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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received June 3, 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The previous prior art rejection is withdrawn in light of the amendment. However, a new prior art rejection is made below in view of newly cited Saito (US 2016/0351901). All changes to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment.
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 (US 2016/0351901) 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 teaches a positive electrode comprising a positive electrode active material (Para. [0015]) including a lithium composite oxide (Para. [0020]) having the formula Li0.896Na0.039Co0.914Mn-0.086O2 (Para. [0024], [0045]* and Table 1, Example 1) (i.e. the positive electrode active material reading on the claimed Lin-xNaxCo1-yMeyO2 wherein Me is Mn, y = 0.086, x = 0.039 and n is 0.935), a diffraction angle at about 18.6º±0.5º, a diffraction angle at about 41.7±0.5º and a diffraction angle at about 47.1±0.5º (see Fig. 1).
*Note: Para. [0045] contains an obvious typographical error and should recite …Li0.896… rather than …Li0.0896… -in accordance with the remainder of the publication
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 Li0.896Na0.039Co0.914Mn-0.086O2 as taught by Saito, as such a material provides higher initial charge-discharge efficiency (Table 1, Para. [0008]). Thus modified Sugiura et al. would comprise the composition of the positive electrode active material as claimed.
Regarding 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, such properties of modified Sugiura et al., would either (a) be expected to satisfy the corresponding X-ray diffraction pattern peaks and ratio m ≥ 1.5 claimed, or (b) differences in the corresponding X-ray diffraction pattern peaks and ratio m set forth in the instant claim, would be slight differences in ranges that would be obvious. With respect to (a): The reasons regarding expectedness are that the composition (Li0.896Na0.039Co0.914Mn-0.086O2 ) of modified Sugiura is identical to that of the instant claim, therefore it is expected that the X-ray diffraction pattern of the positive electrode active material in modified Sugiura would satisfy these conditions. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." See MPEP 2112.01. With respect to (b): If it is shown that such characteristics are not present, then any differences (regarding the corresponding X-ray diffraction pattern peaks and ratio m set forth in the instant claim) would be small and obvious. 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).
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 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 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 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 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 (US 2016/0351901) 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 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 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 June 3, 2026 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection in light of the amendment.
Applicant’s arguments are drawn to a previous prior art combination and thus, are not persuasive in light of the newly cited prior art.
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 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
Prosecution Insights