DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Applicant's election without traverse of Group I: claims 1-6 in the reply filed on 13 February 2026 is acknowledged.
3. Claim 7 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Status of Claims
4. Claims 1-7 are pending in the current application, claim 7 is withdrawn, and claims 1-6 are under consideration on the merits.
Examiner Note
5. It is noted that all references hereinafter to Applicant’s specification are to the published
application US 2024/0047672 A1, unless stated otherwise. Further, it is noted that italicized text in parentheses recited in any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 indicates the element of the claimed invention to which the preceding prior art element corresponds.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakano et al. (US 2014/0030598 A1; “Sakano”).
9. Regarding claim 1, Sakano discloses a lithium secondary battery comprising a positive electrode [0016], of which includes a positive electrode active material (a positive electrode active material) comprising lithium transition metal composite oxide, of which the transition metal is, inter alia nickel (lithium nickel composite oxide powder) [0029, 0035] having two X-ray absorption fine structure (XAFS) spectrum absorbance peaks between 527-533 eV [0010, 0049, FIG. 7], see Annotated Sakano FIG. 7 below. Specifically, the first peak is at 530 eV, and the second peak is at 533-534 eV (based on Annotated Sakano FIG. 7 below and [Sakano, 0049]). Furthermore, Sakano discloses the lithium transition metal composite oxide has a D50 (d) between 1-50 μm [0030], of which is exemplified as 7 μm in Samples 0-3 of Sakano [0063-0070].
10. The aforesaid peak ranges correspond to the claimed ranges 529-530 eV and 533-534 eV. Furthermore, the aforesaid D50 range overlaps with the claimed range, less than or equal to 2.7 μm, thereby rendering the range prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)), and reading on the claimed formula (2).
11. Annotated Sakano FIG. 7 below exemplifies that the Samples 0-3 have the first peak at 530 eV, and the second peak at 533-534 eV, wherein the first peak has an absorbance intensity height of 70-80 a.u. and the second peak has an absorbance intensity height of 25-35 a.u. [0049, FIG. 7, see Annotated Sakano FIG. 7 below]. Through calculation, a ratio (R) between the first and second XAFS spectrum absorbance peak heights, of which is 0.36-0.44, reads on the claimed variable R. This ratio, multiplied by itself, multiplied by the D50 value of 7 μm [Samples 0-3], is 0.91-1.36, of which is outside of the claimed range of 0.1 to 0.4.
12. In view of the foregoing, and as stated above, Sakano discloses that the average particle size may be as low as 1 µm. Through calculation utilizing the average particle size of 1 µm and the foregoing R range of 0.36-0.44 determined from Fig. 7, the value of dR2 would have necessarily been from 0.13-0.19, of which is within the formula (1) range of 0.1 to 0.4 defined in claim 1. As such, it stands to reason and/or there is a reasonable expectation that the lithium nickel composite oxide particles of Sakano, having d of 1 µm and exhibiting the same oxidic composition of Samples 0-3, would have necessarily exhibited a dR2 value within the range of 0.13-0.19, absent a showing of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112(V); MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II); MPEP 2145; and MPEP 2145(I). "Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established”. The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
PNG
media_image1.png
367
496
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Sakano FIG. 7
13. Regarding claim 2, Sakano discloses the positive electrode active material of claim 1 set forth in the grounds of rejection above. That is, with the first peak at 530 eV, and the second peak at 533-534 eV, wherein the first peak has an absorbance intensity height of 70-80 a.u. and the second peak has an absorbance intensity height of 25-35 a.u. [0049, FIG. 7, see Annotated Sakano FIG. 7 above], and through calculation, the ratio between the first and second XAFS spectrum absorbance peak heights, is 0.36-0.44 [0049, FIG. 7, see Annotated Sakano FIG. 7 above].
14. Regarding claim 3, Sakano discloses the positive electrode active material of claim 1 set forth in the grounds of rejection above. In view thereof, Sakano further discloses that within a preferable embodiment of the lithium transition metal composite oxide, the primary element between Ni, Co, and Mn is Ni, wherein Ni is in an amount 0-0.7 with respect to the total amount of Ni, Co, and Mn
being 1 [0035].
15. The aforesaid Ni amount range of Sakano overlaps with the claimed Ni ratio range, 0.5 or more, thereby rendering the range prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
16. Regarding claim 4, Sakano discloses the positive electrode active material of claim 1 set forth in the grounds of rejection above. In view thereof, Sakano further discloses the lithium transition metal composite oxide is represented by the following: Li0.7-1.3Ni0-0.7Co0-0.7Mn0-0.7O2.
17. All aforesaid element ranges of Sakano overlap with the claimed element ranges, Li1-1.7Ni0.5-0.8Co0.1-0.2Mn0-0.4O2, thereby rendering all ranges prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)), wherein the claimed formula (4) has variables Ma and Cb, both of which can have an amount equal to 0, said alternatively, can be absent, thereby reading on the claimed formula (4).
18. Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the positive electrode defined by claim 5.
19. Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 above reads on the lithium ion battery defined by claim 6. The lithium secondary battery of Sakano reads on the claimed lithium ion battery.
Pertinent Prior Art
20. The following constitutes a list of prior art which are not relied upon herein, but are considered pertinent to the claimed invention and/or written description thereof. The prior art are purposely made of record hereinafter to facilitate compact/expedient prosecution, and consideration thereof is respectfully suggested.
21.
I. Sasaki, JP 2005/251700 A; teaches peak tops of 528-531 eV and 531-533 eV [Tech-Solution section of English translated version].
II. Umetsu, WO 2019/156090 A1; teaches an average particle size of the lithium transition metal oxide is preferably 0.1 to 20 μm [Lithium transition metal oxide section of English translated version]
Conclusion
22. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA X. COLTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
23. 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.
24. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aaron Austin can be reached at (571)272-8935. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
25. 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.
/JENNA X. COLTON/Examiner, Art Unit 1782
/AARON AUSTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1782