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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 5/17/2023, 4/4/2024 and 3/17/2025 has/have been received and complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner, and a copy with initials is attached herewith.
Drawings
4. The drawings were received on 5/17/2023. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
8. Claim(s) 1-4, 12-13 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beierling et al (US 20220194814 A1).
Regarding claims 1-2, Beierling discloses the preparation of a Ni-Co-Mn hydroxide precursor positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery wherein the precursor’s average pore size and total pore volume are given but without the information of the corresponding range of pore diameters. Beierling teaches that the material can have a pore specific surface area of 2-70 m2/g, pore volume of 0.033-0.1 ml/g and pore size of 20-600 Å (2-60 nm). Beierling also teaches the use of the said precursor to prepare the final oxide materials [paragraph 0114-0115, 0155, 0160, 0163, 0166, 0169-0177, 0180; claims 1, 10-11].
Without a clear chemical definition to start with (e.g. the relative molar proportions of each chemical element), the an ordinary skilled in the art is left facing a trial and error process to find out which, if any, material meets the parameters set out in the claims. This constitutes an undue burden, and the fact that this could be done by routine experimentation is not sufficient for the claimed subject-matter to meet the requirements of MPEP. Characterization of a product mainly by its parameters is only allowed in those cases where the invention cannot be adequately defined in any other way, provided that those parameters can be clearly and reliably determined either by indications in the description or by objective procedures which are usual in the art. The burden of proof that Beierling is not disclosing materials falling within the scope of the claims lies with the applicant.
Regarding claims 3, 12 and 15, Beierling teaches that the precursor has a BET specific surface area is 1.0 m2/g or more and 25 m2/g or less [paragraph 0155, 0160, 0163, 0166, 0171, 0174, 0177].
Regarding claims 4, 13 and 16, Beierling teaches that the precursor has a tap density is 0.8 g/cm3 or more and 2.7 g/cm3 or less [paragraph 0114, 0155, 0160, 0163, 0166, 0171, 0174, 0177].
9. Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Beierling et al (US 20220194814 A1).
Regarding claims 5-6, Beierling discloses a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery comprising at least Ni. Beierling teaches the preparation of a Ni-Co-Mn hydroxide precursor positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery wherein the precursor’s average pore size and total pore volume are given but without the information of the corresponding range of pore diameters. Beierling teaches that the material can have a pore specific surface area of 2-70 m2/g, pore volume of 0.033-0.1 ml/g and pore size of 20-600 Å (2-60 nm). Beierling also teaches the use of the said precursor to prepare the final oxide materials [paragraph 0114-0115, 0155, 0160, 0163, 0166, 0169-0177, 0180; claims 1, 10-11].
Without a clear chemical definition to start with (e.g. the relative molar proportions of each chemical element), the an ordinary skilled in the art is left facing a trial and error process to find out which, if any, material meets the parameters set out in the claims. This constitutes an undue burden, and the fact that this could be done by routine experimentation is not sufficient for the claimed subject-matter to meet the requirements of MPEP. Characterization of a product mainly by its parameters is only allowed in those cases where the invention cannot be adequately defined in any other way, provided that those parameters can be clearly and reliably determined either by indications in the description or by objective procedures which are usual in the art. The burden of proof that Beierling is not disclosing materials falling within the scope of the claims lies with the applicant.
10. Claim(s) 7-11, 14 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beierling et al (US 20220194814 A1) as applied in claim 5 and further in view of Kurita et al (US 20180159127 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Beierling remains silent about the active material composition represented by the chemical formula as claimed; however, Kurita teaches a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary cell, having a layered structure and comprising at least nickel, cobalt and manganese represented by a composition formula: Li[Lix(NiαCoβMnγMδ)1-x]O2, wherein 0≤x≤0.10, 0.30<α≤0.34, 0.30<β≤0.34, 0.32≤γ<0.40, 0≤δ≤0.10, β<γ, δ+α+β+γ=1, M represents at least one metal selected from the group consisting of Fe, Cu, Ti, Mg, Al, W, Zn, Sn, Zr, Ga and V; in order to prevent the particles of the positive electrode active material from being crushed when the positive electrode active material is pressurized [Abstract; paragraph 0008-0017, 0020-0025]. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 8, Kurita teaches that the positive electrode active material has a BET specific surface area is 0.3 m2/g or more and 4.0 m2/g or less [paragraph 0048-0050].
Regarding claim 9, Kurita teaches that the positive electrode active material has a tap density is 1.0 g/cm3 or more and 2.8 g/cm3 or less [paragraph 0058].
Regarding claims 10-11 and 17-18, Kurita teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising the positive electrode [Fig. 1; paragraph 0077-0100].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD S SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tong Guo can be reached at (571) 272-3066. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MUHAMMAD S SIDDIQUEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights