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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16 are pending
Claim 1 is amended
New claims 14-16 have been added
Status of Amendments
The amendment filed 19 August 2025 has been fully considered, but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
This action has been made final.
Status of Rejections and Objections of the Office Action from 29 May 2025
The rejections over Miki and over Miki in view of Ji have been withdrawn. However, a new grounds of rejection over Miki in view of Matsumoto and further in view of Yoshida has been set forth, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-4, 9-10, and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miki (US 20180219229 A1), hereinafter Miki, in view of Matsumoto (US 20120119167 A1), hereinafter Matsumoto.
Regarding claims 1 and 14-16, Miki teaches a positive electrode active material 10 [0016] comprising a lithium nickel complex oxide [0033] and containing water generated during heating at 200°C in Karl Fischer titration in an amount of 61 ppm by mass (Table 2, Ex 8). Miki is silent as to the complex oxide being represented by a formula (1): LiNixMe1-xO2 and as to the water generated during heating at 300°C in Karl Fischer titration. However, Matsumoto teaches a positive electrode active material 1 [0025] comprising a lithium nickel complex oxide represented by a formula (I): LiNi1-aMaO2 as a main component, wherein a satisfies 0.01 ≤ a ≤ 0.5 [0013], which overlaps with the claimed formula (1): LiNixMe1-xO2, wherein x satisfies 0.5 ≤ x ≤ 1; and M is at least one kind of an element selected from a thirteenth group element like Al, as is also required by claim 15, and a transition metal element other than Ni like Mn, as is also required by claim 14, or Co, which could be used alongside one element selected from the group consisting of Mn and Al as is also required by claim 16 [0013], and containing water generated during heating at 300°C in Karl Fischer titration in an amount of 1% by mass or less [0071], preferably 0.05% by mass or less [0078], which equates to 500 ppm or less. This overlaps with the claimed 317.5 ppm by mass or less. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Miki and Matsumoto are both considered to be equivalent to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of lithium nickel composite oxide active materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive electrode active material of Miki with that of Matsumoto. Doing so would have provided high capacity, superior thermal stability, and low inner resistance [0035]. Further, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use, in this case as a lithium nickel complex oxide positive electrode active material, supports a prima facie obviousness determination. In re Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, modified Miki teaches the positive electrode active material according to claim 1. Miki further teaches a coating material coating a surface of the positive electrode active material, in this case a lithium ion conducting oxide 2 [0035], wherein the coating material includes at least one selected from the group consisting of lithium niobate, lithium phosphate, lithium titanate, and lithium tungstate [0035].
Regarding claim 4, modified Miki teaches the positive electrode active material according to claim 1. Miki further teaches a positive electrode material comprising a similar lithium nickel composite oxide active material and a solid electrolyte [0039].
Regarding claim 9, modified Miki teaches the positive electrode material according to claim 4. Miki further teaches a battery 100 [0054] comprising:
a positive electrode 20 including the positive electrode material according to claim 4 [0041, 0043];
a negative electrode 40; and
an electrolyte layer 30 disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (as seen in Fig. 3).
Regarding claims 10 and 12, modified Miki teaches the battery according to claim 9. Miki further teaches the electrolyte layer 30 including a solid electrolyte 31 that can include the solid electrolyte that the cathode can contain [0058], in this case a sulfide solid electrolyte [0043].
Regarding claim 13, modified Miki teaches a method for manufacturing the positive electrode active material according to claim 1, the manufacturing method comprising drying a material constituting the positive electrode active material at a temperature of 120°C to 300°C for at least 1 hour [0071] which lies within the claimed range of drying at a temperature of 70°C or more and 850°C or less for 1 hour or more. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 5-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miki in view Matsumoto, as applied above, further in view of Yoshida et al. (US 20200020929 A1), hereinafter Yoshida.
Regarding claims 5-8, modified Miki teaches the positive electrode material according to claim 4. Miki is silent as to the solid electrolyte being represented by LiαMβXγ. However, Yoshida teaches a positive electrode layer containing a similar positive electrode active material and a solid electrolyte [0078] that may include a halide solid electrolyte [0088] like Li3YCl6 [0096].
Miki, Matsumoto, and Yoshida are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of positive electrode active materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrolyte used in the positive electrode material of Miki with the halide solid electrolyte taught by Yoshida. Doing so would have improved lithium-ion conductivity of the composition [Yoshida 0095]. Further, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use, in this case as a solid electrolyte in a substantially identical positive electrode material, supports a prima facie obviousness determination. In re Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding claim 11, modified Miki teaches the battery according to claim 9. Modified Miki is silent as to the electrolyte layer including a halide solid electrolyte different from the solid electrolyte. However, Yoshida teaches an electrolyte layer including a halide solid electrolyte, in this case Li3YCl6 (pg. 12, ¶ 2). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solid electrolyte layer of modified Miki with the halide solid electrolyte taught by Yoshida, which would also be different from the sulfide solid electrolyte taught to be used in the positive electrode material by Miki. Doing so would have improved lithium-ion conductivity of the composition [Yoshida 0095]. Further, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use, in this case as a solid electrolyte in an electrolyte layer, supports a prima facie obviousness determination. In re Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DUSTIN KENWOOD VAN KIRK whose telephone number is (703)756-4717. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm EST.
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.
/DUSTIN VAN KIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722