DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-4 and 6-11 are pending as amended on 24 December 2026.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims and the remarks/arguments have been entered and fully considered.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant’s amendment cancelling claim 5 renders the objection to claim 5 moot.
Applicant’s amendment overcomes the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) of claims 1, 2 and 6-8 over US 2018/0047977A1 (Furuichi). The rejection has been withdrawn. However, the amendment does not overcome the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Furuichi, and the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Furuichi in view of US2021/0020922A1 (Yamamoto).
Applicant’s arguments in light of the amendment have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Furuichi does not anticipates the claimed particle size. However, as set forth in previous Office action, Furuichi teaches that the average particle size of the primary particles is preferably 0.3 to 3µm ([0100]), and the compound containing lithium and tungsten is present on the surface of the primary particles of the lithium-metal composite oxide in both forms of thin film having a film thickness of 1 to 100 nm and fine particles having a particle size of 1 to 200 nm ([0033]), thus the coated particle has a size range of 0.3 to 3.2 µm, which encompasses the claimed particle size and a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 f. 2d 257,191 USPQ 90(CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Applicant argues that the effect of adding LWO on the storage characteristics is most significant in the region wherein the D50 particle size is between 1.2 to 2.7 µm. However, the examiner notes that in instant Table 2, the sample, i.e., No. 7, from particles of D50 of 7 µm has a different LWO coating from the remainder of the coated samples, i.e., No.8-10, thus it is not clear the effect is due to particle size or the different LWO coating. Further, Applicant must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In the instant case, Applicant is required to compare the claimed subject matter, with that of Furuichi’s particle size, to provide effective evidence to rebut the rejections.
Applicant argues that Yamamoto does not teach the claimed narrow particle size range. However, Yamamoto is pertinent in providing teachings of coverage rate. In addition, as acknowledged by Applicant, Yamamoto teaches a particle size range of 0.5 to 15 µm ([0035]), which also encompasses the claimed range.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuichi.
Regarding claims 1, 2 and 9, Furuichi teaches a positive electrode active material composed of primary particles of a lithium metal composite oxide and a compound containing lithium and tungsten formed on the surface of the primary particles of the lithium metal composite oxide ([0031]), wherein the lithium metal composite oxide is exemplified as Li1.03Ni0.82Co0,15Al0.03O2 ([0177]), which has a ratio of Ni to the total amount of Ni, Co and Al atoms of 0.82, calculated by the examiner, i.e., 0.82/(0.82+0.15 +0.03), which meets the claimed lithium nickel composite oxide and a nickel ratio of 0.5 or more.
Furuichi further teaches that the compound containing lithium and tungsten is a mixture of Li4WO5 and Li2WO4, with the proportion of Li4WO5 being 50% or more and exemplifies 83 mol% ([0050] and [0196]), which meets the claimed proportion of claims 1 and 2, and the disclosed range of 50% or more encompasses the claimed proportion of claim 9.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have found it obvious to select the amount of Li4WO5 at the instantly claimed range since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside range disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 f. 2d 257,191 USPQ 90(CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. See MPEP 2144.05, In re Boesch, 617 F2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Aller, 220 F2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and In re Hoeschele, 406 F2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Furuichi teaches that the average particle size of the primary particles is preferably 0.3 to 3µm ([0100]), and the compound containing lithium and tungsten is present on the surface of the primary particles of the lithium-metal composite oxide in both forms of thin film having a film thickness of 1 to 100 nm and fine particles having a particle size of 1 to 200 nm ([0033]), thus the coated particle has a size range of 0.3 to 3.2 µm, which encompasses the claimed particle size.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have found it obvious to select a particle size at the instantly claimed range since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside range disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 f. 2d 257,191 USPQ 90(CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. See MPEP 2144.05, In re Boesch, 617 F2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Aller, 220 F2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and In re Hoeschele, 406 F2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Regarding claim 3, Furuichi teaches the lithium-metal composite oxide is represented by the general formula : LibNi1-x-yCoxMyO2 , where 0≦x≦0.35, 0≦y≦0.35, and 0.95≦b≦1.20 , and M is at least one element selected from Mn, V, Mg, Mo, Nb, Ti and Al ([0035]), and exemplified as Li1.03Ni0.82Co0,15Al0.03O2 ([0177]),which meets the claimed x (0.03), z (0.15), a(0.03) and b (0) and abuts the claimed y (0.82), and renders the claimed formula obvious since it has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 Titanium Metals Corp of Am v Banner, 778 F2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed Cir 1985).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Furuichi teaches a lithium ion secondary battery comprises a positive electrode([0003] and [0126]), wherein the positive electrode comprises the positive electrode active material in powder form ([0127]-[0129]).
Regarding claim 8, Furuichi teaches a method for producing a positive electrode active material comprises ([0024], [0083], [0091], [0114] and [0179]):
a pulverization step of obtaining a lithium-metal composite oxide powder exemplified as Li1.03Ni0.82Co0,15Al0.03O2 ([0177] and ([0179]), which has a ratio of Ni of 0.82 and meets the claimed lithium nickel composite oxide;
a mixing step of adding a tungsten compound powder to the lithium-metal composite oxide powder thereby obtaining a tungsten-containing mixture, wherein the tungsten compound powder is preferably tungsten oxide, i.e., WO3([0091]) ; and
a heat-treating step of heat-treating the tungsten-containing mixture obtained in the mixing step and forming the compound containing tungsten and lithium from the tungsten and lithium in the mixture, on the surface of the primary particles of the lithium-metal composite oxide ([0114]), wherein the compound containing lithium and tungsten is a mixture of Li4WO5 and Li2WO4, with the proportion of Li4WO5 being 50% or more and exemplified as 83 mol% ([0050] and [0195]), which meets the claimed method.
Claims 4 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuichi as applied to claims 1-3 and 6-9 above, and further in view of Yamamoto.
The teachings of Furuichi are set forth above.
Furuichi does not expressly discloses the claimed coverage rate.
Yamamoto teaches a positive electrode active substance comprising a lithium composite oxide such as lithium nickel cobalt -based composite oxides coated with a tungsten-containing compound such as Li4WO5 has a low initial resistance ([0005], [0022] and [0041]), and in which an increase in resistance following repeated charging and discharging is suppressed ([0005]), wherein the coverage ratio by the coating is not less than 10% and not more than 20% ([0047]-[0048]), exemplified as 15 (Table 2), which meets the claimed range, wherein the coverage ratio is defined by quantitatively determining the proportions of elements on the surface of the particle by means of X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy and calculated using the proportion of W element expressed in terms of “Atomic %” and the proportion metal elements (Me) other than Li among metal elements that constitute the lithium composite oxide expressed in terms of “Atomic %” on the basis of the formula ([0048]):
Coverage ratio (%)={W/(W+Me)}×100
At the time the invention was made it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the coverage rate of Furuichi to a range of 10 to 20% such as 15 % of Yamamoto. The rationale to do so would have been the motivation provided by the teachings of Yamamoto that to do so would lower the initial resistance of the ion secondary battery ([0005] and [0047]).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIQUN LI whose telephone number is (571)270-7736. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am -4:00 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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-2721302. 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.
/AIQUN LI/Ph.D., Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766