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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/21/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgment is made to applicant’s amendment of claims filed on 08/21/2026. Claims 3-4, 9, and 12-13 have been canceled. Claim 16 is a newly submitted claim. Accordingly, claims 1-2, 5-8, 10-11, and 14-16 remain pending and are claims addressed and examined below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 08/21/2026 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Chang, Sazhin and Makino have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Chang et al. (US-20110081578-A1), Sazhin et al. (US 20060115738 A1) and Sugiura et al. (US-20120009471-A1).
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US-20110081578-A1) in view of Sazhin et al. (US 20060115738 A1) and Sugiura et al. (US-20120009471-A1).
With regards to claim 1, Chang teaches a positive electrode active material to be used for a lithium ion secondary battery, wherein the positive electrode active material comprises a lithium composite oxide containing Li, Ni, Co and Mn (¶ 0016 - ¶ 0017), and further comprises lithium phosphate as an ion conductive-solid compound additive (¶ 0030 and ¶ 0034) and wherein a content of the additive is 0.5 to 10% by weight with respect to a total content of the lithium composite oxide and the additive (¶ 0037). This falls within the claimed range of 0.1 to 10%. However, Chang does not teach lithium borate (Li3BO3) or lithium sulfate (Li2SO4) as additives.
In a similar field of endeavor, Sazhin teaches a cathode active material for a rechargeable electrochemical cell (¶ 0033). Sazhin teaches that the active material includes additives that improve cell performance (¶ 0035). Similar to Chang, Sazhin teaches that the additive may comprise lithium phosphate (¶ 0036). Sazhin also teaches lithium sulfate and lithium borate as suitable cathode additives.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed to substitute the lithium phosphate additive taught by Chang with additives such as lithium borate and lithium sulfate as taught by Sazhin as the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Although Chang teaches that the positive electrode active material comprises a lithium composite oxide containing Li, Ni, Co and Mn, Chang is silent on the exact crystalline structure of the lithium composite oxide, prompting one of ordinary skill to look to prior art.
In a similar field of endeavor, Sugiura teaches a positive electrode active material to be used for a lithium ion secondary battery (¶ 0012). Sugiura teaches that the positive electrode active material comprises a lithium composite oxide having a layered rock salt structure containing Li, Ni, Co and Mn (¶ 0013 and ¶ 0033 - ¶ 0034). In ¶ 0014, Sugiura teaches that the positive electrode active material is in a form of a sintered plate, wherein the sintered plate has a degree of orientation I[003]/I[104] that is defined as a ratio of a diffraction intensity I[003] derived from the (003) plane to a diffraction intensity I[003] derived from the (104) plane in an XRD profile measured by X-ray diffraction (XRD), is preferably less than 2. Suguira discloses that when the active material is formed to have the above described structure, its cycle characteristics are improved (¶ 0014 - ¶ 0015).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention as effectively filed, to form the positive electrode active material taught by Chang in the structure taught by Sugiura as this would predictably result in a positive electrode active material with improved cycle characteristics. Through this modification, modified Chang renders obvious the positive electrode active material having a layered rock structure and being in a form of a sintered plate, wherein the sintered plate has a degree of orientation I[003]/I[104] that is defined as a ratio of a diffraction intensity I[003] derived from the (003) plane to a diffraction intensity I[003] derived from the (104) plane in an XRD profile measured by X-ray diffraction (XRD), of less than 2. The claimed range of 1.49 to 1.95 falls within the range taught by Sugiura. 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regards to claim 2, Chang teaches that the additive is present in a state of being deposited on at least a part of a grain boundary and of a surface of the lithium composite oxide (¶ 0035).
With regards to claim 5, Chang teaches that when an unstable surface of the active material is exposed to an electrolyte, a rapid exothermic reaction may occur (¶ 0019). To resolve this issue, Chang teaches applying an ion-conductive solid compound (claim 1 additive) on a surface of an active material to form a stable interface between an electrolyte and the active material that decreases reactivity of the active material with an electrolyte (¶ 0020). Chang goes on to teach that the additive should not entirely coat the active material (¶ 0036). This means, there is still some interfacial contact between the active material and the electrolyte. According to Chang, this contact cannot be too large or too small (¶ 0036). However, modified Chang does not specifically that teach the sintered plate has an interfacial length per 1 µm2 of unit cross-sectional area of 0.45 µm or shorter.
As modified Chang is silent on the exact interfacial length, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, through routine experimentation, to recognize that any interfacial length that enables sufficient mobility of lithium ions while maintaining rate properties, would predictably yield a safer active material that inhibits ignition and/or explosion of a battery.
With regards to claim 6, as discussed earlier, modified Chang renders obvious the positive electrode active material having the layered rock salt sintered plate structure taught by Suguira. Suguira teaches that the sintered plate has a porosity (voidage) of 3 to 30% which overlaps with the claimed range of 20 to 40 % (¶ 0012). 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regards to claim 8, as discussed above, modified Chang renders the sintered plate of claim 1 obvious. Sugiura teaches that the sintered plate has a thickness 30 µm or more (¶ 0054). The claimed range of 30 to 300 µm falls within the range taught by Sugiura. 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regards to claim 10, Chang teaches that a molar ratio of Li/(Ni+Co+Mn) in the positive electrode active material may be 0.95 to 1.10 (¶ 0017).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US-20110081578-A1) in view of Sazhin et al. (US 20060115738 A1) and Sugiura et al. (US-20120009471-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Akagi et al. (US-20100119945-A1).
With regards to claim 7, modified Chang renders the sintered plate of claim 1 obvious. However, modified Chang is silent on a mean pore diameter of the sintered plate, prompting one of ordinary skill in the art to look to prior at.
In a similar field of endeavor, Akagi teaches a positive electrode active material in the form of a sintered plate with a mean pore diameter of 3.5 µm or larger (¶ 0020). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to form the sintered plate taught by modified Chang to have a mean pore diameter within the range taught by Akagi. This would predictably yield an effective positive electrode active material.
Claim(s) 11 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 20110081578 A1) in view of Sazhin et al. (US 20060115738 A1) and Sugiura et al. (US-20120009471-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Singh et al. (Li2SO4 : LiOH Eutetic System, A Promising Solid Electrolyte).
With regards to claim 11, modified Chang teaches a lithium-ion secondary battery (¶ 0039), comprising: a positive electrode layer comprising the positive electrode active material according to claim 1 (Chang: ¶ 0016 - 0017, ¶ 0030, ¶0034, ¶ 0037, and ¶ 0040; Sazhin: ¶ 0033 and ¶ 0036; Sugiura¶ 0012 ). Chang also teaches a negative electrode layer comprising a negative electrode active material (¶ 0040) and a solid electrolyte interposed between the positive electrode layer and the negative electrode layer (¶ 0042). However, modified Chang does not teach a LiOH·Li2SO4-based solid electrolyte.
In a similar field of endeavor, Singh teaches a promising LiOH·Li2SO4-based solid electrolyte (page 1). According to Singh, on page 1, lithium sulphate exhibits high ionic conductivity and forms a eutectic system with lithium hydroxide. This LiOH·Li2SO eutectic system also exhibits high ionic conductivity, making it a viable candidate in developing a high energy density storage device (page 1). On page 1, Singh also states that “several cathode materials can be employed in lithium transporting systems because of their relatively high lithium diffusion coefficient”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to substitute the electrolyte in the battery taught by modified Chang with a LiOH·Li2SO4-based solid electrolyte as taught by Singh. This would predictably yield a battery with higher energy density and conductivity.
With regards to claim 15, modified Chang renders the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 11 obvious. Singh teaches that the LiOH·Li2SO4-based solid electrolyte comprises a solid electrolyte identified to be 3LiOH·Li2SO4 by X-ray diffraction (page 2 and 3).
Claim(s) 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 20110081578 A1) in view of Sazhin et al. (US 20060115738 A1), Sugiura et al. (US-20120009471-A1), and Singh et al. (Li2SO4 : LiOH Eutetic System, A Promising Solid Electrolyte) as applied to claim 11 above, and in further view of Makino et al. (US-20190198919-A1).
With regards to claim 14, modified Chang renders the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 11 obvious. Chang teaches that the negative electrode active material may include metals alloyable with lithium such as titanium (¶ 0041). Chang does not specifically teach that the negative electrode active material is Li4Ti5O12.
In a similar field of endeavor, Makino teaches a lithium ion secondary battery comprising a positive electrode, negative electrode and a solid electrolyte (¶ 0050). In ¶ 0105, Makino discloses Li4Ti5O12 as a preferred negative electrode active material as it can improve the service life of lithium ion secondary batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use Li4Ti5O12 as the negative electrode active material taught by Makino in the battery taught by modified Chang as this would predictably improve the service life of the battery.
With regards to claim 16, modified Chang is silent on the thickness of the negative electrode layer. However, Makino discloses that it is well known in the art to form the negative electrode layer to have a thickness within the range of be 10 to 1000 µm (0052). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at, the time the invention was effectively filed, to form the negative electrode active material layer to have a thickness within a range such as 10 to 1000 µm as taught by Makino as mere changes in size or relative dimension present a case of prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.04.IV.A.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNSUYADOR YUSIF whose telephone number is (571)272-4531. The examiner can normally be reached 7 am - 5 pm (M-R).
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, Galen H Hauth can be reached at (571) 270-5516. 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.
/HUNSUYADOR MUGEESATU YUSIF/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743
