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 .
This action is in response to applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 12/05/2025. Claims 1-19 are currently pending for examination on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US 2022/0367852) (Takahashi) (of record) in view of Aoki et al. (US 2019/0190018) (Aoki) (of record).
Regarding claim 1, Takahashi discloses a positive electrode active material (abstract) comprising: a first particle group (composite oxide A); and a second particle group (composite oxide B) (see Fig. 2; abstract; [0009]), wherein the first particle group (A) consists of a plurality of first particles, each first particle includes two to five single particles ([0028]-[0029]), suggesting the claimed range of one to ten single particles. Takahashi further discloses that the single particle has a first average particle diameter of 0.5 µm or larger ([0028]), suggesting the claimed range of 0.5 µm or more. While Takahashi discloses an average particle range, claim 1 only requires one to ten single particles in each of the plurality of first particles and does not preclude the presence of other particles outside of the claimed range. Thus, Takahashi need only disclose that at least two single particles have a diameter of 0.5 µm or more to satisfy the limitation that all of the single particles in the plurality of first particles have a diameter within the claimed range. Therefore, since Takahashi further discloses that the average single particle diameter is calculated based on the average particle diameter of 100 single particles ([0029]), one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that at least two single particles of the 100 single particles have a diameter of 0.5 µm or larger, meeting the claimed limitation that all of the single particles have a diameter of 0.5 µm or more. Takahashi further discloses that the second particle group (B) consists of a plurality of second particles, each second particle includes an aggregation-based particle, each aggregation-based particle is formed of 10,000 to 5,000,000 primary particles aggregated to each other ([0028]-[0029]), suggesting the claimed range of 50 or more primary particles. Takahashi further discloses that the primary particle has an average particle diameter of 0.3 µm or smaller ([0028]), suggesting the claimed range of less than 0.5 µm. Similar to the above particle diameter range, Takahashi discloses an average range based on the average particle diameter of 100 primary particles ([0029]). However, the instant specification is clear that in order for each of the primary particles in the aggregation-based particle to be considered as having a maximum diameter within the claimed range, only 10 or more of the primary particles in an aggregation-based particle (which can include up to 10,000 primary particles) needs to have a diameter within the claimed range (see [0039]-[0040] of the PGPub of the instant application). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Takahashi’s average diameter of 0.3 µm or smaller based on 100 primary particle diameters as including at least 10 primary particles with a diameter of 0.3 µm or smaller, satisfying the limitation that all of the primary particles have a diameter of less than 0.5 µm. Takahashi further discloses that the single particle in the first particle group (A) has a ratio of nickel to metallic elements except lithium of 65 mol % or more ([0030]), encompassing the claimed range of 70 mol % or more. Takahashi further discloses that the primary particle in the second particle group (B) has a ratio of nickel to metallic elements except lithium of 70 mol % or more ([0030]), encompassing the claimed range of 75 mol % or more. A prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Takahashi to have met the claimed ranges based on the encompassing ranges disclosed by Takahashi. Takahashi further discloses that the aggregation-based particle in the second particle group (B) includes, inside thereof, a lithium-containing metal oxide (lithium borate) at interfaces of the primary particles ([0039]; [0047]). Takahashi further discloses that an amount of the first particle group (A) is 50 mass % based on the total mass of a positive electrode active material ([0074]). Thus, since the positive electrode active material consists of the first particle group (A) and the second particle group (B), Takahashi necessarily discloses that a mass ratio of the first particle group (A) to the second particle group (B) is 50:50, suggesting the claimed range of 20:80 to 50:50. Takahashi fails to explicitly disclose, however, that the aggregation-based particle in the second particle group (B) has a porosity from 2% to 8%.
Aoki teaches a similar positive electrode active material (title) comprising a particle group including an aggregation-based particle (secondary particle) (abstract; [0007]). Aoki further teaches that the aggregation-based particle (secondary particle) has a porosity of from 2% to 6% (abstract; [0007]; [0010]-[0011]), suggesting the claimed range of from 2% to 8%. Aoki further teaches that configuring the aggregation-based particle (secondary particle) in this way enables a reduction in direct-current resistance ([0010]-[0011]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aggregation-based particle in the second particle group disclosed by Takahashi to have the claimed porosity, as taught by Aoki, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would enable a reduction in direct-current resistance.
Regarding claim 2, modified Takahashi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Modified Takahashi further discloses that each of the single particle in the first particle group (A) and the primary particle in the second particle group (B) includes a compound containing nickel, cobalt, and manganese (Takahashi: [0066]; [0069]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Takahashi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Takahashi fails to explicitly disclose a strength at break for the aggregation-based particle in the second particle group (B). However, Aoki teaches that the strength at break of the aggregation-based particle (secondary particle) is greater than 50 MPa and less than 150 MPa (Aoki: [0030]), which is substantially close to the claimed range of 150 MPa or more. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed range does not overlap with the prior art but is merely close. See MPEP §2144.05. Aoki further teaches that configuring the aggregation-based particle (secondary particle) in this way helps to prevent breakage of the aggregation-based particle (secondary particle) while also preventing a deterioration in filling properties (Aoki: [0030]). Therefore, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality for the claimed range, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aggregation-based particle disclosed by Takahashi to have the claimed strength at break, as suggested by Aoki, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would prevent breakage of the aggregation-based particle while also preventing a deterioration in filling properties.
Regarding claim 4, modified Takahashi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Modified Takahashi further discloses that the lithium-containing metal oxide is lithium borate (Takahashi: [0047]), satisfying all of the limitations in claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, modified Takahashi discloses a positive electrode (Takahashi: 11) comprising: a positive electrode active material layer (Takahashi: 31), and a base material (Takahashi: 30) (Takahashi: see Fig. 2; [0024]), wherein the positive electrode active material layer (Takahashi: 31) includes the positive electrode active material according to claim 1 (Takahashi: see Fig. 2; [0024]-[0026]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Takahashi discloses a lithium-ion battery (Takahashi: 10) comprising the positive electrode (Takahashi: 11) according to claim 5 (Takahashi: see Fig. 1; [0016]; [0024]-[0026]).
Regarding claim 7, Takahashi in view of Aoki discloses all of the limitations in claim 7 present in claim 1, as set forth above. Furthermore, as set forth above, modified Takahashi discloses that each aggregation-based particle is formed of 10,000 to 5,000,000 primary particles aggregated to each other (Takahashi: [0028]-[0029]), overlapping the claimed range of 50 to 10,000. In the case where the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Therefore, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Takahashi to have satisfied the claimed range based on the overlapping range disclosed by modified Takahashi. Thus, modified Takahashi satisfies all of the limitations in claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, modified Takahashi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 7. Modified Takahashi further discloses all of the limitations in claim 8 as set forth above for claim 2, which has the same subject matter as claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, modified Takahashi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 7. Modified Takahashi further discloses all of the limitations in claim 9 as set forth above for claim 3, which has the same subject matter as claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, modified Takahashi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 7. Modified Takahashi further discloses all of the limitations in claim 10 as set forth above for claim 4, which has the same subject matter as claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, modified Takahashi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 7. Modified Takahashi further discloses all of the limitations in claim 11 as set forth above for claim 5, which has the same subject matter as claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, modified Takahashi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 11. Modified Takahashi further discloses all of the limitations in claim 12 as set forth above for claim 6, which has the same subject matter as claim 12.
Claims 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US 2022/0367852) (Takahashi) (of record) in view of Aoki et al. (US 2019/0190018) (Aoki) (of record) and Yanagisawa et al. (US 2014/0065298) (Yanagisawa).
Regarding claim 13, Takahashi in view of Aoki discloses all of the limitations in claim 13 present in claim 1, as set forth above. As set forth above, modified Takahashi discloses that the aggregation-based particle in the second particle group (B) includes, inside thereof, a lithium-containing metal oxide (lithium borate) at interfaces of the primary particles (Takahashi: [0039]; [0047]). Modified Takahashi further discloses that the aggregation-based particle in the second particle group (B) can further include metal elements including tungsten (W), zirconium (Zr), titanium (Ti), and aluminum (Al) (Takahashi: [0031]). Modified Takahashi fails to explicitly disclose, however, that the lithium-containing metal oxide is at least one selected from the group consisting of lithium tungstate, lithium zirconate, lithium titanium oxide, and lithium aluminate.
However, these lithium-containing metal oxides are common for use in positive electrode active materials. For instance, Yanagisawa teaches a similar positive electrode active material (title; [0029]) comprising: an aggregation-based particle (see Fig. 2D; [0024]-[0025]) coated at interfaces of the primary particles with a lithium-containing metal oxide (see Fig. 2D; [0024]-[0025]; [0033]). Yanagisawa further teaches that this lithium-containing metal oxide can include lithium tungstate (Li2WO4), lithium zirconate (Li2ZrO3), lithium titanium oxide (Li2TiO3 or Li4Ti5O12), or lithium aluminate (LiAlO2) ([0033]). Yanagisawa further teaches that providing the active material with this lithium-metal oxide coating helps prevent the active material from reacting with other substances, preventing an increase in interface resistance ([0024]; [0041]; [0049]; [0068]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the aggregation-based particle disclosed by modified Takahashi to include at interfaces of the primary particles a lithium-containing metal oxide including lithium tungstate, lithium zirconate, lithium titanium oxide, or lithium aluminate, as taught by Yanagisawa, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would help to further prevent the active material from reacting with other substances and prevent an increase in interface resistance.
Regarding claims 14-17, modified Takahashi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 13. As set forth above, Yanagisawa teaches that the lithium-containing metal oxide can include lithium tungstate (Li2WO4), lithium zirconate (Li2ZrO3), lithium titanium oxide (Li2TiO3 or Li4Ti5O12), or lithium aluminate (LiAlO2) (Yanagisawa: [0033]), suggesting all of the limitations in claims 14-17. Therefore, since modified Takahashi includes the teachings from Yanagisawa regarding the lithium-containing metal oxide, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Takahashi to have satisfied all of the limitations in claims 14-17.
Regarding claim 18, modified Takahashi discloses a positive electrode (Takahashi: 11) comprising: a positive electrode active material layer (Takahashi: 31), and a base material (Takahashi: 30) (Takahashi: see Fig. 2; [0024]), wherein the positive electrode active material layer (Takahashi: 31) includes the positive electrode active material according to claim 1 (Takahashi: see Fig. 2; [0024]-[0026]).
Regarding claim 19, modified Takahashi discloses a lithium-ion battery (Takahashi: 10) comprising the positive electrode (Takahashi: 11) according to claim 18 (Takahashi: see Fig. 1; [0016]; [0024]-[0026]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the specification have overcome the drawings objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 09/08/2025.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments related to the newly claimed particle diameter ranges, examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant specifically argues that because Takahashi discloses average particle diameters for the single particles and the primary particles, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood each of the single particles and primary particles as having a maximum diameter within the claimed ranges. However, examiner points out the claim 1 does not preclude the presence of other particles outside of the claimed ranges. Indeed, claim 1 recites a first particle group, the first particle group consists of a plurality of first particles and only requires one to ten single particles in each of the plurality of first particles. Thus, the limitation requiring that “all the single particles have a first maximum diameter of 0.5 µm or more” only requires that at least two single particles (one in each of two first particles) have a diameter of 0.5 µm or more. While Takahashi’s disclosure of a single particle with a diameter of 0.5 µm or larger is an average diameter (Takahashi: [0028]), Takahashi is also clear that this average is calculated based on the average particle diameter of 100 single particles (Takahashi: [0029]). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have clearly recognized that out of the 100 particles, at least two of the particles would have a diameter of 0.5 µm or larger in order for the group of 100 to reach an average diameter of 0.5 µm or larger, satisfying the limitation that each of the single particles have a diameter of 0.5 µm or more. While this average may include other particles with a diameter of less than 0.5 µm, claim 1 does not exclude the presence of those particles, and under BRI, examiner need only recognize the single particles disclosed by Takahashi having a diameter of 0.5 µm or larger as corresponding to the claimed single particles. Similarly, regarding the limitation that “all of the primary particles have a maximum diameter of less than 0.5 µm,” the instant specification only requires that 10 or more primary particles in a single aggregation-based particle have a maximum diameter of 0.05 µm to 0.3 µm in order for every primary particle in the aggregation-based particle (which can amount to as many as 10,000 primary particles) to be considered as having a maximum diameter of 0.05 µm to 0.3 µm (see [0039]-[0040] of the PGPub of the instant application). Thus, the instant application only requires that at least 0.1% ((10/10,000)*100) of the primary particles have a maximum diameter within the claimed range for all of the primary particles in the aggregation-based particle to be considered as having a maximum diameter within the claimed range. Given this broad understanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have viewed Takahashi’s disclosure of an average particle diameter for the primary particles as satisfying the claimed particle diameter range, especially since Takahashi’s average is calculated by averaging particle diameters of 100 primary particles (Takahashi: [0029]), which would likely include at least 10 particles within the claimed range. Thus, Takahashi clearly still satisfies the newly claimed limitations in claim 1.
Regarding applicant’s arguments against the combination of Takahashi and Aoki, examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant specifically argues that Takahashi and Aoki provide incompatible disclosures of the primary particle size of the aggregation-based particle. However, examiner notes that Aoki’s disclosure of a primary particle size of 400 nm to 1300 nm is cited as a preferential range only (Aoki: [0028]), and it has been held that disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments (see MPEP §2123(II)). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have viewed Aoki’s preferred range as a teaching against Takahashi or as evidence of incompatibility. Furthermore, examiner notes that Aoki is not relied upon for its disclosure of the primary particle size but, rather, its teaching of the porosity of the aggregation-based particle, which is not necessarily related to the size of the primary particles. Indeed, Aoki teaches a specific benefit for the porosity range of 2% to 6% – namely, a reduction in direct-current resistance (Aoki: [0010]-[0011]) – that is independent of its teaching of the primary particle size. Furthermore, examiner notes that “a person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton," and “a person of ordinary skill in the art will be able fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle,” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art is well equipped to combine some elements of the Aoki reference to the Takahashi reference without necessarily incorporating all of the teachings of Aoki, especially when there is a specific motivation to combine the element, as in this case. Thus, applicant’s arguments against the combination of Takahashi and Aoki are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments related to the newly added claims, examiner notes that Takahashi in view of Aoki still satisfies all of the limitations in claims 7-12, as set forth above. Furthermore, Takahashi in view of Aoki and Yanagisawa satisfies all of the limitations in newly added claims 13-19, as set forth above.
As such, claims 1-19 stand rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BRENDON C DARBY whose telephone number is (571)272-1225. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at (571) 270-5545. 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.
/B.C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749