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 1-10 are currently pending
Claim 1 is amended
New claims 8-10 have been added
Status of Amendments
The amendment filed 26 September 2025 has been fully considered, but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
This action has been made final.
Status of Objections and Rejections of the Office Action from 1 July 2025
The 103 rejections over Uhm in view of Kim have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment. However, a new grounds of rejection over Uhm in view Toyama 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uhm et al. (WO 2020091428 A1, using US 20210273262 A1 as the English translation), hereinafter Uhm, in view of Toyama et al. (WO 2019171623 A1, using US 20210336260 A1 as the English translation), hereinafter Toyama.
Regarding claims 1 and 8-10, Uhm teaches a lithium secondary battery [0015], as required by claim 1, comprising: a positive electrode current collector 11 (Fig. 1); a positive electrode formed on at least one surface of the positive electrode current collector and having a positive electrode active material 13; a negative electrode 21 free of a negative electrode active material [0040]; and a separator 30 or solid electrolyte disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, wherein the positive electrode comprises a Li(Ni, Co, Mn)02 crystal and/or a Li(Ni, Co, AI)02 crystal in an amount of 20% by mass or more and 100% by mass or less relative to the total mass of the positive electrode active material. In this case the lithium transition metal oxide is at least one selected from a list including Li(NiaCobMnc)O2, wherein 0<a<1, 0<b<1, 0<c<1, and a+b+c=1, as is also required by claim 9, and Li1+aNibM’1-bO2-cA’c, wherein 0≤a≤0.1, 0≤b≤0.8, 0≤c<0.2, and M′ is one or more of Mn, Co, Mg, or Al, and A′ is one or more anions of −1 or −2 valency, as is also required by claim 10, and is preferably used as the positive electrode active material [0078]. This indicates that 100% of the positive electrode active material may be Li(NiaCobMnc)O2 or Li1+aNibM’1-bO2-cA’c.
Uhm is silent as to the full width at half maximum of the positive electrode active material. However, Toyama teaches a cathode active material comprising Li1+aNibCocMdO2+α, wherein M is at least one metal element other than Li, Ni and Co, such as Mn or Al, −0.04≤a≤0.04, 0.80≤b≤1.0, 0≤c≤0.06, b+c+d=1, and −0.2<α<0.2 [0032] (Formula (1)) with a full width at half maximum for the diffraction peak of the (003) plane as measured by X-ray diffraction that is 0.055° to 0.120° [0062]. This overlaps with the claimed range of 0.01° to 0.10° of claims 1 and 9-10 and 0.03° to 0.08°. 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).
Uhm and Toyama are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of lithium secondary batteries. 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 Uhm to include the cathode active material taught by Toyama. Doing so would have provided excellent charge-discharge cycle properties, output properties, and productivity [0019]. Further, the selection of a known material, in this case the Li1+aNibCocMdO2+α material of Toyama, based on its suitability for its intended use, in this case as a cathode active material, supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Uhm and Toyama teaches the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1. Toyama further teaches a cathode active material comprising LiNi1-x-yCoxMnyO2 or LiNi1-x-yCoxAlyO2 where 0.05≤x≤0.20 and 0.01≤y≤0.15, in this case Formula (1), wherein a=0, 0.80≤b≤0.94, 0.05≤c≤0.06, 0.01≤d≤0.15, α=0, and M is Mn for the first crystal and Al for the second crystal [0032]. 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).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Uhm and Toyama teaches the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1. Uhm further teaches wherein the positive electrode active material to lithium metal compound weight ratio is 95:5 to 30:70 [0100]. This overlaps with the claimed range of 50% by mass or more and 100% 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).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Uhm and Toyama teaches the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1. Uhm further teaches wherein charging and discharging are performed by depositing lithium metal on the surface of the negative electrode and dissolving the deposited lithium. In this case, the lithium ions are taught to migrate through charge [0015] and form a film on the negative electrode [0043].
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Uhm and Toyama teaches the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1. Uhm further teaches the negative electrode consisting of at least one selected from the group consisting of Cu, Ni, Ti, and stainless steel [0071].
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Uhm and Toyama teaches the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1. Uhm further teaches that the structure is capable of forming lithium metal on a negative electrode current collector using lithium ions transferred through charge after assembling the battery [0013]. This indicates that the foil is not formed on the surface of the negative electrode before initial charging.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Uhm and Toyama teaches the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1. Uhm further teaches a first charge voltage range of 4.8 V to 2.5 V [0023]. This overlaps with the claimed range of 4.4 V 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).
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