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
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.
Claims 1-5, 8-12 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar (US 2010/0248033), and further in view of Natsui (US 2019/0198861).
As to claim 1, Kumar discloses positive electrode active material for a Li-ion secondary battery ([0008], discussed throughout), comprising a Li-transition metal composite oxide ([0017], discussed throughout), and is represented by: a formula (1): (1−x)Li2RuO3−xLiMnO2, wherein Mn is trivalent Mn, and x is a real number satisfying 0<x<1 ([0017], discussed throughout).
Kumar is silent to wherein the Li-transition metal composite oxide has a layered rock salt crystal structure. Natsui discloses a positive electrode active material ([0004], discussed throughout) comprising a lithium oxide comprising Mn and Ru ([0014], discussed throughout), wherein, the positive electrode active material has a rock salt type crystal ([0041]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to have Kumar use a rock salt type crystal as Natsui because elements with different ionic radii may mix together easily ([0041], Natsui) and/or as a mere combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143 I).
As to claim 2, modified Kumar discloses wherein, x in the formula (1) satisfies 0.1≤x≤0.9 ([0017], discussed throughout). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
As to claims 3 and 10, modified Kumar discloses wherein, a primary particle size of the Li-transition metal composite oxide is 1 μm or more and 50 μm or less ([0020]-[0021]). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (see MPEP 2144.05).
As to claims 4, 11 and 12, modified Kumar discloses wherein, wherein the Li-transition metal composite oxide has part of Ru and/or Mn replaced with a metal M, and is represented by: a formula (2): (1−y−z)Li2RuO3 —yLiMnO2—zLiaMOb: wherein the metal M is any one of Ti, Nb, Y, Zr, Hf, and Ta; y and z are real numbers satisfying 0<y+z<1; and regarding a, b and c, a=1 and b=4 for M of a monovalent metal, a=2 and b=3 for M of a tetravalent metal, and a=3 and b=4 for M of a pentavalent metal ([0017], this is because M is one or more).
As to claim 5, modified Kumar discloses wherein, y+z in the formula (2) satisfies 0.1≤y+z≤0.9 ([0017], this is because M is one or more). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
As to claims 6-7 and 13-15, modified Kumar is discloses to wherein, a method for producing the positive electrode active material for a Li-ion secondary battery defined in claim 1, comprising: a mixing step of mixing a Li compound, a Ru compound, and a trivalent Mn compound to produce a precursor substance ([0032]-[0034], discussed throughout); and a firing step of heating the precursor substance at 700° C. or more (700 degrees for claims 6, 13, and 14 and 800 degrees for claims 7 and 15) and 1100° C. or less to generate the Li-transition metal composite oxide ([0032]-[0034], discussed throughout). Should it be considered that Kumar is silent to the instant claimed method, because while Kumar discloses the method Kumar does for specific examples. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to use the same methods within the examples within the components discloses within the specification as a mere combing prior art elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
Modified Kumar is silent to wherein the firing step is performed in a non-oxidizing atmosphere. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to use a non-oxide atmosphere given a finite number of options i.e. oxides or non-oxidized (see MPEP 2143). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to use a non-reactive gas such as argon to reduce side reaction.
As to claims 8 and 16-19, modified Kumar discloses a positive electrode for a Li-ion secondary battery, comprising the positive electrode active material for a Li-ion secondary battery ([0008], discussed throughout).
As to claim 9, modified Kumar discloses a Li-ion secondary battery, comprising the positive electrode for a Li-ion secondary battery ([0008], discussed throughout).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN R OHARA whose telephone number is (571)272-0728. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM-3:30 PM EST M-F.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
/BRIAN R OHARA/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights