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 Status
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-10 are under examination.
Claims 2-3 and 6 are cancelled.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 4-5, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2008/0063939 A1 as cited in IDS), hereinafter Ryu, in view of Lin et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2019/0267664 A1), hereinafter Lin.
Regarding claim 1, Ryu discloses a positive electrode mixture for a battery, including:
a lithium-containing transition metal composite oxide serving as an active material that is able to occlude and release lithium ions (i.e., at least electrode active material as disclosed in [0016], also see [0031] as with regards to lithium manganese composite oxides of Formula LiMn2-xMxO2 (M = Co, Ni, etc.), and LiNi1-xMxO2 (M=Co, Mn, Al, etc.)); and
a binder (i.e., at least binder as disclosed in [0038], etc., also see [0020], [0029]-[0030], [0038], [0052]), wherein
the positive electrode mixture further includes a layered silicate salt compound (i.e., at least clay mineral such as smectite, montmorillonite, etc., as disclosed in [0023], which is commensurate in scope with claims 4-5 as discussed below, also see [0015]-[0024], Table 1, etc.).
Ryu further discloses in [0027] examples of conductive materials include graphite, carbon blacks, conductive fibers, etc.
Ryu further discloses in [0021] clay mineral preferably has a content in the range of 0.05 to 5% by weight, which is a range that overlaps the claimed range of the content of the layered silicate salt compound is greater than or equal to 0.5 mass% and less than or equal to 0.8 mass% relative to the mass of the active material, thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I.).
Furthermore, since Ryu discloses the lithium-containing transition metal composite oxide serving as an active material that is identical and/or substantially identical to the product as claimed, properties and/or functions such as able to occlude and release lithium ions are presumed inherent (MPEP 2112.01, I., II., In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)), lacking any further distinction thereof.
However, Ryu is silent as to the electrode mixture further includes carbon nanotubes.
Lin teaches an electrode and lithium-ion battery (Title). Lin further teaches in Example 1 [0045] a slurry including conductive carbon black, and Lin further teaches in [0032] since the positive electrode active material in the positive electrode generally has a relatively common conductivity, the active material layer also contains a certain amount of a conductive agent, such as carbon black, carbon nanotubes (CNT), etc., and the conductive agent increases its electrical conductivity, which at least provides in one or more embodiments an electrode mixture including carbon nanotube(s), lacking any further distinction thereof.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Ryu with the teachings of Lin, whereby the electrode mixture including the active material, binder, layered silicate salt, and conductive material(s) such as carbon black(s), conductive fiber(s), etc., as disclosed by Ryu further includes the electrode mixture further includes carbon nanotube as taught by Lin so that the conductive agent increases the electrical conductivity.
Furthermore, the skilled artisan would appreciate simply substituting one known conductive material such as graphite, carbon blacks, conductive fibers, etc., for another known conductive material such as carbon nanotube(s) so that the conductive agent increases the electrical conductivity as taught by Lin.
Regarding claim 4, Ryu and Lin discloses the positive electrode mixture as discussed above in claim 1. Ryu further discloses the layered silicate salt compound includes at least one type of smectite (i.e., at least as disclosed in [0023] clay mineral examples include smectite, montmorillonite (MMT), etc., also see Examples 1 and 4, [0052], [0057]).
Regarding claim 5, Ryu and Lin discloses the positive electrode mixture as discussed above in claim 4. Ryu further discloses the smectite includes montmorillonite (i.e., at least as disclosed in [0023] clay mineral examples include one or two or more selected from the group consisting of smectite, montmorillonite (MMT), etc., also see Examples 1 and 4, [0052], [0057]).
Regarding claim 8, Ryu and Lin discloses the positive electrode mixture as discussed above in claim 1. Ryu further discloses in [0057] a lithium secondary battery was prepared in the same manner as Example 1 (see Example 4), such that a porous polyethylene separator, etc., was disposed between the cathode and anode , etc., and a solution of 1M LiPF6 in ethylene carbonate (EC) and ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC) as an electrolyte was injected into the separator to prepare a lithium secondary battery, etc. (see Fabrication of battery in [0054], also see Table 1, [0037], [0040]-[0041], [0044]-[0049]), which at least provides a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, comprising: a positive electrode; a negative electrode; and a non-aqueous electrolyte, wherein a mixture layer of the positive electrode is constituted with the electrode mixture according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Ryu and Lin discloses the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery as discussed above in claim 8. Ryu further discloses in Example 2 ([0052], [0055]) a lithium secondary battery was prepared in the same manner as Example 1 (i.e., montmorillonite added to cathode, etc.), and montmorillonite was not added to the anode, etc., which at least provides the layered silicate salt compound is contained only in the mixture layer of the positive electrode.
Regarding claim 10, Ryu and Lin discloses the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery as discussed above in claim 4. Ryu further discloses in [0024] the montmorillonite exhibits negative charges in its overall structure, and in order to balance overall charges, whereby there contains exchangeable cations, etc., which at least provides the smectite is smectite in which exchangeable cations are exchanged into lithium ions, such that the skilled artisan would appreciate since said montmorillonite allows exchangeable cations and Lithium ions are cations, this at least necessitates said smectite (e.g., montmorillonite) is a smectite in which exchangeable cations are exchanged into lithium ions, etc.
Furthermore, since Ryu discloses the smectite as discussed above, which is an identical and/or substantially identical product as that claimed, properties and/or functions such as smectite in which exchangeable cations are exchanged into lithium ions are presumed inherent (MPEP 2112.01, I., In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)II., "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)), lacking any further chemical distinction thereof.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu and Lin as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Hong et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2019/0067689 A1), hereinafter Hong.
Regarding claim 7, Ryu and Lin discloses the electrode mixture as discussed above in claim 1. Ryu further discloses in [0031] LiNi1-xMxO2 (M=Co, Mn, Al, etc., wherein 0.01≤x≤0.3)), which at least provides the lithium-containing transition metal composite oxide has a layered structure, and includes a composite oxide represented by the general formula: LiNi1-xMxO2, wherein M represents at least one selected from the group consisting of Al, Mn, and Co, such that 0.01≤x≤0.3 provides a range of stoichiometric values for LiNi1-xMxO2 that overlap and/or encompass the claimed range of stoichiometric values of LiNixM1-xO2 (wherein M represents at least one selected from the group consisting of Al, Mn, and Co, and 0.3≤x<1.0, thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I.).
However, Ryu is silent as to a layered rock-salt crystal structure.
Hong teaches a composite cathode active material, method of preparing the same, and cathode and lithium battery including the composite cathode active material (Title). Hong further teaches in [0041] the lithium transition metal oxide having a layered crystal structure may have a rock-salt layered crystal structure, etc., such that when the oxides have these crystal structures, cycle characteristics and thermal stability of a lithium battery including the composite cathode active material may be improved.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the combined teachings of Ryu and Lin with the teachings of Hong, whereby the electrode mixture including the active material, lithium-containing transition metal composite oxide, etc., as disclosed by the combined teachings of Ryu and Lin further includes a layered rock-salt crystal structure as taught by Hong so that cycle characteristics and thermal stability of a lithium battery including the composite cathode active material may be improved.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 4, filed June 11th, 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection in view of Kazawa have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1, 3-5, and 8 in view of Kazawa has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 4-5, filed June 11th, 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection in view of Ryu have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is made in view of Ryu and Lin.
Applicants further argue Page 7, “Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed range of content of the layered silicate salt compound achieves, in combination with the carbon nanotube, advantageous effects. As shown in Table 1 of the instant specification, Examples 4 through 8 that contained the layered silicate salt compound in the claimed range achieved excellent high-rate discharge capacity and specifically reduced diffusion resistance. In particular, when the amount of the layered silicate salt compound is 0.7 mass% (Example 6), the diffusion resistance was reduced to 68.5 (a value relative to that of Comparative Example 1, see paragraph [0052]). Note that the above result was significantly improved from 86.3 wherein the amount of the layered silicate salt compound is 0.4 mass% (Example 3). Additionally, when the amount of the layered silicate salt compound was greater than the claimed range, the diffusion resistance was significantly increased. For instance, Example 8 containing 0.9 mass% of the layered silicate salt compound showed the diffusion resistance of 79.6, that was significantly increased compared to 71.3 in Example 7 wherein the amount of the layered silicate salt compound is 0.8 mass%. Further, as shown in Example 14, when the carbon nanotube was not contained as the conductive agent, the diffusion resistance was also significantly increased. As such, the Examples of the instant application clearly showed that the claimed range of the layered silicate salt compound is critical for achieving lower diffusion resistance in combination with carbon nanotube. In contrast, Ryu merely teaches the preferable content of the clay mineral in the range of 0.05 to 5% by weight, being far broader than the claimed range. Applicant notes that Examples 1-3, 8-10, wherein the layered silicate salt compound were within the range taught by Ryu but outside the claimed range, showed higher diffusion resistance even in combination with carbon nanotube. Accordingly, Ryu fails to teach or even suggest the claimed range that achieves remarkable improvement in diffusion resistance. A skilled artisan would not have arrived at the claimed structure of the positive electrode mixture from the teachings of Ryu, even being combined with Lin.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees, and as put forth in the current 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of record, the combined teachings of Ryu and Lin disclose the claim limitations under broadest reasonable interpretation. As to applicants arguments regarding criticality, the claims are not commensurate in scope with the claimed criticality, such that the claims are broad in scope and may include any lithium-containing transition metal composite oxide, may include any binder, may include any layered silicate salt compound, any type of carbon nanotubes, etc., such that the instant specification in Table 1 only identifies results for multi-walled carbon nanotubes (and not for example single-walled nanotubes, etc.), polyvinylidene fluoride (and not any other type of binder), montmorillonite (and not other types of smectite, etc.), etc. Therefore, in light of the amendments to the claims, a new grounds of 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is made in view of Ryu and Lin.
See the current 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection above for the claims that depend therefrom.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Miller et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2020/0119364 A1) discloses cathodes for us in lithium-air batteries (Title), whereby as disclosed in [0064] in some examples, the cathode can include phyllosilicate nanoparticles distributed in a polymer binder, whereby although HNT has been described as a particular example of a phyllosilicate material for use in the Li-air battery cathodes, other phyllosilicate materials can be used as well, and in some examples, the phyllosilicate used in the cathode can be nanoparticles of kaolinite, halloysite, chrysotile, antigorite, talc, pyrophyllite, montmorillonite, chlorite, mica, sepiolite, serpentine, or a combination thereof, such that in various examples, the phyllosilicates can be bilayer, trilayer or mixed layer structures and include both tubular structures and flat, layered structures, and in certain examples, the phyllosilicates can be either aluminum or magnesium phyllosilicates which can be modified to promote the transport of lithium ions, and in one such example, the modification can include, but is not limited to, replacement of interlayer cations with lithium ions, and in certain examples, the phyllosilicate can be in the form of nanotubes, etc.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA PATRICK MCCLURE whose telephone number is (571)272-2742. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached on (571) 272-1330. 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.
/JOSHUA P MCCLURE/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights