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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. (US 2016/0190585 A1, hereinafter Yoon) in view of Dahn et al. (US 2016/0190585 A1, hereinafter Dahn, cited by applicant).
Re Claim 1. Yoon teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (para. 83 & 111) comprising a positive electrode (para. 117), a negative electrode (para. 117), and a non-aqueous electrolyte (para. 111), wherein
the positive electrode has a positive electrode mixture including positive electrode active material particles (para. 55 & 56),
the positive electrode active material particles include a composite oxide (para. 42-52, lithium composite oxide) containing lithium and a transition metal, and a cover material (para. 35-41, metal phosphate) covering at least a portion of a surface of the composite oxide (para. 56),
the cover material includes a metal oxide (para. 35-41),
the surface of the composite oxide has a first region covered with the metal oxide in an island state, and a second region other than the first region (para. 56),
the first region is scattered at the surface of the composite oxide (para. 56), and
a thickness of the first region is 1 nm or more and 100 nm or less (para. 56).
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). "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Yoon fails to specifically teach that a phosphorus compound covering at least a portion of a surface of the metal oxide.
The invention of Dahn encompasses lithium ion battery. Dahn teaches that a phosphorus compound covering at least a portion of a surface of the metal oxide (para. 61-70).
In view of Dahn, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Yoon to employ a phosphorus compound covering at least a portion of a surface of the metal oxide, since Dahn teaches the advantage of using it, which is to improve the cycling performance of the battery (para. 35).
Re Claims 4 and 5. The combination does not explicitly teach that an amount of phosphorus detected at the surface of the metal oxide, MO, and an amount of phosphorus detected in the second region, MS, satisfies a relation MO>MS/MO>3MS.
However, since Yoon in view of Dahn and the claimed method employ substantially similar materials and process, it is reasonable to believe that the claimed properties (an amount of phosphorus detected in the second region, MS, satisfies a relation MO>MS/MO>3MS) would have naturally flowed following the teachings of Yoon in view of Dahn. See MPEP 2112.01 & In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2145 & Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985)
Re Claim 6. The combination teaches wherein the metal oxide includes at least one element selected from the group consisting of niobium (Yoon, para. 35-41).
Re Claim 7. The combination teaches wherein the composite oxide has a layered rock salt type structure, and includes Ni, Co, and at least one of Mn (Yoon, para. 42-52).
Re Claim 8. The combination teaches wherein at an outermost surface of the positive electrode mixture, an atomic ratio of a metal derived from the metal oxide relative to Ni derived from the composite oxide is less than 2 (Yoon, para. 35-52).
Re Claim 9. The combination teaches wherein the non-aqueous electrolyte includes a phosphate compound, and the phosphate compound has at least one alkenyl group in one molecule (Dahn, para. 61-70).
Re Claim 10. The combination teaches wherein the non-aqueous electrolyte has a content of the phosphate compound of 1 mass % (Dahn, para. 39-57).
"[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2131.03.
Re Claim 11. The combination teaches wherein the alkenyl group includes at least one selected from the group consisting of a 2-propenyl group (Dahn, para. 39-57).
Re Claim 12. The combination teaches wherein the phosphate compound includes triallyl phosphate (Dahn, para. 39-57).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Newly cited reference, Yoon, addresses the new limitations.
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.
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood from the texts. Only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out to emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, however, each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E YOON whose telephone number is (571)270-5932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM- 5 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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/KEVIN E YOON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
9/11/2026
Prosecution Insights