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 .
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgment is made to applicant’s amendment of claims 1 filed on 03/27/2026. Accordingly, claims 1-15 remain pending and are claims addressed and examined below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/27/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-15 under § 103 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Sazhin et al. (US 20060115738 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 and 9-10 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 in further view of Makino (CN 109643790 A, Translation used for citation).
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. Chang is also 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, Sazhin teaches a cathode active material for a rechargeable electrochemical cell (¶ 0033). Sazhin teaches that the active material includes additives that improve cell performance. 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 use additives such as lithium borate and lithium sulfate as taught by Sazhin in the cathode taught by Chang as doing so presents a simple substitution of one known element for another there are no unpredictable results. See MPEP 2143.I.B.
In a similar field of endeavor, Makino teaches a positive electrode active material comprising a lithium composite oxide having a layered rock salt structure containing Li, Ni, Co and Mn (page 11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a rock-salt structured lithium composite oxide as taught by Makino in the active material taught by modified Chang. This would predictably yield an effective positive electrode active material.
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 9, Chang teaches that the positive electrode active material is in a form of a powder (¶ 0027).
With regards to claim 10, Chang teaches that a molar ratio of Li/(Ni+Co+Mn) in the positive electrode active material is 0.95 to 1.10 (¶ 0017).
Claim(s) 3-6 and 8 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 Makino (CN 109643790 A, Translation used for citation) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Lee et al. (US 20210020898 A1).
With regards to claim 3, Chang in view of Sazhin and Makino teaches the positive electrode active material according to claim 1. In ¶ 0027, Chang teaches that the lithium composite oxide may have an agglomerated particle structure. Chang also teaches mixing the raw material with a binder and coating a current collector (¶ 0040). Additionally, Chang aims to produce a high-capacity battery with improved energy density (¶ 0006). However, Chang, Sazhin and Makino do not teach the positive electrode active material in a form of a sintered plate.
In a similar field of endeavor, Lee teaches a positive electrode active material containing Li, Ni, Co and Mn (¶ 0121). Lee also teaches a similar method as Chang where the raw materials are mixed with a binder and applied to a current collector (¶ 0098). Additionally, Lee teaches that sintering of a preformed plate can be done in the alternative to shaping on a current collector (¶ 0099 - ¶ 0100). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to substitute the agglomerated structure taught by modified Chang with the sintered body taught by Lee. As Lee teaches, this would predictably yield a positive electrode active material with increased energy density (¶ 0080). See MPEP 2143.I.B.
With regards to claim 4, modified Chang does not teach the degree of orientation of the active material. However, as a material is inseparable from its properties, the sintered plate, taught by modified Chang would inherently have 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[104] derived from the (104) plane in an XRD profile measured by X-ray diffraction (XRD), of 1.2 to 3.6. NOTE: Where … the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on “inherency” under 35 USC § 102, on “prima facie obviousness” under 35 USC § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products. In re Best, 562 F2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-4 (CCPA 1977).
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 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, Lee teaches that the sintered plate has a porosity of 20 to 40% (¶ 0192). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to form the active material taught by Chang in view Sazhin and Makino into a sintered plate having a porosity within the range taught by Lee. This would still predictably yield an active material with increased energy density.
With regards to claim 8, Lee teaches that the sintered plate has a thickness of 30 to 300 µm (¶ 0197). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the sintered plate applied to the active material, taught by Chang in view Sazhin and Makino, a thickness within the range taught by Lee. This would still predictably yield a positive electrode active material with increased energy density.
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), Makino (CN 109643790 A, Translation used for citation) and Lee et al. (US 20210020898 A1) as applied to claim 3 above, and in further view of Akagi et al. (US 20100119945 A1).
With regards to claim 7, modified Chang teaches the sintered plate of claim 3; 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 13-15 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 Makino (CN 109643790 A, Translation used for citation) as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Singh et al. (Li2SO4 : LiOH Eutetic System, A Promising Solid Electrolyte).
With regards to claim 11, Chang in view of Sazhin and Makino 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; Makino: page 11). 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, Chang and Makino do 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 13, Chang teaches that the positive electrode layer comprises a particle of the positive electrode active material (¶ 0040), a particle of the solid electrolyte (¶ 0027) and an electron conductive auxiliary in a form of a mixture (¶ 0046).
With regards to claim 14, modified Chang teaches the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 11. Singh does not teach a negative electrode active material. On the other hand, 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.
However, it is known in the art, as discussed by Makino on page 12, that Li4Ti5O12 is an effective negative electrode active material that 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 in the battery taught by Chang in view of Makino and Singh as this would predictably improve the service life of battery.
With regards to claim 15, modified Chang in view of Makino and Singh teach the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 11. Singh goes on to teach 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) 3 and 12 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), Makino (CN 109643790 A, Translation used for citation), Lee et al. (US 20210020898 A1), and Singh et al. (Li2SO4 : LiOH Eutetic System, A Promising Solid Electrolyte).
With regards to claim 3 and 12, Chang in view of Sazhin, Makino and in further view of Singh teach the lithium-ion secondary battery of claim 11. Modified Chang does not teach the active material in a form of a sintered plate. However, as applied to claim 3, Chang in view of Sazhin, Makino and Lee teach the electrode active material in a form of a sintered plate. Lee also teaches that utilizing a sintered body as the active material enables a high energy density battery design (¶ 0080). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to form the active material taught by modified Chang into a sintered plate and to further use this material in the battery taught by modified Chang. This would predictably yield an effective battery with high energy density.
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 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
Prosecution Insights