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
The amendment filed 04/27/2026 has been entered.
The 35 USC 112(b) rejections of claims 2-3 of the 01/27/2026 Office action have been overcome by the amendment which removed the conditional language and clarified the claimed ratio. The previous 35 USC 112(b) rejections are withdrawn
However, a further 35 USC 112(b) rejection is made below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Remarks on pages 7-8 against the Toya reference are directed to the difference of “Li/Me” versus “Li/M”. Examiner notes that the instant specification at [0044] also compares Li/Me values as known in the art, being similar to the claimed range. Additionally, Toya was also used as a basis for the amount of transition metal being a result-effective variable which would be obvious to routinely optimize (01/27/2026 Office action at page 9).
Further, the instant amendment which removes the conditional language regarding “when “M” represents…” necessitates the grounds of rejection applied below and the finality of the present Office action.
Remarks on page 8 are directed to new claims 8-11, which will be addressed in the rejection of claims 8-11 below. New claims can necessitate new grounds of rejection. Further, in response to applicant's arguments against the Kurita reference individually in regards to claim 3, 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). Lv was a secondary teaching reference which was used to teach toward modifying the subscript ranges and relationships.
Additionally, the 35 USC 112(b) rejection made below in response to the amended scope of claim 3 (as dependent on the amended scope of claim 1, which now includes subject matter of previous claim 2) explains the contradictory constraints of claim 3, such that arguments on Remarks pages 8-10 related to claim 3 are unpersuasive since the metes and bounds of claim 3 cannot be ascertained and thus art cannot be applied thereto.
The new grounds of rejection applied below are necessitated by the amended scope of the independent claim(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The amended scope of claim 3 (as dependent on the amended scope of claim 1, which now includes subject matter of previous claim 2) recites contradictory constraints. Since claim 1 now requires “a chemical formula of LiNixCoyMzO2” and “a molar ratio of Li/M is between 1.15 and 1.21, inclusive”, this means that the ratio of subscripts of Li(1) to M(z) must be: 1.15 ≤ 1/z ≤ 1.21. However, claim 3 also requires relationships between the formula subscripts of: x = 1 - y - z ; 0 < x ≤ 0.5 ; 0.2 ≤ y ≤ 0.5 ; y + z ≥ 0.5 ; y/x ≥ 0.98. The calculations of these relationships required by claim 3 contradict with the ratio now required by claim 1; see below calculations:
Claim 1 now confirms Li/M is a molar ratio (which is equivalent to 1/z, where z is the subscript of M, and there is an implied the subscript of 1 for Li within the claimed formula), such that the range of Li/M being 1.15 to 1.21 gives:
a range for z from ~0.826 to 0.87 (since 1/1.15=0.8696 and 1/1.21=0.8264).
Claim 3 requires y to be from 0.2 to 0.5, and x=1-y-z (as cited above).
Plugging in minimum value of y (which is 0.2 per claim 3) and minimum value of z (which is 0.826 per the calculation above to satisfy the Li/M range of claim 1) into x=1-y-z gives:
x = 1 - 0.2 - 0.826 = -0.026 (which fails to satisfy 0 < x required by claim 3, and the knowledge in the art that a formula would not have a negative amount of an element).
Therefore, Examiner is unable to ascertain the metes and bounds of claim 3 in view of the metes and bounds of claim 1, such that the constraints of claim 3 appear to contradict those of base claim 1.
Therefore, art cannot be applied to claim 3, nor to claim 4 which depends on claim 3.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, and 7 (while claim 4 is also addressed to promote compact prosecution) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natsui et al. (US 2024/0072252 A1) in view of Kurita et al. (US 20170187031 A1, as cited in the 07/09/2024 IDS and in the previous Office action) in view of Araki et al. (US 20210257610 A1, as cited in the previous Office action) and Kawamura et al. (US 20150333319 A1, as cited the previous Office action).
Regarding claim 1, Natsui teaches a positive electrode plate (a positive electrode current collector, and a positive electrode mixture layer provided on a surface of the positive electrode current collector; [0013]) for a lithium-ion rechargeable battery (lithium-ion secondary batteries, [0002]), the positive electrode comprising: a positive electrode mixture layer (positive electrode for secondary batteries includes a positive electrode current collector, and a positive electrode mixture layer provided on a surface of the positive electrode current collector; Abstract), wherein:
in the positive electrode mixture layer, a fibrous conductor (carbon-containing conductive material may include carbon nanotubes, [0029]) is combined with a positive electrode active material (positive electrode mixture layer contains a positive electrode active material, a conductive agent, [0013]) … wherein:
the positive electrode active material (positive electrode active material may contain a lithium-transition metal composite oxide, [0022]) is represented by a chemical formula of LiNixCoyMzO2 (represented by a chemical formula LiaNibMcO2 – where M can be selected as Co, [0023]); and
"M" represents one or more types of metals selected from a group consisting of Fe, Cu, Ti, Mg, Al, … B, … Zn, … (M includes at least one selected from the group consisting of … Al, … Fe, Ti, … Mg, … Cu, Zn, … and B; [0023] – where the overlapping selections from the claimed “M” selections and M selections of Natsui [0023] are cited and would be obvious selections; see also MPEP 2144.07), and a molar ratio of Li/M is between 1.15 and 1.21, inclusive (atomic ratio Li/M of lithium to transition metal M is 1 or greater, [0022] – In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists, per MPEP 2144.05 I, which is the instant case since the claimed range of 1.15 to 1.21 falls within “1 or greater” of Natsui; atomic ratio and molar ratio are directly correlated since atoms and moles are proportional by the value of Avogadro's number as known in the chemical arts).
Examiner notes that the chemical formula claimed in claim 1 does not yet require any numerical values or relationships of the subscripts x, y, nor z. As such, the above citations taken as a whole show that Natsui obviates the formula-related limitations of instant claim 1.
Natsui fails to teach, regarding the positive electrode mixture layer:
in which an amount of lithium carbonate with respect to the positive electrode active material is between 0.31 wt% and 1.29 wt%, inclusive;
a composition ratio of the fibrous conductor to the positive electrode active material is between 0.5 wt% and 2.0 wt%, inclusive; and
a coverage of the fibrous conductor to the positive electrode active material is 11.0% or less.
Kurita is analogous in the art of a positive electrode plate (positive electrode mix to be supported on a positive electrode current collector, Kurita [0089]) for a lithium-ion rechargeable battery (a positive electrode active material usable for a lithium ion battery capable of high charge/discharge cycle performance, abstract) and teaches in the positive electrode mixture layer, a fibrous conductor (a fibrous carbonaceous material as the conductive material, [0090-0091]) is combined with a positive electrode active material (lithium-containing composite metal oxide as positive electrode active material, [0020]; mixed per [0089]) in which an amount of lithium carbonate with respect to the positive electrode active material is between 0.31 wt% and 1.29 wt%, inclusive (with respect to the positive electrode active material, the lithium carbonate content in a residual alkali on the particle surfaces is 0.1% by mass to 0.8% by mass … more preferably 0.3% by mass or more for obtaining a lithium secondary battery with higher cycle performance and 0.77% by mass or less, Kurita [0057] – see MPEP 2144.05 I regarding obviousness of overlapping ranges). Kurita teaches this amount of residual lithium carbonate with respect to positive active material is desirable for suppressing the expansion of the battery during the charge/discharge cycle ([0057]).
It would have been obvious, at the time of filing, for a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the positive active material of Natsui to include the desirable amount of residual lithium carbonate with respect to positive active material taught by Kurita, which overlaps the claimed amount range, with the motivation of beneficially suppressing the expansion of the battery during the charge/discharge cycle.
Araki, analogous in the art of positive electrodes including fibrous carbonaceous conductive material (i.e., carbon nanotube) in addition to positive active material, teaches in the lithium-ion secondary battery positive electrode active material complex of the present invention, the amount of coverage of the first positive electrode active material with the carbon nanotube is preferably 1 to 1.5% by mass with respect to the total mass of the first positive electrode active material and the carbon nanotube ([0058]). Araki teaches in [0059] that such mass percentage of carbon nanotube covering the first positive electrode active material is a result-effective variable which affects the trade-off of resultant properties in the following way: In a case where the amount of coverage with the carbon nanotube with respect to the total mass of the first positive electrode active material and the carbon nanotube is less than 1% by mass, a region of contact between the first positive electrode active material and the carbon nanotube is narrower, and for this reason, it is difficult to obtain a resistance reduction effect. On the other hand, in a case where the coverage amount exceeds 1.5% by mass, the ratio of the carbon nanotube in the total of the carbon and the carbon nanotube contained in the covering layer is high. For this reason, coupling of the second positive electrode active material particles by the carbon is insufficient, and the resistance of the obtained battery increases. (Araki [0058-0059].)
Kawamura, also analogous in the art of positive electrode active material with carbonaceous conductive additives, teaches a positive electrode material for a lithium ion battery ([0031]) being in a matrix containing graphene to form a composite ([0030]) and further teaches that a value obtained by dividing a ratio (%) of a carbon element at a material surface by a ratio (%) of a carbon element in the whole material is not less than 1.5 and not more than 7. Kawamura [0034] teaches that such value obtained by dividing a ratio (%) of a carbon element at a material surface by a ratio (%) of a carbon element in the whole material is a result-effective variable which affects the trade-off of resultant properties in the following way: the value of not less than 1.5 and not more than 7 means that the matrix is in a state of being less-exposed to the surface since the distribution of the matrix is biased toward the inside of the composite particle. When the value is lower than 1.5, it is not preferred since the distribution of the matrix is excessively biased toward the inside of the composite particle and it becomes difficult to transfer electrons to or from the outside of the composite particle. When the value is higher than 7, it is not preferred since the distribution of the matrix is biased toward the surface of the composite particle to interfere with the transfer of lithium ions to or from the inside of the composite particle. (Kawamura [0034].)
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious at the time of filing to further modify Kurita to decrease the amount of fibrous carbonaceous material used relative to the positive electrode active material, as contemplated by Kurita [0091] cited above, in view of the Araki teaching that the carbon nanotube is preferably 1 to 1.5% by mass is preferable to obtain a resistance reduction effect as well as mitigate resistance increase within the resultant battery. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious at the time of filing to also optimize the surface area coverage ratio of the carbonaceous material within modified Kurita in further view of the teachings of Kawamura (i.e., to achieve a desired balance of carbon at the material surface, among the carbon matrix throughout the positive active material) in order to optimize the resultant ease of transfer of electrons to or from the outside of the composite particle, as well as mitigate interference with the transfer of lithium ions to or from the inside of the composite particle. See MPEP 2144.05 II regarding the obviousness of routine optimization of result-effective variables.
Thereby, all limitations of claim 1 are rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 4, although art cannot be applied to claim 3 upon which claim 4 depends, due to the contradictory constraints of claim 3 dependent on claim 1 as explained in the above 35 USC 112(b) rejection, Examiner notes that Natsui does teach a limitation where the "x" satisfies x ≤ 0.37 (In the case of the Li-rich composite oxide, 0.1≤b≤0.6 may be satisfied, where b is the subscript of Ni in the chemical formula; Natsui [0023] - In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists, per MPEP 2144.05 I, which is the instant case since the range of ≤ 0.37 overlaps the range of 0.1 to 0.6).
Regarding claim 5, modified Natsui teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and the fibrous conductor is formed by carbon nanotubes (carbon-containing conductive material may include carbon nanotubes, Natsui [0029]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Natsui teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and a lithium-ion rechargeable battery (secondary battery 1 illustrated in FIG. 1, [0063]; Secondary batteries, especially lithium-ion secondary batteries per Natsui [0002]), comprising: the positive electrode plate (a long positive electrode, Natsui [0063]; positive electrode for secondary batteries according to an embodiment of the present disclosure includes a positive electrode current collector, and a positive electrode mixture layer provided on a surface of the positive electrode current collector per Natsui [0013]) for a lithium-ion rechargeable battery (In lithium-ion secondary batteries, usually, a positive electrode is produced by applying a slurry containing a positive electrode active material and a binding agent (binder) onto a surface of a positive electrode current collector, followed by drying, to form a positive electrode mixture layer; Natsui [0003]) according to claim 1 (see above rejection of claim 1).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natsui et al. (US 2024/0072252 A1) in view of Kurita et al. (US 20170187031 A1, as cited in the 07/09/2024 IDS and in the previous Office action) in view of Araki et al. (US 20210257610 A1, as cited in the previous Office action) and Kawamura et al. (US 20150333319 A1, as cited the previous Office action) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Yano et al. (US 20100119949 A1, as cited the previous Office action).
Regarding claim 6, modified Natsui teaches the limitations of claim 6 above but fails to teach the fibrous conductor has a length of 100 nm to 1000 nm. Natsui is silent toward a length of the carbon nanotube.
Araki does teach that the average length of the carbon nanotube is not particularly limited, and for example, is preferably within a range of 5 to 20 μm, which is higher than that claimed.
Yano is analogous in the art of electrodes in which fibrous conductive materials are bonded to the conductive material that is adhered to a surface of the active-material powder (Yano abstract and Figs. 1-2) and teaches it is desirable that said fibrous conductive materials can exhibit a fibrous length of 100 nm-50 μm (Yano [0033]). This range encompasses the instantly claimed range and that of Araki cited above.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). Further, changes in size/proportion are design choices within the ambit of a person having ordinary skill in the art, such that selecting a length of the carbon nanotube within modified Natsui to fall within the lower region of the range taught toward by Yano would have been obvious, and a person having ordinary skill in the art would have expected sufficient functionality (i.e., conductivity within the electrode while being bonded to surface of active material) of such fibrous conductive materials as taught by Yano when the length thereof was applied to modified Natsui.
Thereby, claim 6 is rendered obvious.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natsui et al. (US 2024/0072252 A1) in view of Lv et al. (US 20220336796 A1, as cited the previous Office action), Kurita et al. (US 20170187031 A1, as cited in the 07/09/2024 IDS and in the previous Office action) in view of Araki et al. (US 20210257610 A1, as cited in the previous Office action), Kawamura et al. (US 20150333319 A1, as cited the previous Office action).
Regarding claim 8, Natsui teaches a teaches a positive electrode plate (a positive electrode current collector, and a positive electrode mixture layer provided on a surface of the positive electrode current collector; [0013]) for a lithium-ion rechargeable battery (lithium-ion secondary batteries, [0002]), the positive electrode comprising: a positive electrode mixture layer (positive electrode for secondary batteries includes a positive electrode current collector, and a positive electrode mixture layer provided on a surface of the positive electrode current collector; Abstract), wherein:
in the positive electrode mixture layer, a fibrous conductor (carbon-containing conductive material may include carbon nanotubes, [0029]) is combined with a positive electrode active material (positive electrode mixture layer contains a positive electrode active material, a conductive agent, [0013]) … wherein:
"M" represents one or more types of metals selected from a group consisting of Fe, Cu, Ti, Mg, Al, … B, … Zn, … (M includes at least one selected from the group consisting of … Al, … Fe, Ti, … Mg, … Cu, Zn, … and B; [0023] – where the overlapping selections from the claimed “M” selections and M selections of Natsui [0023] are cited and would be obvious selections; see also MPEP 2144.07),
the positive electrode active material (positive electrode active material may contain a lithium-transition metal composite oxide, [0022]) is represented by a chemical formula of LiNixCoyMzO2 (represented by a chemical formula LiaNibMcO2 – where M can be selected as Co, [0023]).
Natsui further teaches in [0023] that in the case of the Li-rich composite oxide, for example, 0<a≤1.8, 0.5≤b+c<1, and 0.1≤b≤0.6 may be satisfied. Per the chemical formula cited above, instant x corresponds to b of Natsui, while instant y and z can correspond to c of Natsui.
However, Natsui fails to explicitly teach toward the conditions where:
x = 1 - y - z is satisfied;
0 < x ≤ 0.5 is satisfied;
0.2 ≤ y ≤ 0.5 is satisfied;
y + z ≥ 0.5 is satisfied; and
y/x ≥ 0.98 is satisfied.
The ranges and relationships of Natsui [0023] do appear to at least overlap or come close to these claimed conditions, and per MPEP 2144.05 I, overlapping, approaching, and similar ranges, amounts, and proportions support obviousness conclusions.
Further, Lv is analogous in the art of positive electrode active materials and teaches in [0052] exemplary composite lithium cobalt oxide with a general formula of LiCo1-aMaO2 (where it is preferred that M in the formula is one or more of Mg, Sc, Ti, Fe, Ni, Cu, Zn, Ga, Zr, Nb, Mo, Ru, Rh, Pd, In, Sn, Hf, Ta, W, Re, Cr, Y, Sb, Lu, Au, Pb, Er, Na, Al, Si, Ge, Mn, Ca, Te, Hg, Bi, La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, and V; wherein 0<a≤0.2) and specifically a lithium nickel-cobalt aluminate with a general formula of LiNi1-x-yCoxAlyO2 wherein 0≤x≤1, 0≤y≤1 and 0≤x+y≤1 (Lv [0013, 0052]). As such, Lv teaches their positive electrode active material in which:
x = 1 - y - z is satisfied (Ni subscript is 1-x-y, where x is Co subscript and y is the Al subscript when M=Al; Lv [0013, 0052]);
0 < x ≤ 0.5 is satisfied (Ni subscript 1-x-y can range from 1-1-1= -1[realistically 0] to 1-0-0= 1 per Lv [0013, 0052], overlaps the claimed range between 0 and 0.5);
0.2 ≤ y ≤ 0.5 is satisfied (Co subscript can range from 0 to 1, Lv [0013, 0052]; overlaps claimed range between 0.2 to 0.5);
y + z ≥ 0.5 is satisfied (Co subscript plus Al subscript is x+y which can range from 0+0=0 to 1+1=2 per Lv [0013, 0052], overlaps claimed range between 0.5 and 2); and
y/x ≥ 0.98 is satisfied (Co subscript divided by Ni subscript is x/[1-x-y] which can range from 1/-1=-1 to 1/1 = 1 per Lv [0013, 0052] data, which overlaps with the claimed range from 0.98 to 1).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I).
The simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supports a conclusion of obviousness per MPEP 2143 I (B), such that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious at the time of filing to substitute the lithium nickel-cobalt aluminate of Lv (satisfying the above subscript relationships) for the lithium-transition metal composite oxide within the positive electrode active material of Natsui, and predict functionality thereof within the positive electrode mixture layer of Natsui.
Further regarding claim 8, Natsui also fails to teach, regarding the positive electrode mixture layer:
in which an amount of lithium carbonate with respect to the positive electrode active material is between 0.31 wt% and 1.29 wt%, inclusive;
a composition ratio of the fibrous conductor to the positive electrode active material is between 0.5 wt% and 2.0 wt%, inclusive; and
a coverage of the fibrous conductor to the positive electrode active material is 11.0% or less.
Kurita is analogous in the art of a positive electrode plate (positive electrode mix to be supported on a positive electrode current collector, Kurita [0089]) for a lithium-ion rechargeable battery (a positive electrode active material usable for a lithium ion battery capable of high charge/discharge cycle performance, abstract) and teaches in the positive electrode mixture layer, a fibrous conductor (a fibrous carbonaceous material as the conductive material, [0090-0091]) is combined with a positive electrode active material (lithium-containing composite metal oxide as positive electrode active material, [0020]; mixed per [0089]) in which an amount of lithium carbonate with respect to the positive electrode active material is between 0.31 wt% and 1.29 wt%, inclusive (with respect to the positive electrode active material, the lithium carbonate content in a residual alkali on the particle surfaces is 0.1% by mass to 0.8% by mass … more preferably 0.3% by mass or more for obtaining a lithium secondary battery with higher cycle performance and 0.77% by mass or less, Kurita [0057] – see MPEP 2144.05 I regarding obviousness of overlapping ranges). Kurita teaches this amount of residual lithium carbonate with respect to positive active material is desirable for suppressing the expansion of the battery during the charge/discharge cycle ([0057]).
It would have been obvious, at the time of filing, for a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the positive active material of Natsui to include the desirable amount of residual lithium carbonate with respect to positive active material taught by Kurita, which overlaps the claimed amount range, with the motivation of beneficially suppressing the expansion of the battery during the charge/discharge cycle.
Araki, analogous in the art of positive electrodes including fibrous carbonaceous conductive material (i.e., carbon nanotube) in addition to positive active material, teaches in the lithium-ion secondary battery positive electrode active material complex of the present invention, the amount of coverage of the first positive electrode active material with the carbon nanotube is preferably 1 to 1.5% by mass with respect to the total mass of the first positive electrode active material and the carbon nanotube ([0058]). Araki teaches in [0059] that such mass percentage of carbon nanotube covering the first positive electrode active material is a result-effective variable which affects the trade-off of resultant properties in the following way: In a case where the amount of coverage with the carbon nanotube with respect to the total mass of the first positive electrode active material and the carbon nanotube is less than 1% by mass, a region of contact between the first positive electrode active material and the carbon nanotube is narrower, and for this reason, it is difficult to obtain a resistance reduction effect. On the other hand, in a case where the coverage amount exceeds 1.5% by mass, the ratio of the carbon nanotube in the total of the carbon and the carbon nanotube contained in the covering layer is high. For this reason, coupling of the second positive electrode active material particles by the carbon is insufficient, and the resistance of the obtained battery increases. (Araki [0058-0059].)
Kawamura, also analogous in the art of positive electrode active material with carbonaceous conductive additives, teaches a positive electrode material for a lithium ion battery ([0031]) being in a matrix containing graphene to form a composite ([0030]) and further teaches that a value obtained by dividing a ratio (%) of a carbon element at a material surface by a ratio (%) of a carbon element in the whole material is not less than 1.5 and not more than 7. Kawamura [0034] teaches that such value obtained by dividing a ratio (%) of a carbon element at a material surface by a ratio (%) of a carbon element in the whole material is a result-effective variable which affects the trade-off of resultant properties in the following way: the value of not less than 1.5 and not more than 7 means that the matrix is in a state of being less-exposed to the surface since the distribution of the matrix is biased toward the inside of the composite particle. When the value is lower than 1.5, it is not preferred since the distribution of the matrix is excessively biased toward the inside of the composite particle and it becomes difficult to transfer electrons to or from the outside of the composite particle. When the value is higher than 7, it is not preferred since the distribution of the matrix is biased toward the surface of the composite particle to interfere with the transfer of lithium ions to or from the inside of the composite particle. (Kawamura [0034].)
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious at the time of filing to further modify Kurita to decrease the amount of fibrous carbonaceous material used relative to the positive electrode active material, as contemplated by Kurita [0091] cited above, in view of the Araki teaching that the carbon nanotube is preferably 1 to 1.5% by mass is preferable to obtain a resistance reduction effect as well as mitigate resistance increase within the resultant battery. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious at the time of filing to also optimize the surface area coverage ratio of the carbonaceous material within modified Kurita in further view of the teachings of Kawamura (i.e., to achieve a desired balance of carbon at the material surface, among the carbon matrix throughout the positive active material) in order to optimize the resultant ease of transfer of electrons to or from the outside of the composite particle, as well as mitigate interference with the transfer of lithium ions to or from the inside of the composite particle. See MPEP 2144.05 II regarding the obviousness of routine optimization of result-effective variables.
Thereby, all limitations of claim 8 are rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 9, modified Natsui teaches the limitations of claim 8 above and wherein the "x" satisfies x ≤ 0.37 (Ni subscript is from 0 to 1 per Lv [0052] cited above, which encompasses the claimed range). Also, per Natsui primary reference, in the case of the Li-rich composite oxide, 0.1≤b≤0.6 may be satisfied, where b is the subscript of Ni in the chemical formula (Natsui [0023]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists, per MPEP 2144.05 I.
Natsui [0021] also teaches that: when the Ni content is increased in the lithium-containing composite oxide, it may occur in some cases that Li is extracted excessively from the positive electrode active material, and because of this, the surface of the positive electrode active material is modified and changed into a structure that is difficult to absorb and release Li; as a result, the migration of lithium ions is inhibited, and the deterioration in cycle characteristics tends to be severe. Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to adjust the ratio of Ni content (which is taught per the above citation to be a result-effective variable which affects the active material surface’s ability to absorb and release Li) within the positive active material of modified Natsui to be sufficiently low to prevent the detriments of cycle deterioration (see also MPEP 2144.05 II), such that the relatively low range of x ≤ 0.37 in instant claim 9 is obvious.
Regarding claim 10, modified Natsui teaches the limitations of claim 8 above and wherein the fibrous conductor is formed by carbon nanotubes (carbon-containing conductive material may include carbon nanotubes, Natsui [0029]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natsui et al. (US 2024/0072252 A1) in view of Lv et al. (US 20220336796 A1, as cited the previous Office action), Kurita et al. (US 20170187031 A1, as cited in the 07/09/2024 IDS and in the previous Office action) in view of Araki et al. (US 20210257610 A1, as cited in the previous Office action), Kawamura et al. (US 20150333319 A1, as cited the previous Office action) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Yano et al. (US 20100119949 A1, as cited the previous Office action).
Regarding claim 11, modified Natsui teaches the limitations of claim 8 above but fails to teach the fibrous conductor has a length of 100 nm to 1000 nm. Natsui is silent toward a length of the carbon nanotube.
Araki does teach that the average length of the carbon nanotube is not particularly limited, and for example, is preferably within a range of 5 to 20 μm, which is higher than that claimed.
Yano is analogous in the art of electrodes in which fibrous conductive materials are bonded to the conductive material that is adhered to a surface of the active-material powder (Yano abstract and Figs. 1-2) and teaches it is desirable that said fibrous conductive materials can exhibit a fibrous length of 100 nm-50 μm (Yano [0033]). This range encompasses the instantly claimed range and that of Araki cited above.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). Further, changes in size/proportion are design choices within the ambit of a person having ordinary skill in the art, such that selecting a length of the carbon nanotube within modified Natsui to fall within the lower region of the range taught toward by Yano would have been obvious, and a person having ordinary skill in the art would have expected sufficient functionality (i.e., conductivity within the electrode while being bonded to surface of active material) of such fibrous conductive materials as taught by Yano when the length thereof was applied to modified Natsui.
Thereby, claim 11 is rendered obvious.
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 Jessie Walls-Murray whose telephone number is (571)272-1664. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, typically 10-4.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/JESSIE WALLS-MURRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights