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 canceled claim 3 and added new claims 7 and 8. The pending claims are claims 1, 2, 4-8.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/27/2026 has been entered.
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, 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamaki et al., US 20140199590.
Regarding claim 1, Tamaki et al., teaches a lithium-ion battery (abstract), comprising: a positive electrode including a positive electrode mixture material (0007-0010) containing positive electrode active material particles (abstract; 0009) and a conductive material (abstract; 0008-0010); a negative electrode (0011; 0069) including a negative electrode mixture material (0072-0073); and an electrolyte (0011; 0069; 0074-0075), wherein: the positive electrode active material particles of the positive electrode mixture material include primary particles (0038), a first particle aggregate of the primary particles (0038) cohered into a hollow mass with a hollow portion (abstract; 0013-0017) having a diameter of less than 1 um (0.25 um) (0017), 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 (1 um to 25 um) (0038), each of the first particle aggregate (0008) and the second particle aggregate (0009) includes a shell (abstract; 0008-0009; 0038) and the hollow portion is formed in the shell (abstract; 0008-0010); when referring to the primary particles (0038) and the first particle aggregate as first particles (0038), 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 (25% to 90%) (0013); the positive electrode mixture material has a void percentage of 30% or greater and 50% or less (Fig. 1-2, 7-10).
Tamaki et al., 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, Tamaki et al., teaches wherein the percentage of the volume of the first particles is 20% or greater and 50% or less (3% to 30%) (0014; 0048).
Regarding claim 4, Tamaki 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, Tamaki et al., teaches wherein a content percentage of the conductive material with respect to weight of positive electrode mixture material is 3 wt% or greater and 30 wt% or less (0014; 0057-0059).
Regarding claim 6, Tamaki et al., teaches wherein the conductive material (0050; 0071; 0077) has an average diameter of 1 nm or greater and 100 nm or less (0.1 um) (0057).
Regarding claim 7, Tamaki et al., teaches, wherein the shell (abstract) of the second particle aggregate includes a through hole (abstract) that extends through the shell (abstract).
Regarding claim 8, Tamaki et al., teaches wherein the shell (abstract) of the first particle aggregate does not include a through hole that extends through the shell (0038) (“the secondary particle 32 has the through hole 36 penetrating from the outside to the hollow part 34.”) (0038; 0068; 0088).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the above claim(s) 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Okamura, US 2010/0209763.
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
Prosecution Insights