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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 23, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received January 23, 2026:
Claims 1, 6-7, 9, 14-15 and 17 are pending. Claims 2-5, 8, 10-13, 16 and 18-20 have been cancelled as per applicant’s request.
The previous rejection is withdrawn. However, a new grounds of rejection has been made in view of Peng et al. (US 2022/0052382).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 6, 9, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiura et al. (US 2010/0159330) in view of Saito et al. (US 2012/0082897) and Peng et al. (US 2022/0052382).
Regarding Claim 1, Sugiura et al. teaches a positive electrode (Fig. 1B, #15) (i.e. a positive electrode piece) wherein the positive electrode comprises a cathode collector (Fig. 1B, #15a) (i.e. a positive electrode current collector) and a cathode active material layer (Fig. 1B, #15b) (i.e. a positive electrode active layer) provided on at least one surface of the cathode collector, and the cathode active material layer comprises plate-like particles (Fig. 1B, #15b2) for cathode active material (i.e. the positive electrode active layer comprises a positive electrode active material) and the aspect ratio of the plate-like particle is desirably 4 to 20 (Para. [0177]) such that the plate surface of the plate-like particles for cathode active material are in parallel with an in-plane direction of the cathode active material layer (Para. [0177]) (i.e. in a plane composed of a length direction and a thickness direction of the positive electrode piece, particles of the positive electrode active material have a longest distance a in the length direction of the positive electrode piece, and have a longest distance b in the thickness direction of the positive electrode piece, meeting a/b≥3) and wherein in a region not less than 25µm*25µm the number of particles of the positive electrode active material is greater than or equal to 2 (see Fig. 5A and Para. [0077], wherein 2 or more plate-like particles are present in a region smaller than 25µm*25µm and thus, 2 or more particles would inherently be present in a region of not less than 25µm*25µm) (i.e. N≥2). An inherent feature does not need to be recognized by the art at the time of the invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. See MPEP §2112(II).
Sugiura et al. does not teach the positive active material reading on the claimed formula of instant claim 1, the X-ray diffraction pattern of the positive electrode active material has a peak 002 corresponding to crystal plane 002, a peak 102 corresponding to crystal plane 102, and a peak 103 corresponding to crystal plane 103 diffraction angles, or the X-ray diffraction pattern of the positive electrode active material has a peak 101 corresponding to a crystal plane 101 and a peak 004 corresponding to a crystal plane 004, and a peak intensity ratio of the peak 101 to the peak 004 is m, wherein m≥ 1.5.
However, Saito et al. teaches a positive electrode active material is Li0.947Na0.036Co0.935Ti0.065O2 (Table 2, Example 2) and thus teaches a claim formula within the claimed formula of Lin-xNaxCo1-yMeyO2, 0.70≤n≤1, 0＜x≤0.15, 0≤y≤0.15, and Me is selected from one or more of Al, Mg, Ti, Zr, Ni, Mn, Y, La, Sr, W, Sc, Ce, P, Nb, V, Ta, and Te, wherein Me is Ti, n=0.983, x = 0.036 and y = 0.065. the positive electrode active material has a peak 002 observed near 2ϴ = 18.5º, a peak 102 near 42º and a peak 103 near 47º (Para. [0101], Fig. 3 and 6, wherein Fig. 6 shows the location of the peaks and Fig. 3 demonstrates the peaks of the material taught by Saito et al. ) (i.e. the X-ray diffraction pattern of the positive electrode active material has a peak 002 corresponding to crystal plane 002, a peak 102 corresponding to crystal plane 102, and a peak 103 corresponding to crystal plane 103) and the positive electrode active material has a peak 101 near 38 (i.e. a diffraction pattern of the positive electrode active material has a peak 101 corresponding to a crystal plane 101) and a peak 004 near 37.5º (i.e. a peak 004 correspond to a crystal plane 004) and a peak intensity ratio of 101 to 004 appears to be at the very least 2 or more (see Fig. 3, Examples 1-4 and Fig. 6, wherein Fig. 6 demonstrates the locations of peak/crystal planes) (i.e. a peak intensity ratio of the peak 101 to the peak 004 is m wherein m ≥ 1.5).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sugiura to incorporate the teaching of the positive electrode active material Li0.947Na0.036Co0.935Ti0.065O2 as taught by Saito et al., as such a positive electrode active material would have a stabilized crystal structure wherein the lithium-containing oxide is less likely to break down during charging and discharging and can thereby increase capacity retention (Para. [0023]).
Sugiura et al. does not teach a compaction density of the positive electrode piece is ≥ 4.0 g/cm3.
However, Peng et al. teaches a positive electrode obtained (i.e. a positive electrode piece) has a compacted density of 4.15 g/cm3 (i.e. a compaction density of the positive electrode piece is ≥ 4.0 g/cm3) (para. [0132]).
The combination of the compaction density as taught by Peng et al., with the positive electrode piece of Sugiura et al. to would yield the predictable result of providing a positive electrode for a lithium ion battery (Para. [0094]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to combine the compaction density as taught by Peng et al., with the positive electrode piece of Sugiura et al., as the combination would yield the predictable result of providing a positive electrode for a lithium ion battery (Para. [0094]). The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding claim 6, Sugiura et al. as modified by Saito et al. and Peng et al. teaches all of the elements of the positive electrode piece according to claim 1 as explained above.
Sugiura et al. further teaches the particle have a particle size of 10 micrometers or greater (Para. [0173]) (i.e. a particle size of the positive electrode active material is overlapping with the claimed range of 6-18 micrometers). 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 9, Sugiura et al. as modified by Saito et al. and Peng et al. teaches all of the elements of the positive electrode piece according to claim 1 as explained above.
Sugiura et al. further teaches a lithium secondary battery (i.e. a battery) comprising the positive electrode (i.e. positive electrode piece) (Para. [0016]).
Regarding claim 14, Sugiura et al. as modified by Saito et al. and Peng et al. teaches all of the elements of the positive electrode piece according to claim 9 as explained above.
Sugiura et al. further teaches the particle have a particle size of 10 micrometers or greater (Para. [0173]) (i.e. a particle size of the positive electrode active material is overlapping with the claimed range of 6-18 micrometers). 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 17, Sugiura et al. as modified by Saito et al. and Peng et al. teaches all of the elements of the battery according to claim 9 as explained above.
Sugiura et al. further teaches a lithium cell for use in cellphones and notebook-style PCs (Para. [0173]) (i.e. an electronic device comprising the battery according to claim 9).
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiura et al. (US 2010/0159330) in view of Saito et al. (US 2012/0082897) and Peng et al. (US 2022/0052382) as applied to claim 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Guan et al. (US 2023/0207782) and Kwak et al. (US 2022/0344643).
Regarding claim 7, Sugiura et al. as modified by Saito et al. and Peng et al. teaches all of the elements of the positive electrode piece according to claim 1 as explained above.
Sugiura et al. does not teach the positive electrode active material has a conductivity of ≥ 1E-4S/cm under a force of ≥ 4KN; and a compaction density of ≥ 3.75g/cm3 under a force of ≥ 30KN.
However, Guan et al. teaches an electrode active composition comprising lithium cobalt oxide particles (Para. [0007]) as a positive electrode active material (Para. [0161]) wherein a compacted density is greater than or equal to 4.05 g/cm3 under a pressure of 5 tons [equivalent to about 50 kN] (Para. [0037]) (i.e. a compaction density of ≥ 3.75 g/cm3 under a force of ≥ 30 KN).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the compaction density of the positive electrode active material of Sugiura et al. to incorporate the teaching of the compaction density as taught by Guan et al. as it would improve weight energy density and volumetric energy density of the battery (Para. [0116]) and better cycling performance (Para. [0137]).
Sugiura et al. as modified by Guan et al. does not teach the positive electrode active material has a conductivity of ≥ 1E-4S/cm under a force of ≥ 4KN.
However, Kwak et al. teaches a positive electrode active material has a powder electrical conductivity of 2.7x10-3 S/cm to 10.0x10-3 S/cm by applying a force of 5 kN to 20 kN (i.e. the positive electrode active material has a conductivity of ≥ 1E-4 S/cm under a force of ≥ 4KN).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode active material of Sugiura et al. to incorporate the teaching of the conductivity of Kwak et al. as such an electrical conductivity provides improved electrochemical properties of the battery such as input and output properties, lifespan properties and the like (Para. [0046]).
Regarding claim 15, Sugiura et al. as modified by Saito et al. and Peng et al. teaches all of the elements of the positive electrode piece according to claim 9 as explained above.
Sugiura et al. does not teach the positive electrode active material has a conductivity of ≥ 1E-4S/cm under a force of ≥ 4KN; and a compaction density of ≥ 3.75g/cm3 under a force of ≥ 30KN.
However, Guan et al. teaches an electrode active composition comprising lithium cobalt oxide particles (Para. [0007]) as a positive electrode active material (Para. [0161]) wherein a compacted density is greater than or equal to 4.05 g/cm3 under a pressure of 5 tons [equivalent to about 50 kN] (Para. [0037]) (i.e. a compaction density of ≥ 3.75 g/cm3 under a force of ≥ 30 KN).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the compaction density of the positive electrode active material of Sugiura et al. to incorporate the teaching of the compaction density as taught by Guan et al. as it would improve weight energy density and volumetric energy density of the battery (Para. [0116]) and better cycling performance (Para. [0137]).
Sugiura et al. as modified by Guan et al. does not teach the positive electrode active material has a conductivity of ≥ 1E-4S/cm under a force of ≥ 4KN.
However, Kwak et al. teaches a positive electrode active material has a powder electrical conductivity of 2.7x10-3 S/cm to 10.0x10-3 S/cm by applying a force of 5 kN to 20 kN (i.e. the positive electrode active material has a conductivity of ≥ 1E-4 S/cm under a force of ≥ 4KN).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode active material of Sugiura et al. to incorporate the teaching of the conductivity of Kwak et al. as such an electrical conductivity provides improved electrochemical properties of the battery such as input and output properties, lifespan properties and the like (Para. [0046]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the plate-like particles in Sugiura et al. are present before the positive electrode piece is obtained and are intermediate characteristics, and Sugiura does not teach the compaction density which should be considered in conjunction with other limitations rather than compared independently.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Sugiura teaches Figures 1B is sectional views of the positive electrode of the configuration of a lithium a lithium battery according to the present invention (Para. [0039], [0040]). Thus, it is unclear how the teachings relied upon do not teach the positive electrode piece as claimed or how the plate-like particles are not present in the positive electrode plate as shown in Figure 1B. Regarding the compaction density, Sugiura is not relied upon for teaching compaction density. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).In response to applicant's argument that compaction density should be considered in conjunction rather than compared independently, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Thus, the arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Sugiura and Saito et al. could not be directly combined with each other because of differences in specific crystal structures of the individual references and Saito does not teach plate-like particles and Sugiura teaches LiCoO2 in examples.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the different crystal structures and Saito not teaching plate-like particles, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Sugiura et al. teaches the cathode active material having the plate-like particles is a LiMO2 material, wherein M includes at least Co (Para. [0202]) (Para. [0202]). As Saito et al. also teaches a LiMO2 material including Co (Table 2, Example 2 and see section “6.” above), there is a reasonable expectation of success of incorporating the material as taught by Saito et al. and its desirable crystal structure which is stabilized and less likely to break down during charging and discharging, increasing capacity retention (Para. [0023]). Regarding the material taught in examples, disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” See MPEP 2123. Thus, the arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the Peng reference (and the amended limitation regarding compaction density referred to as technical feature A in the arguments) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same teaching applied in the previous prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that the dependent claims are distinct from the prior art of record for the same reason as the independent claim.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection with respect to the independent claim has been maintained, and thus the rejections to the dependent claims are maintained as well.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARMINDO CARVALHO JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-5292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a.m.-5p.m..
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571 272-1481. 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.
/ARMINDO CARVALHO JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729