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 .
Status of Claims
This is a final office action for application 18/089,623 in response to the amendment(s) filed on 03/30/2026. Claims1, 3 and 5 are under examination. Claim 5 is still withdrawn from consideration.
Withdrawn Objections
The amendment(s) to the claim(s), specification, and/or drawing(s) filed 03/30/2026 is acknowledged and the previous claim objections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 03/30/2026 have been fully considered but were not found persuasive to overcome the current prior art rejection of record for the reasons set forth below. See claims 1 and 3 rejections below.
Applicant argues that “amended claim 1 is novel over Yamamoto because Yamamoto fails to disclose a positive electrode mixture comprising lithium carbonate, a lithium-nickel-manganese-cobalt (NMC) positive electrode material, carbon black, and a resin binder, and that claim 3 is likewise novel by virtue of its dependency from claim 1” (see e.g. pages 4-5 of applicant’s argument).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Examiner acknowledges applicant’s amendment and argument to the extent that amended claim 1 now includes limitations previously recited in canceled claim 2. In view of the amendment, the previous rejection of claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. 102 over Yamamoto alone is withdrawn. However, the argument is not persuasive to establish patentability of amended claims 1 and 3 because the claims are currently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Yamamoto in view of Koji.
As set forth in the rejection below, Yamamoto discloses a positive electrode for a lithium-ion battery including a positive electrode current collector, a positive electrode active material layer, a positive electrode mixture containing a positive electrode active material, and lithium carbonate in an amount within the presently claimed range, including 15 wt.% lithium carbonate. Yamamoto does not disclose that the positive electrode mixture comprises lithium carbonate, a lithium-nickel-manganese-cobalt (NMC) positive electrode material, carbon black, and a resin binder. Koji, however, teaches a positive electrode mixture layer including a positive electrode active material, a conductive material, lithium carbonate, and a binder. Koji further teaches use of a lithium transition metal oxide containing Li, Ni, and metal elements selected from Co and Mn, which corresponds to an NMC positive electrode material, and also teaches carbon black as a conductive material. Therefore, the limitations added to claim 1 are taught or suggested by Koji. For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “the claimed range of 9% by mass or more and 20% by mass or less lithium carbonate is critical because, when the Li2CO3 content is controlled within the range of 9%-20%, a high capacity density can be achieved while suppressing CO2 generation under application of 4.3 V, whereas less than 9% provides a limited effect and greater than 20% causes capacity deterioration” (see e.g. page 5 of applicant’s argument).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the asserted results are not commensurate in scope with amended claim 1. Claim 1 does not recite a capacity density of 180 mAh/g or more, does not recite suppression of CO₂ generation, does not recite application of 4.3 V, does not recite any particular overcharge condition, and does not recite any specific structure or arrangement responsible for allegedly achieving the asserted balance of capacity density and CO₂ suppression. Further, amended claim 1 broadly recites a positive electrode mixture comprising lithium carbonate in a range of 9% by mass or more and 20% by mass or less, an NMC positive electrode material, carbon black, and a resin binder. Applicant has not provided persuasive evidence showing that the alleged criticality exists across the full scope of the claim, including across the entire 9%-20% range, across all NMC positive electrode materials encompassed by the claim, across all carbon blacks encompassed by the claim, and across all resin binders encompassed by the claim.
Additionally, Yamamoto teaches lithium carbonate amounts within the claimed range, including 15 wt.% lithium carbonate, and Koji teaches positive electrode mixtures including lithium carbonate, a lithium transition metal oxide positive electrode active material, carbon black, and binder. Thus, the claimed lithium carbonate range overlaps or includes values taught by the prior art. Applicant has not provided sufficient comparative evidence establishing that the claimed range produces unexpected results relative to the closest prior art, including the combined teachings of Yamamoto and Koji. For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Yamamoto and Koji are directed to a design concept in which CO2 is intentionally generated by decomposition of Li2CO3 to increase internal pressure and activate a current-interruption mechanism, and therefore the references provide no motivation to suppress CO2 generation or increase capacity density” (see e.g. page 6 of applicant’s argument).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the rejection does not rely on Yamamoto and Koji for the purpose of suppressing CO₂ generation or achieving applicant’s alleged capacity density. Rather, Yamamoto is relied upon for teaching a lithium-ion battery positive electrode including lithium carbonate in an amount within the claimed range, and Koji is relied upon for teaching the use of a positive electrode mixture comprising lithium carbonate, a lithium transition metal oxide positive electrode active material corresponding to an NMC positive electrode material, carbon black, and binder.
Furthermore, Koji expressly recognizes the same general problem addressed in Yamamoto, namely use of lithium carbonate in a positive electrode to generate gas and operate a current interruption mechanism during overcharge. Koji further teaches improving battery performance by reducing internal resistance while still allowing lithium carbonate to function as an internal pressure increasing agent. Thus, Koji provides an express reason to use its positive electrode mixture configuration in a lithium secondary battery having a current interruption mechanism, namely to improve battery performance, including reduced internal resistance and high output suitability for vehicle use. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to modify Yamamoto’s positive electrode mixture using Koji’s teachings in order to obtain a high-performance lithium secondary battery while maintaining the current-interruption function associated with lithium carbonate. For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “one of ordinary skill in the art would not look to Koji for the purpose of CO₂ suppression or capacity enhancement because such a modification would be counter to the intended purpose of Koji and Yamamoto” (see e.g. page 6 of applicant’s argument).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the proposed combination does not render Yamamoto or Koji unsatisfactory for their intended purposes. Both Yamamoto and Koji use lithium carbonate in the positive electrode in connection with operation of a current-interruption mechanism during overcharge. Koji does not teach eliminating the gas-generating function of lithium carbonate. Instead, Koji teaches arranging lithium carbonate in the positive electrode in a manner that suppresses adverse effects on battery performance, such as increased internal resistance, while still allowing operation of the current interruption mechanism. Accordingly, the proposed modification is consistent with, not contrary to, the teachings of the prior art. The combination would have predictably resulted in a positive electrode mixture including lithium carbonate, an NMC positive electrode material, carbon black, and resin binder, with the lithium carbonate amount being within the range already taught by Yamamoto. For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In conclusion, applicant’s arguments and amendments have been fully considered. The previous rejection of claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. 102 over Yamamoto alone is withdrawn in view of the amendment to claim 1. The previous rejection of canceled claims 2 and 4 is withdrawn as moot. However, amended claims 1 and 3 remain unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Yamamoto in view of Koji for the reasons set forth below.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (US-5427875-A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Koji et al. (JP 2010-171020 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Yamamoto discloses a positive electrode for a lithium-ion battery (see e.g. "positive electrode" in Column 5 Line 44 and part number 2 in FIG. 2) comprising
a positive electrode current collector (see e.g. "aluminum foil functioning as a positive electrode current collector" in Column 5 lines 19-21 and part number 10 in FIG. 2); and
a positive electrode active material layer (see e.g. "mixed together to form a positive electrode material" in Column 5 lines 17-18),
wherein the positive electrode active material layer has a positive electrode mixture comprising a positive electrode active material (see e.g. "For synthesizing the active material for the positive electrode (LiCoO2), lithium carbonate and cobalt carbonate were mixed together" in Column 4 lines 58-60 and "mixed together to form a positive electrode material" in Column 5 lines 17-18), and the positive electrode mixture contains lithium carbonate in 15% by mass with respect to a total weight thereof (see e.g. Ex. 6 in Table 1; Amount of Lithium Carbonate = 15.0 wt.%)
Yamamoto does not disclose that the positive electrode mixture comprises the lithium carbonate, a lithium- nickel-manganese-cobalt (NMC) positive electrode material, carbon black, and a resin binder.
Koji, however, in the same field of endeavor, positive electrodes for lithium-ion batteries, discloses a positive electrode mixture layer including a positive electrode active material, a conductive material, and lithium carbonate (see e.g. "a positive electrode mixture layer including the positive electrode active material, the conductive material, and lithium carbonate" in paragraph [8] on page 3 of Koji). Koji further discloses the presence of a binder in the positive electrode mixture (see e.g. "binder" on paragraph [9] on page 4 of Koji).
Although Koji does not explicitly use the term “NMC,” Koji discloses that the positive electrode active material is a lithium transition metal oxide containing Li and Ni and metal elements selected from the group consisting of Co and Mn (see e.g. paragraph [47] on page 9 of Koji). This is a composition that corresponds to a lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide (NMC) positive electrode material as recited in the claim.
Koji further discloses that the conductive material is carbon black (see e.g. “a conductive carbon material such as carbon black,” paragraph [30] on page 6 of Koji).
Koji also teaches that with a positive electrode of this type a lithium secondary battery has reduced internal resistance allowing it to realize high performance which is suitable as a battery for a vehicle (see e.g. paragraph [40] on page 8 of Koji). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the positive electrode mixture of Yamamoto et al. such that it comprises the lithium carbonate, a lithium- nickel-manganese-cobalt (NMC) positive electrode material, carbon black, and a resin binder as taught by Koji et al. in order to have a high performance battery suitable for a vehicle as suggested by Koji.
Regarding Claim 3, Yamamoto in view of Koji discloses a lithium-ion battery (see e.g. "This invention relates to a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary cell having a lithium compositive oxide as an active material for it positive electrode" in Column 1 lines 6-8 of Yamamoto) comprising:
the positive electrode for a lithium-ion battery according to claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above);
a negative electrode (see e.g. "negative electrode" in Column 5 line 44 and part number 1 in FIG. 2 of Yamamoto) having a negative electrode current collector (see e.g. "band-shaped copper foil functioning as a negative electrode current collector" in Column 5 lines 39-40 of Yamamoto) and a negative electrode active material layer (se e.g. "the active material for the negative electrode" in Column 5 lines 24-25 of Yamamoto) and facing the positive electrode (see e.g. part numbers 1 (negative electrode) and 2 (positive electrode) in FIG. 2 of Yamamoto; the negative electrode faces the positive electrode); and
an electrolyte layer (see e.g. "an electrolyte solution" in Column 4 line 36 of Yamamoto) disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (see e.g. "An electrolytic solution... was charged in the cell can 5." in Column 5 lines 60-64 of Yamamoto; an electrolyte solution filling the battery cell would lead to a layer disposed between the positive and negative electrode).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure:
Takahata et al. (US-20110039160-A1)
Kong et al. (US-20150287984-A1)
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 JESSE EFYMOW whose telephone number is (571)270-0795. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 10:30 am - 8:30 pm 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, TONG GUO can be reached at (571) 272-3066. 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.
/J.J.E./ Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights