50% abundance).
It is reasonable to presume that the hydrogen element content being less than 238.8 ppm by mass is inherent to Liu. Support for said presumption is found in that Liu teaches a positive electrode active material comprising a complex oxide represented by formula (1) as discussed above and shares steps in the process of manufacturing the positive electrode active material which overlap with those of the instant disclosure, and therefore is expected to have the same properties of the claimed invention.
The instant disclosure establishes that the amount of hydrogen contained in the active material can be greatly reduced by performing drying under specified conditions (Paragraph 0009). The instant disclosure provides in example 1, the positive electrode active material is dried by heating at a temperature of 500ºC or more and less than 850ºC for 0.5 hour of more prior to constituting a positive electrode active material, which may be performed under vacuum or normal pressure (Paragraph 0051).
Liu teaches a step(2) in the method of manufacturing a positive electrode active material wherein the active material particle is sintered at 400ºC to 800ºC for 3-12 hours (Paragraph 0019).
Therefore, the conditions of the drying process of Liu overlap with the conditions (both time and temperature) specified by the instant application. The instant disclosure establishes drying as a determining factor of the hydrogen element content in the positive electrode active material. Thus, it is reasonable to presume the instant claimed hydrogen element content of the positive electrode active material is inherent to Liu, as Liu teaches a composition of active material which is dried under overlapping conditions as those of the instant application. It would be obvious that the hydrogen element content of the positive electrode active material is 238.8 ppm by mass or less as specified by the instant claim, or would flow naturally therefrom, on account of the drying conditions of the complex oxide material taught by Liu.
The limitation of “a hydrogen element content…measured by a nondispersive infrared absorption method (NDIR)…” is a method limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the method produces a structural feature of the product. The method of measuring a feature of the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP 2113.
Liu teaches that cobalt, manganese, and or aluminum (appearing in the list of suitable substitutions for M) may be included in the lithium metal oxide composition of positive electrode active material, which is further exemplified by examples 1-3, 5-7 of Liu. For example, Example 1 of Liu teaches a lithium metal oxide composition of the formula LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2, which exemplifies Me of the formula as Mn, meeting the instant claimed limitations. For example, Example 3 of Liu teaches a lithium metal oxide composition of the formula LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2, which exemplifies Me of the formula as Al, further meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 16, as discussed above, Liu discloses a positive electrode active material comprising a complex oxide represented by formula (1) LiNixMe1-xO2 as a main component and having a hydrogen element content of 238.8 ppm by mass or less measured by a nondispersive infrared absorption method (NDIR), where 0.5 ≤ x ≤ 1, and Me is at least one selected from the group consisting of Mn, Co, and Al.
Liu teaches that cobalt, manganese, and or aluminum (appearing in the list of suitable substitutions for M) may be included in the lithium metal oxide composition of positive electrode active material.
Liu teaches examples 1 and 7 where M is substituted by both cobalt and manganese in the high nickel material with composition LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 and LiNi0.5Co0.25Mn0.25O2, respectively.
Liu teaches example 3 where M is substituted by both cobalt and aluminum in the high nickel material with the composition LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2.
Thus, Liu teaches that Al and Mn are used in addition to Co as suitable metal combinations to include in lithium composite oxide materials used in positive electrode active material, and further exemplifies specific compounds of the instant formula (1) where M is Co and Mn or Al, meeting the claimed limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-5, 10-11, 13, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miki (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20180219229 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Miki discloses a positive electrode active material comprising a complex oxide (lithium-containing composite oxide) (Paragraph 0033). Miki teaches the cathode active material may be LiNixCo1-xO2, where 0 < x < 1 (Paragraph 0033), which corresponds to the formula of the instant claim, LiNixMe1-xO2, when Me is cobalt. Further, the range of the x subscript of the nickel atom of Miki overlaps with the instant claimed range for the subscript x of nickel. Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
The instant application defines being a “main component” as being the most abundant component by mass ratio (Paragraph 0043). Miki teaches the content of the composite active material particle in the cathode mixture layer is 40% to 90% by mass (Paragraph 0041). The range of the content of complex oxide positive electrode active material of Miki overlaps the range of the main component complex oxide positive electrode active material of the instant claim (> 50% to be the most abundant component). Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Miki discloses it is desirable for the moisture content of the composite active material particle to be small in order to suppress deterioration of a sulfide solid electrolyte and improve the conductivity of the sulfide solid electrolyte, resulting in low resistance of the all-solid-state battery (Paragraph 0023). Miki teaches the moisture content in the composite active material particle is preferably no more than 70 ppm by mass (Paragraph 0037).
In the preparation of the composite active material particle, Miki teaches the active material (given by the formula discussed above) is coated with a lithium ion conducting oxide to form the coated active material particle (Paragraph 0073). Miki teaches a peroxo complex aqueous solution that contains (an) element(s) constituting the lithium ion conducting oxide (Paragraph 0074), where the peroxo solution comprises lithium, oxygen, and niobium (Paragraph 0075). As the composite active material particle given by the formula LiNixCo1-xO2 of Miki does not contain hydrogen, and the lithium ion conducting oxide-containing peroxo solution doesn’t contain hydrogen, it follows that the hydrogen content of the resulting composite active material particle is present in the form of the moisture discussed by Miki.
Therefore it follows that the hydrogen element content will necessarily be lower than the desired moisture content taught by Miki, specifically 70 ppm by mass. Therefore, the range of the hydrogen element content of Miki lies within the instant claimed hydrogen element content of 238.8 ppm by mass or less, meeting the claimed limitation.
In the alternative, if Miki is found to not expressly teach the hydrogen element content of the positive electrode active material being 238.8 ppm by mass or less, it is reasonable to presume that the hydrogen element content is inherent to Miki. Support for said presumption is found in that Miki teaches a positive electrode active material comprising a complex oxide which meets the limitations of the instant formula (1) and shares steps in the process of manufacturing the positive electrode active material which overlap with those of the instant disclosure, and therefore is expected to have the same properties of the claimed invention.
As described above, Miki teaches the cathode active material may be LiNixCo1-xO2, where 0 < x < 1 (Paragraph 0033), which corresponds to the formula of the instant claim, LiNixMe1-xO2, when Me is cobalt.
The instant disclosure establishes that the amount of hydrogen contained in the active material can be greatly reduced by performing drying under specified conditions (Paragraph 0009). The instant disclosure provides in example 1, the positive electrode active material is dried by heating at a temperature of 70ºC or more and less than 400ºC for 1 hour of more prior to constituting a positive electrode active material, which may be performed under vacuum or normal pressure (Paragraph 0051). Miki teaches a step S2 in the method of manufacturing a positive electrode active material wherein the active material particle is dried in a vacuum at 120ºC to 300ºC for at least one hour in order to efficiently remove moisture from the coated active material particles (Paragraphs 0080-0081).
Therefore, the conditions of the drying process of Miki overlap with the conditions (both time, pressure, and temperature) specified by the instant application. The instant disclosure establishes drying as a determining factor of the hydrogen element content in the positive electrode active material. Thus, it is reasonable to presume the instant claimed hydrogen element content of the positive electrode active material is inherent to Miki, as Miki teaches a composition of active material which is dried under overlapping conditions as those of the instant application.
The limitation of “a hydrogen element content…measured by a nondispersive infrared absorption method (NDIR)…” is a method limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the method produces a structural feature of the product. The method of measuring a feature of the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 2, Miki teaches the positive electrode active material according to claim 1. As discussed above, the hydrogen content of Miki will necessarily be lower than the desired moisture content taught by Miki, specifically 70 ppm by mass. Therefore, the range of the hydrogen element content of Miki lies within the instant claimed hydrogen element content of 114.3 ppm by mass or less, meeting the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 3, Miki teaches the positive electrode active material according to claim 1, further comprising a coating material (lithium ion conducting oxide) that coats a surface of the positive electrode active material (Paragraph 0011). Miki teaches examples of the lithium ion conductive oxide to include a composite oxide (oxygen-containing) containing a lithium element and a metallic element (Paragraph 0035), meeting the instant claimed limitations of the coating material contains lithium element (Li) and oxygen element (O).
Regarding claim 4, Miki teaches the positive electrode active material according to claim 3, wherein the coating material further includes at least one selected from the group consisting of lithium niobate, lithium titanate, and lithium tungstate (Paragraph 0035).
Regarding claim 5, Miki teaches a positive electrode material comprising: the positive electrode active material according to claim 1; and a solid electrolyte (Paragraph 0016).
Regarding claim 10, Miki teaches a battery comprising: a positive electrode (Figure 3, Element 20) including the positive electrode material according to claim 5; a negative electrode (Figure 3, Element 40); and an electrolyte layer disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (Figure 3, Element 30) (Paragraph 0054).
Regarding claim 11, Miki teaches the battery according to claim 10, wherein the electrolyte layer includes the solid electrolyte (Paragraph 0058).
Regarding claim 13, Miki teaches the battery according to claim 1.
Miki teaches the solid electrolyte layer including a solid electrolyte which for example, can include the solid electrolyte that the cathode contains (Paragraph 0058). Miki teaches the cathode mixture layer contains sulfide solid electrolyte (Paragraph 0043). Therefore, Miki teaches the electrolyte layer includes a sulfide solid electrolyte, meeting the limitations of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 17, Miki teaches the positive electrode active material according to claim 1.
Miki is silent as to the hydrogen element content being 61.6 ppm by mass or more.
It is reasonable to presume that the hydrogen element content in inherent to Miki. Support for said presumption is found in that Miki teaches a positive electrode active material comprising a complex oxide which meets the limitations of the instant formula (1) and shares steps in the process of manufacturing the positive electrode active material which overlap with those of the instant disclosure, and therefore is expected to have the same properties of the claimed invention.
As described above, Miki teaches the cathode active material may be LiNixCo1-xO2, where 0 < x < 1 (Paragraph 0033), which corresponds to the formula of the instant claim, LiNixMe1-xO2, when Me is cobalt.
The instant disclosure establishes that the amount of hydrogen contained in the active material can be greatly reduced by performing drying under specified conditions (Paragraph 0009). The instant disclosure provides in example 1, the positive electrode active material is dried by heating at a temperature of 70ºC or more and less than 400ºC for 1 hour of more prior to constituting a positive electrode active material, which may be performed under vacuum or normal pressure (Paragraph 0051). Miki teaches a step S2 in the method of manufacturing a positive electrode active material wherein the active material particle is dried in a vacuum at 120ºC to 300ºC for at least one hour in order to efficiently remove moisture from the coated active material particles (Paragraphs 0080-0081).
Therefore, the conditions of the drying process of Miki overlap with the conditions (both time, pressure and temperature) specified by the instant application. The instant disclosure establishes drying as a determining factor of the hydrogen element content in the positive electrode active material. Thus, it is reasonable to presume the instant claimed hydrogen element content of the positive electrode active material is inherent to Miki, as Miki teaches a composition of active material which is dried under overlapping conditions as those of the instant application.
Claims 6-9, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miki as applied to claims 1-5, 10-11, 13, 17 above, further in view of Sun (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20220216507 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Miki teaches the positive electrode active material according to claim 5.
Miki is silent as to the solid electrolyte is represented by formula (2): LiαMβXγ, where, α, β, and γ are each independently a value larger than 0; M includes at least one selected from the group consisting of metallic elements other than Li and metalloid elements; and X includes at least one selected from the group consisting of F, Cl, Br, and I.
However, Sun discloses a lithium secondary battery wherein at least one of the positive electrode layer, the electrolyte layer and the negative electrode layer of the battery contains a lithium secondary battery additives (Paragraph 0026) represented by the formula LibMaXc wherein M is one or more selected from B, Al, Ga, In, Y, Sc, Sb, Bi, Nb, Ta, Ti, Zr, V, Cr, Mo, W, Mn, Tc, Re, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Ag, Zn, Cd, La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Pm, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb and Lu, X is one or more selected from F, Cl, Br and I; 0.2≤b≤6; 0.1≤a≤3; and 1≤c≤9 (Paragraphs 0005-0006). Sun teaches an electrode including solid electrolyte, particularly halide solid electrolyte material (Paragraph 0095) such as Li3YCl6 (Paragraph 0099) of the form given by the formula above.
The following equivalences between the elements and their subscript variables is denoted in the table below, where the underline denotes an inclusive boundary of a range:
Element in Formula of Sun
Subscript of Element in Formula of Sun
Subscript Range of Formula of Sun
Element of Instant Compositional Formula
Subscript of Instant Compositional Formula
Subscript Range of Instant Compositional Formula
Li
b
0.2 – 6
Li
α
> 0
M
a
0.1 – 3
M
β
> 0
X
c
1 – 9
X
γ
> 0
Sun teaches the variable X as a placeholder for halide atoms including F, Cl, Br, and I, which corresponds to the variable X which is also a placeholder for the same halide atoms in the instant formula. Sun teaches the variable M to be one or more selected from a group of elements as described above, which include metallic elements and metalloid elements other than Li as required by the instant claim’s variable M. As illustrated in the table above, the subscripts of the elements of the formula of Sun lie within the range of the subscripts of the elements in the instant compositional formula, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the solid electrolyte comprised in the positive electrode material of Miki to incorporate the teachings of Sun in which the solid electrolyte is LibMaXc, with the significance of the variables described above. Doing so would result in improved chemical and electrochemical stability of solid electrolyte materials in all-solid-state secondary batteries, as recognized by Sun (Paragraph 0034).
Regarding claim 7, modified Miki teaches the positive electrode active material according to claim 6, wherein M includes yttrium. As described above, Sun teaches a preferred embodiment in which the solid electrolyte material is represented by Li3YCl6 (Paragraph 0099), which corresponds to the formula taught by Sun given above when M=yttrium, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
In the alternative, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select yttrium from the finite lists of possible combinations for M to arrive at the solid electrolyte material of the instant claim since the combination of components would have yielded predictable results in a positive electrode, absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Regarding claim 8, modified Miki teaches the positive electrode active material according to claim 6, wherein formula (2) satisfies 2.5 ≤ α ≤ 3, 1 ≤ β ≤ 1.1, and γ = 6.
The following equivalences between the elements and their subscript variables is denoted in the table below, where the underline denotes an inclusive boundary of a range:
Element in Formula of Sun
Subscript of Element in Formula of Sun
Subscript Range of Formula of Sun
Element of Instant Compositional Formula
Subscript of Instant Compositional Formula
Subscript Range of Instant Compositional Formula
Li
b
0.2 – 6
Li
α
2.5 – 6
M
a
0.1 – 3
M
β
1 – 1.1
X
c
1 – 9
X
γ
6
As illustrated in the table above, the subscripts of the elements of the formula of Sun overlap the range of the subscripts of the elements in the instant compositional formula, meeting the instant claimed limitations. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 9, modified Miki teaches the positive electrode active material according to claim 6, wherein X includes at least one selected from the group consisting of Cl and Br (Paragraph 0006).
Regarding claim 12, Miki teaches the battery according to claim 10.
As discussed above, the result of the modification of Miki by Sun was a solid electrolyte of the positive electrode material comprising an additive of the form LibMaXc, where X is a halide atom. Also mentioned above by the teaching of Song was that at least one of the positive electrode layer, the electrolyte layer and the negative electrode layer of the battery contains the lithium secondary battery additives (Paragraph 0026). An ordinary artisan would recognize that in the case when both the positive electrode layer and the electrolyte layer comprise the halide solid electrolyte material of the above formula, there are only two options: the electrolyte layer comprises the same solid electrolyte as the positive electrode material or the electrolyte layer comprises a different solid electrolyte as the positive electrode material.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select the electrolyte layer includes a halide solid electrolyte different from the solid electrolyte (of the positive electrode material) from the finite lists of possible options (2, as stated above) to arrive at the configuration of halide solid electrolytes of the instant claim since the combination of components would have yielded predictable results, absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miki as applied to claims 1-5, 10-11, 13, 17 above, further in view of Liu (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20180145324 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Miki teaches the positive electrode active material according to claim 1.
Miki is silent as to the at least one element selected from the group consisting of Mn and Al.
However, Liu discloses a positive electrode material having a of LiNixM1-xO2, wherein 0.5 ≤ x < 1 and M is selected from at least one of Co, Mn, Al, Mg, Ti, and Zr (Paragraph 0010). Liu teaches that cobalt, manganese, and or aluminum (appearing in the list of suitable substitutions for M) may be included in the lithium metal oxide composition of positive electrode active material. Thus, Liu teaches that Al and Mn are interchangeable with Co as the metal to include in lithium composite oxide materials used in positive electrode active material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to substitute Al and/or Mn for Co in the formula of Miki because Liu teaches the variable may suitably be selected as the metal M in the lithium transition metal composite oxide. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as positive electrode active material in the lithium ion battery of Miki and possess the benefits of desirable cycle performance taught by Kim (Paragraph 0024). See MPEP § 2143.I.(B).
Regarding claim 16, Miki teaches the positive electrode active material according to claim 1, wherein Me is Co.
Miki is silent as to Me also being at least one element selected from the group consisting of Mn and Al.
However, as discussed above, Liu discloses a positive electrode material having a of LiNixM1-xO2, wherein 0.5 ≤ x < 1 and M is selected from at least one of Co, Mn, Al, Mg, Ti, and Zr (Paragraph 0010). Liu teaches that cobalt, manganese, and or aluminum (appearing in the list of suitable substitutions for M) may be included in the lithium metal oxide composition of positive electrode active material. Further, Liu teaches an example where M is substituted by both cobalt and manganese, appearing as the compositional formula LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 of Example 1 (Paragraph 0035) and LiNi0.5Co0.25Mn0.25O2 of Example 7 (Paragraph 0049). Further, Liu teaches an example where M is substituted by both cobalt and aluminum, appearing as the compositional formula LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 of Example 3 (Paragraph 0040).
Thus, Liu teaches that Al and Mn are used in addition to Co as suitable metal combinations to include in lithium composite oxide materials used in positive electrode active material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to include Al and/or Mn in addition Co in the formula of Miki because Liu teaches the variable may suitably be selected as the metal M in the lithium transition metal composite oxide. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as positive electrode active material in the lithium ion battery of Miki and possess the benefits of desirable cycle performance taught by Liu (Paragraph 0024). See MPEP § 2143.I.(B).
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miki as applied to claims 1-5, 10-11, 13, 17 above, further in view of Sun (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20130337327 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Miki teaches the positive electrode active material according to claim 1.
As discussed above, Miki teaches the cathode active material is a complex oxide represented by LiNixCo1-xO2, where 0 < x < 1 (Paragraph 0033).
In the case that Miki is found to not teach the complex oxide is represented by the formula LiNi0.8(Co, Mn)0.2O2, the following alternate rejection is presented.
(Co, Mn) is interpreted by the examiner consistent with the art and is understood to mean the complex oxide comprising a mixture of cobalt and manganese.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide the subscript of nickel, x, of the formula of Miki at 0.8 from within the finite range of the variable to arrive at the compositional formula of the instant claim since the combination of components would have yielded predictable results as a positive electrode active material, absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
When x=0.8, the subscript of the cobalt atom of the formula of Miki, 1-x, is necessarily 0.2.
Sun discloses a cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery including a core and a shell, the core comprising elements M1 and M2 (provided with subscripts y1 and y2, respectively, between 0 and 1 inclusive), which may be identical or different from one another, and may be independently selected from Ni, Co, Mn, Fe, Na, Mg, Ca, Ti, V, Cr, Cu, Zn, Ge, Sr, Ag, Ba, Zr, Nb, Mo, Al, Ga, B and a combination thereof (Paragraphs 0009-0015). Sun teaches the combination of (M1, M2) as the material contained in the core may be (Co, Mn) in order to obtain a core with high voltage characteristics and increased energy density, resulting in a lithium secondary battery having excellent output characteristic, capacity characteristic, thermal stability and life characteristic (Paragraph 0086).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lithium metal oxide of Miki to incorporate the teachings of Sun in which the core (non-coating) portion of the positive electrode active material comprises (Co, Mn) of Sun. Doing so would advantageously result in a positive electrode active material core with high voltage characteristics and increased energy density, resulting in a lithium secondary battery having excellent output characteristic, capacity characteristic, thermal stability and life characteristic, as recognized by Sun.
Claims 1-5, 10-11, 13, 17-18 are alternately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miki as applied to claims 1-5, 10-11, 13, 17-18 above, further in view of Shimada (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20120261328 A1).
Regarding claim 1, as discussed above, Miki discloses a positive electrode active material comprising a complex oxide (lithium-containing composite oxide) (Paragraph 0033) LiNixCo1-xO2, where 0 < x < 1 (Paragraph 0033), which corresponds to the formula of the instant claim, LiNixMe1-xO2, when Me is cobalt. Miki teaches the content of the composite active material particle in the cathode mixture layer is 40% to 90% by mass (Paragraph 0041), meeting the claimed limitation of the complex oxide being the main component of the positive electrode active material.
In the event that Miki is found to not teach the hydrogen element content of the positive electrode active material is 238.8 ppm by mass or less, Shimada teaches a lithium-ion secondary battery often implement fluorine-based electrolytes due to their advantageous conductivity, potential window, and interaction with materials used in electrolytes. Shimada teaches the hydrolysis of these fluorides releases hydrogen fluoride, which dissolves electrode materials and corrodes the current collector, resulting in deteriorated battery performance (Paragraph 0003).
The instant disclosure provides fluorine-based electrolyte materials (Paragraphs 0020, 0059) in the battery, which are capable of being hydrolyzed in the manner described by Shimada, resulting in the production of hydrogen fluoride. As described by Shimada, the presence of hydrogen fluoride is harmful to the integrity of the electrode and the current collector, potentially worsening battery performance.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode active material of Miki to incorporate the teachings of Shimada in which the hydrogen fluoride content (and therefore reduce he hydrogen element content) is minimized to lie within the range of 61.6 ppm by mass to 238.8 ppm by mass in the positive electrode active material. Doing so would prevent dissolution of the electrode materials and corrosion of the current collector, as recognized by Shimada.
The limitation of “a hydrogen element content…measured by a nondispersive infrared absorption method (NDIR)…” is a method limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the method produces a structural feature of the product. The method of measuring a feature of the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claims 2-5, 10-11, 13, 17-18, they are rejected under Miki in view of Shimada, as Miki teaches the limitations of claims 2-5, 10-11, 13, and 17-18 as described in the above rejection.
Claims 6-9, 12 are alternately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miki in view of Shimada as applied to claims 1-5, 10-11, 13, 17 above, further in view of Sun.
Regarding claims 6-9, 12, they are rejected under Miki in view of Sun, as Sun teaches the limitations of claims 6-9, 12 as described in the above rejection.
Claims 15-16 are alternately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miki in view of Shimada as applied to claims 1-5, 10-11, 13, 17 above, further in view of Liu.
Regarding claims 15-16, they are rejected under Miki in view of Liu, as Liu teaches the limitations of claims 15-16 as described in the above rejection.
Claims 18 is alternately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miki in view of Shimada as applied to claims 1-5, 10-11, 13, 17 above, further in view of Sun.
Regarding claims 18, it is rejected under Miki in view of Sun, as Sun teaches the limitations of claim 18 as described in the above rejection.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claims 15-16 above.
Regarding claim 18, as discussed above, Liu discloses a positive electrode active material comprising a complex oxide represented by formula (1) LiNixMe1-xO2 as a main component and having a hydrogen element content of 238.8 ppm by mass or less measured by a nondispersive infrared absorption method (NDIR), where 0.5 ≤ x ≤ 1, and Me is at least one selected from the group consisting of Mn, Co, and Al.
Liu teaches that cobalt, manganese, and or aluminum (appearing in the list of suitable substitutions for M) may be included in the lithium metal oxide composition of positive electrode active material. Further, Liu teaches examples 1 and 7 where M is substituted by both cobalt and manganese, and an example 3 where the subscript of nickel, X, is 0.8.
Thus, Liu teaches that nickel with a 0.8 subscript is a suitable quantity of nickel in the lithium composite oxide and Al and Mn used in addition to Co are suitable metals to include in positive electrode active material.
Therefore, Liu teaches the complex oxide is represented by the formula LiNi0.8(Co,Mn)0.2O2 or it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select M=Co and Mn and x=0.8 from the finite lists of possible combinations for M and X, respectively, of Liu to arrive at the compositional formula of the instant claim since the combination of components would have yielded predictable results as a positive electrode active material, absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-13, 15-16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of copending Application No. 18051873 (hereafter “Nishio”) in view of Miki (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20180219229 A1).
Claim 1 of the instant application is provisionally rejected as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Nishio in view of Miki. Nishio claims a positive electrode active material comprising a complex oxide represented by formula (1): LiNixMe1-xO2 as a main component, where x satisfies 0.5 ≤ x ≤ 1; and Me is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Mn, Co, and Al (Me is Co and at least one element selected from the group consisting or Mn and Al).
Nishio is silent as to the positive electrode active material having a hydrogen element content of 238.8 ppm by mass or less, measured by a nondispersive infrared absorption method (NDIR).
However, Miki discloses it is desirable for the moisture content of a composite active material particle to be small in order to suppress deterioration of a sulfide solid electrolyte and improve the conductivity of the sulfide solid electrolyte, resulting in low resistance of the all-solid-state battery (Paragraph 0023). Miki teaches the moisture content in the composite active material particle is preferably no more than 70 ppm by mass (Paragraph 0037).
In the preparation of the composite active material particle, Miki teaches the active material (given by the formula discussed above) is coated with a lithium ion conducting oxide to form the coated active material particle (Paragraph 0073). Miki teaches a peroxo complex aqueous solution that contains (an) element(s) constituting the lithium ion conducting oxide (Paragraph 0074), where the peroxo solution comprises lithium, oxygen, and niobium (Paragraph 0075). As the composite active material particle given by the formula LiNixCo1-xO2 of Miki does not contain hydrogen, and the lithium ion conducting oxide-containing peroxo solution doesn’t contain hydrogen, it follows that the hydrogen content of the resulting composite active material particle is present in the form of water.
Therefore it follows that the hydrogen element content will necessarily be lower than the desired moisture content taught by Miki, specifically less than 70 ppm by mass. Therefore, the range of the hydrogen element content of Miki lies within the instant claimed hydrogen element content of 238.8 ppm by mass or less, meeting the claimed limitation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode active material of Nishio to incorporate the teachings of Miki in which the hydrogen (moisture) content is less than 70 ppm by mass. Doing so would advantageously suppress deterioration of a sulfide solid electrolyte and improve the conductivity of the sulfide solid electrolyte, resulting in low resistance of the all-solid-state battery, as recognized by Miki.
In the alternative, if Miki is found to not expressly teach the hydrogen element content of the positive electrode active material being 238.8 ppm by mass or less, it is reasonable to presume that the hydrogen element content in inherent to Miki. Support for said presumption is found in that Miki teaches a positive electrode active material comprising a complex oxide which meets the limitations of the instant formula (1) and shares steps in the process of manufacturing the positive electrode active material which overlap with those of the instant disclosure, and therefore is expected to have the same properties of the claimed invention.
The instant disclosure establishes that the amount of hydrogen contained in the active material can be greatly reduced by performing drying under specified conditions (Paragraph 0009). The instant disclosure provides in example 1, the positive electrode active material is dried by heating at a temperature of 70ºC or more and less than 400ºC for 1 hour of more prior to constituting a positive electrode active material, which may be performed under vacuum or normal pressure (Paragraph 0051). Miki teaches a step S2 in the method of manufacturing a positive electrode active material wherein the active material particle is dried in a vacuum at 120ºC to 300ºC for at least one hour in order to efficiently remove moisture from the coated active material particles (Paragraphs 0080-0081).
Therefore, the conditions of the drying process of Miki overlap with the conditions (both time, pressure, and temperature) specified by the instant application. The instant disclosure establishes drying as a determining factor of the hydrogen element content in the positive electrode active material. Thus, it is reasonable to presume the instant claimed hydrogen element content of the positive electrode active material is inherent to Miki, as Miki teaches a composition of active material which is dried under overlapping conditions as those of the instant application.
The limitation of “a hydrogen element content…measured by a nondispersive infrared absorption method (NDIR)…” is a method limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the method produces a structural feature of the product. The method of measuring a feature of the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP 2113.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 2 of the instant application is provisionally rejected as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Nishio in view of Miki. As discussed above, Miki motivated the modification of the positive electrode active material of Nishio to incorporate the teachings of Miki in which the hydrogen (moisture) content is less than 70 ppm by mass in order to suppress deterioration of a sulfide solid electrolyte and improve the conductivity of the sulfide solid electrolyte, resulting in low resistance of the all-solid-state battery. The range of the hydrogen element content of Nishio in view of Miki lies within the instant claimed hydrogen element content of 114.3 ppm by mass or less, meeting the claimed limitation.
Claim 3 of the instant application is provisionally rejected as being unpatentable over claim 2 of Nishio in view of Miki. Nishio claims the positive electrode active material according to claim 1, further comprising a coating material that coats a surface of the positive electrode active material, wherein the coating material contains lithium element (Li) and at least one element selected from the group consisting of oxygen element (O), fluorine element (F), and chlorine element (Cl).
Claim 4 of the instant application is provisionally rejected as being unpatentable over claim 3 of Nishio in view of Miki. Nishio claims the positive electrode active material according to claim 3, wherein the coating material further includes at least one selected from the group consisting of lithium niobate, lithium phosphate, lithium titanate, lithium tungstate, lithium fluorozirconate, lithium fluoroaluminate, lithium fluorotitanate, and lithium fluoromagnesate.
Claim 5 of the instant application is provisionally rejected as being unpatentable over claim 4 of Nishio in view of Miki. Nishio claims the positive electrode material comprising: the positive electrode active material according to claim 1; and a solid electrolyte.
Claim 6 of the instant application is provisionally rejected as being unpatentable over claim 5 of Nishio in view of Miki. Nishio claims the positive electrode material according to claim 5, wherein the solid electrolyte is represented by formula (2): LiαMβXγ, where, α, β, and γ are each independently a value larger than 0; M includes at least one selected from the group consisting of metallic elements other than Li and metalloid elements; and X includes at least one selected from the group consisting of F, Cl, Br, and I.
Claim 7 of the instant application is provisionally rejected as being unpatentable over claim 6 of Nishio in view of Miki. Nishio claims the positive electrode material according to claim 6, wherein M includes yttrium.
Claim 8 of the instant application is provisionally rejected as being unpatentable over claim 7 of Nishio in view of Miki. Nishio claims the positive electrode material according to claim 6, wherein formula (2) satisfies 2.5 ≤ α ≤ 3, 1 ≤ β ≤ 1.1, and γ = 6.
Claim 9 of the instant application is provisionally rejected as being unpatentable over claim 8 of Nishio in view of Miki. Nishio claims the positive electrode material according to claim 6, wherein X includes at least one selected from the group consisting of Cl and Br.
Claim 10 of the instant application is provisionally rejected as being unpatentable over claim 9 of Nishio in view of Miki. Nishio claims a battery comprising: a positive electrode including the positive electrode material according to claim 5; a negative electrode; and an electrolyte layer disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode.
Claim 11 of the instant application is provisionally rejected as being unpatentable over claim 10 of Nishio in view of Miki. Nishio claims the battery according to claim 10, wherein the electrolyte layer includes the solid electrolyte.
Claim 12 of the instant application is provisionally rejected as being unpatentable over claim 11 of Nishio in view of Miki. Nishio claims the battery according to claim 10, wherein the electrolyte layer includes a halide solid electrolyte different from the solid electrolyte.
Claim 13 of the instant application is provisionally rejected as being unpatentable over claim 12 of Nishio in view of Miki. Nishio claims the battery according to claim 10, wherein the electrolyte layer includes a sulfide solid electrolyte.
Claim 15 of the instant application is provisionally rejected as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Nishio in view of Miki. Nishio claims the positive electrode active material according to claim 1, wherein Me is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Mn and Al.
Claim 16 of the instant application is provisionally rejected as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 16 of Nishio in view of Miki. Nishio claims the positive electrode active material according to claim 1, wherein Me is Co and at least one element selected from the group consisting of Mn and Al.
Claims 1-13, 15-16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of copending Application No. 18053389 (hereafter “Nakama”) in view of Miki (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20180219229 A1).
Claim 1 of the instant application is provisionally rejected as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Nakama in view of Miki. Nakama claims a positive electrode active material comprising a complex oxide represented by formula (1): LiNixMe1-xO2 as a main component, where x satisfies 0.5 ≤ x ≤ 1; and Me is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Mn, Co, and Al (Me is Co and at least one element selected from the group consisting or Mn and Al).
Nakama is silent as to the positive electrode active material having a hydrogen element content of 238.8 ppm by mass or less.
However, Miki discloses it is desirable for the moisture content of a composite active material particle to be small in order to suppress deterioration of a sulfide solid electrolyte and improve the conductivity of the sulfide solid electrolyte, resulting in low resistance of the all-solid-state battery (Paragraph 0023). Miki teaches the moisture content in the composite active material particle is preferably no more than 70 ppm by mass (Paragraph 0037).
In the preparation of the composite active material particle, Miki teaches the active material (given by the formula discussed above) is coated with a lithium ion conducting oxide to form the coated active material particle (Paragraph 0073). Miki teaches a peroxo complex aqueous solution that contains (an) element(s) constituting the lithium ion conducting oxide (Paragraph 0074), where the peroxo solution comprises lithium, oxygen, and niobium (Paragraph 0075). As the composite active material particle given by the formula LiNixCo1-xO2 of Miki does not contain hydrogen, and the lithium ion conducting oxide-containing peroxo solution doesn’t contain hydrogen, it follows that the hydrogen content of the resulting composite active material particle is present in the form of water.
Therefore it follows that the hydrogen element content will necessarily be lower than the desired moisture content taught by Miki, specifically less than 70 ppm by mass. Therefore, the range of the hydrogen element content of Miki lies within the instant claimed hydrogen element content of 238.8 ppm by mass or less, meeting the claimed limitation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode active material of Nakama to incorporate the teachings of Miki in which the hydrogen (moisture) content is less than 70 ppm by mass. Doing so would advantageously suppress deterioration of a sulfide solid electrolyte and improve the conductivity of the sulfide solid electrolyte, resulting in low resistance of the all-solid-state battery, as recognized by Miki.
In the alternative, if Miki is found to not expressly teach the hydrogen element content of the positive electrode active material being 238.8 ppm by mass or less, it is reasonable to presume that the hydrogen element content in inherent to Miki. Support for said presumption is found in that Miki teaches a positive electrode active material comprising a complex oxide which meets the limitations of the instant formula (1) and shares steps in the process of manufacturing the positive electrode active material which overlap with those of the instant disclosure, and therefore is expected to have the same properties of the claimed invention.
The instant disclosure establishes that the amount of hydrogen contained in the active material can be greatly reduced by performing drying under specified conditions (Paragraph 0009). The instant disclosure provides in example 1, the positive electrode active material is dried by heating at a temperature of 70ºC or more and less than 400ºC for 1 hour of more prior to constituting a positive electrode active material, which may be performed under vacuum or normal pressure (Paragraph 0051). Miki teaches a step S2 in the method of manufacturing a positive electrode active material wherein the active material particle is dried in a vacuum at 120ºC to 300ºC for at least one hour in order to efficiently remove moisture from the coated active material particles (Paragraphs 0080-0081).
Therefore, the conditions of the drying process of Miki overlap with the conditions (both time, pressure, and temperature) specified by the instant application. The instant disclosure establishes drying as a determining factor of the hydrogen element content in the positive electrode active material. Thus, it is reasonable to presume the instant claimed hydrogen element content of the positive electrode active material is inherent to Miki, as Miki teaches a composition of active material which is dried under overlapping conditions as those of the instant application.
The limitation of “a hydrogen element content…measured by a nondispersive infrared absorption method (NDIR)…” is a method limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the method produces a structural feature of the product. The method of measuring a feature of the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP 2113.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 2 of the instant application is provisionally rejected as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Nakama in view of Miki. As discussed above, Miki motivated the modification of the positive electrode active material of Nakama to incorporate the teachings of Miki in which the hydrogen (moisture) content is less than 70 ppm by mass in order to suppress deterioration of a sulfide solid electrolyte and improve the conductivity of the sulfide solid electrolyte, resulting in low resistance of the all-solid-state battery. The range of the hydrogen element content of Nakama in view of Miki lies within the instant claimed hydrogen element content of 114.3 ppm by mass or less, meeting the claimed limitation.
Claim 3 of the instant application is provisionally rejected as being unpatentable over claim 2 of Nakama in view of Miki. Nakama claims the positive electrode active material according to claim 1, further comprising a coating material that coats a surface of the positive electrode active material, wherein the coating material contains lithium element (Li) and at least one element selected from the group consisting of oxygen element (O), fluorine element (F), and chlorine element (Cl).
Claim 4 of the instant application is provisionally rejected as being unpatentable over claim 3 of Nakama in view of Miki. Nakama claims the positive electrode active material according to claim 3, wherein the coating material further includes at least one selected from the group consisting of lithium niobate, lithium phosphate, lithium titanate, lithium tungstate, lithium fluorozirconate, lithium fluoroaluminate, lithium fluorotitanate, and lithium fluoromagnesate.
Claim 5 of the instant application is provisionally rejected as being unpatentable over claim 4 of Nakama in view of Miki. Nakama claims the positive electrode material comprising: the positive electrode active material according to claim 1; and a solid electrolyte.
Claim 6 of the instant application is provisionally rejected as being unpatentable over claim 5 of Nakama in view of Miki. Nakama claims the positive electrode material according to claim 5, wherein the solid electrolyte is represented by formula (2): LiαMβXγ, where, α, β, and γ are each independently a value larger than 0; M includes at least one selected from the group consisting of metallic elements other than Li and metalloid elements; and X includes at least one selected from the group consisting of F, Cl, Br, and I.
Claim 7 of the instant application is provisionally rejected as being unpatentable over claim 6 of Nakama in view of Miki. Nakama claims the positive electrode material according to claim 6, wherein M includes yttrium.
Claim 8 of the instant application is provisionally rejected as being unpatentable over claim 7 of Nakama in view of Miki. Nakama claims the positive electrode material according to claim 6, wherein formula (2) satisfies 2.5 ≤ α ≤ 3, 1 ≤ β ≤ 1.1, and γ = 6.
Claim 9 of the instant application is provisionally rejected as being unpatentable over claim 8 of Nakama in view of Miki. Nakama claims the positive electrode material according to claim 6, wherein X includes at least one selected from the group consisting of Cl and Br.
Claim 10 of the instant application is provisionally rejected as being unpatentable over claim 9 of Nakama in view of Miki. Nakama claims a battery comprising: a positive electrode including the positive electrode material according to claim 5; a negative electrode; and an electrolyte layer disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode.
Claim 11 of the instant application is provisionally rejected as being unpatentable over claim 10 of Nakama in view of Miki. Nakama claims the battery according to claim 10, wherein the electrolyte layer includes the solid electrolyte.
Claim 12 of the instant application is provisionally rejected as being unpatentable over claim 11 of Nakama in view of Miki. Nakama claims the battery according to claim 10, wherein the electrolyte layer includes a halide solid electrolyte different from the solid electrolyte.
Claim 13 of the instant application is provisionally rejected as being unpatentable over claim 12 of Nakama in view of Miki. Nakama claims the battery according to claim 10, wherein the electrolyte layer includes a sulfide solid electrolyte.
Claim 15 of the instant application is provisionally rejected as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 14 of Nakama in view of Miki. Nakama claims the positive electrode active material according to claim 1, wherein Me is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Mn and Al.
Claim 16 of the instant application is provisionally rejected as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 15 of Nakama in view of Miki. Nakama claims the positive electrode active material according to claim 1, wherein Me is Co and at least one element selected from the group consisting of Mn and Al.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
On page 7 of the Remarks filed November 14th, 2025, applicant argues that the prior art of Miki and Sun fail to teach all the limitations recited in independent claim 1, as amended, particularly the hydrogen element content measured by NDIR. Applicant argues that Miki teaches the moisture content measured by Karl Fischer titration. Applicant argues the instant application discloses a specific drying method to remove surface moisture before NDIR analysis to detect hydrogen in the complex oxide structure. Applicant argues Miki does not disclose such a drying method.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the examiner presents the rejection of claim 1 as described above, including the teachings of the prior art which meet the newly amended limitations. Particularly, the Examiner reiterates that Miki does in fact provide such a drying method:
The instant disclosure establishes that the amount of hydrogen contained in the active material can be greatly reduced by performing drying under specified conditions (Paragraph 0009). The instant disclosure provides in example 1, the positive electrode active material is dried by heating at a temperature of 70ºC or more and less than 400ºC for 1 hour of more prior to constituting a positive electrode active material, which may be performed under vacuum or normal pressure (Paragraph 0051). Miki teaches a step S2 in the method of manufacturing a positive electrode active material wherein the active material particle is dried in a vacuum at 120ºC to 300ºC for at least one hour in order to efficiently remove moisture from the coated active material particles (Paragraphs 0080-0081).
Therefore, the conditions of the drying process of Miki overlap with the conditions (both pressure, time, and temperature) specified by the instant application. The instant disclosure establishes drying as a determining factor of the hydrogen element content in the positive electrode active material. Thus, it is reasonable to presume the claimed hydrogen element content of the positive electrode active material in claim 1 is inherent to Miki, as Miki teaches a composition of active material which is dried under overlapping conditions as those of the instant application.
Further, the examiner provides that the limitation of “a hydrogen element content…measured by a nondispersive infrared absorption method (NDIR)…” is a method limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the method produces a structural feature of the product. The method of measuring a feature of the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP 2113.
The examiner acknowledges Applicant’s request that the non-statutory double patenting rejections be withdrawn in light of the amendment submitted on November 14th, 2025
No additional arguments have been provided; therefore the arguments are not found persuasive and the double patenting rejection is maintained, with the amended limitations addressed in the above section.
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 OLIVIA A JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-1718. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 AM - 4:30 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, 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.
/O.A.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789