DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The Applicant has amended independent claim 1; and canceled claim 3. The pending claims are claims 1, 2, 4--6.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamura et al., US 2010/0209763, in view of Hong et al., KR 20190024680 (JP 2019046795).
Regarding claim 1, Okamura et al., teaches a lithium-ion battery (0068; 0109), comprising: a positive electrode including a positive electrode mixture material (0066) containing positive electrode active material particles (0019; 0044; 0069; 0071) and a conductive material (0077; 0081); a negative electrode (0069) including a negative electrode mixture material (0084-0085; 0088); and an electrolyte (0021; 0068), wherein: the positive electrode active material particles of the positive electrode mixture material include primary particles (0011), a first particle aggregate of the primary particles (0031; 0044) cohered into a hollow mass with a hollow portion (Fig. 4, 5) having a diameter of less than 1 um (Fig. 7; 0039; 0.1 to 5 um), and a second particle aggregate of the primary particles cohered into a hollow mass with a hollow portion having a diameter of 1 um or greater (Fig. 7; 0038-0039), each of the first particle aggregate (0011) and the second particle aggregate (0011) includes a shell (edges of the particle groups) and the hollow portion (gaps inbetween the shells/edges) is formed in the shell (Fig. 5-6; first active material particles 3; second active material particles 4; primary particle 5); when referring to the primary particles and the first particle aggregate as first particles (Fig. 1-6), a percentage of a total volume of the first particles with respect to a total volume of the positive electrode active material particles is 5% or greater and 70% or less (0024; 0056); the positive electrode mixture material has a void percentage of 30% or greater and 50% or less (Fig. 4).
Okamura does not teach the conductive material has an aspect ratio of 1:10 or greater.
However, A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding claim 2, Okamura et al., teaches, wherein the percentage of the volume of the first particles is 20% or greater and 50% or less (0024; 0056).
Regarding claim 4, Okamura et al., does not teach wherein the aspect ratio of the conductive material is 1:30 or greater.
However, A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding claim 5, Okamura et al., does not teach wherein a content percentage of the conductive material with respect to weight of positive electrode mixture material is 0.1 wt% or greater and 5 wt% or less.
However, A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding claim 6, Okamura et al., does not teach wherein the conductive material (0050; 0071; 0077) has an average diameter of 1 nm or greater and 100 nm or less.
However, A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “Okamura fails to disclose at least "each of the first particle aggregate and the second particle aggregate includes a shell, and the hollow portion is formed in the shell" as now recited in amended claim 1”.
However, Okamura teaches each of the first particle aggregate (0011) and the second particle aggregate (0011) includes a shell (edges of the particle groups) and the hollow portion (gaps inbetween the shells/edges) is formed in the shell (Fig. 5-6; first active material particles 3; second active material particles 4; primary particle 5).
The Applicant argues that “Okamura teaches minimizing the void percentage as much as possible.”
, Okamura teaches a void percentage within the claimed void percentage of 20% to 50% (0024; 0056), as can be seen in the Figure 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA J MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1288. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-4pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
ANGELA J. MARTIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/ANGELA J MARTIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights