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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 6-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected a non-aqueous electrolyte battery, Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/26/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, drawn to claims 1-5 and a positive electrode active material, in the reply filed on 02/26/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 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.
Claim 1 recites “xLiyM1O2 – (1-x)LizM1O2” it is unclear what this is referring to as far as the structure of the compound. Does it refer to an amount of R3-m and p3-m1 phases as recited in claim 2 or something else? Further clarification and appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 20200313157 A1) in view of Kaneda (JP 2016115658 A, Machine Translation).
Regarding claims 1-3, Johnson discloses positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, the positive electrode active material comprising (see Fig. 18, 25, [0003][0135][0153]-[0160]):
a first lithium-metal composite oxide represented by a general formula xLiyM1O2 – (1-x)LizM1O2 wherein 0<x≤1, 1.5≤y≤2.5, 0.9≤z≤1.5, and M1 is one or more elements selected from the group consisting of transition metals, Al, Si, Sn, Ge, Sb, Bi, Mg, Ca, and Sr (Johnson discloses that a P3-m1 a disordered portion ([0160], disordered portion is not main portion) of the structure which is represented by x, will be Li2Ni0.5Co0.2Mn0.3 and an R3-m main portion of the structure which is represented by (1-x), will be LiNi0.5Co0.2Mn0.3O2, note that x will necessarily be in the claimed range above [0157]) wherein the first lithium-metal composite oxide has a layer structure, has a Li element coordinated at a tetrahedral site of oxygen (in the P3-m1 structure Li will be at tetrahedral site ([0160]).
However, Johnson does not disclose that the first lithium-metal composite oxide has a size of primary particles of 0.5~15 µm.
Kaneda discloses a positive electrode active material wherein there are primary particles formed of a lithium metal composite oxide of a substantially similar composition ([0017] and Abstract) wherein the size of primary particles and/or secondary particles formed of primary particles are between 0.8~15 µm and further discloses that having these size particles reduces the deterioration of the surface properties due to repeated charge and discharge ([0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the size of the particles, primary and/or secondary, to be with the range disclosed by Kaneda because as disclosed by Kaneda having primary particle size in the claimed range reduces the deterioration of the surface properties due to repeated charge and discharge.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 20200313157 A1) in view of Kaneda (JP 2016115658 A, Machine Translation) as applied to claims 1-3 above and in further view of Senoue (US 20120164533 A1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Johnson discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
However, modified Johnson does not disclose the positive electrode active material further comprising a second lithium-metal composite oxide represented by a general formula LiwM2O2 (wherein 0.9 ≤w ≤1.5, and M2 is one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Ni, Co, Mn, Fe and Al).
Senoue discloses that a positive electrode active material can include a first and additional lithium oxide, wherein the additional lithium oxide can comprise LiNiO2, LiCoO2, LiNi0.8CO0.18Al0.02O2 ([0029]-[0038]) and Senoue discloses that having an additional lithium oxide increases the capacity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the positive electrode active material by having the additional lithium oxide as disclosed by Senoue because Senoue discloses that having an additional lithium oxide increases the capacity.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 20200313157 A1) in view of Kaneda (JP 2016115658 A, Machine Translation) in view of Senoue (US 20120164533 A1) as applied to claim 4 above and in further view of Lee (US 20200388830 A1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Johnson discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
However, modified Johnson does not disclose a ratio (D1/D2) of a particle size D1 of secondary particles of the first lithium-metal composite oxide with respect to a particle size D2 of secondary particles of the second lithium-metal composite oxide satisfies a condition of 0.15<D1/D2<1.0.
Lee discloses that two different compositions of lithium metal oxide ([0014]-[0019]) wherein one the lithium metal oxides has a smaller particle size versus the other because it allows for filling of voids between the primary particles of the other lithium metal oxide which results in voids between the positive electrode active material particles may be more effectively reduced, packing density may be increased, and positive electrode density may be improved to effectively improve capacity per volume of a positive electrode ([0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the ratio of D1/D2 of modified Johnson to be within the claimed range because having such a claimed range as disclosed by Lee allows for voids between the positive electrode active material particles may be more effectively reduced, packing density may be increased, and positive electrode density may be improved to effectively improve capacity per volume of a positive electrode
Double Patenting
Claims 1-5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of copending Application No. 18/267,902 in view of Lee (US 20200388830 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite a substantially similar positive electrode active material with the exception of the size of the primary particles of the first lithium oxide and a size of a second lithium oxide particle.
Lee discloses that the sizes of the particles of the lithium oxide can be adjusted to be within the claimed range ([0044]) and further discloses that the relative sizes between the primary particles of the first and second oxides should be adjusted to optimize packing density ([0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify claims 1-7 of copending Application No. 18/267,902 to have the claimed range of primary particle size of the first oxide and furthermore to have a second oxide and to modify the ratio of D1/D2 to be within the claimed range as disclosed by Lee because it will allow for an optimization of packing density.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of copending Application No. 18/267,960 in view of Lee (US 20200388830 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite a substantially similar positive electrode active material with the exception of the size of the primary particles of the first lithium oxide and a size of a second lithium oxide particle.
Lee discloses that the sizes of the particles of the lithium oxide can be adjusted to be within the claimed range ([0044]) and further discloses that the relative sizes between the primary particles of the first and second oxides should be adjusted to optimize packing density ([0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify claims 1-6 of copending Application No. 18/267,960 to have the claimed range of primary particle size of the first oxide and furthermore to have a second oxide and to modify the ratio of D1/D2 to be within the claimed range as disclosed by Lee because it will allow for an optimization of packing density.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVINA PILLAY whose telephone number is (571)270-1180. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30-6:00.
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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at 517-272-1307. 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.
DEVINA PILLAY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/DEVINA PILLAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights