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, 4, 6, 11, 13 and 19 filed on 03/31/2026. Accordingly, claims 1-20 remain pending and are claims addressed and examined below.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 1, 4, 6, 11, 13 and 19 have overcome the 35 USC 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Office actioned mailed 01/13/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argue that the cited references fail to teach or suggest that at least one selected from the first lithium manganese-based oxide and the second lithium manganese-based oxide comprises both the secondary particle formed by aggregating the plurality of large-diameter primary particles and the secondary particle formed by aggregating the plurality of small-diameter primary particles. However, in Fig. 7 Nakabayashi teaches an embodiment where the active material (100G) may comprise layered solid solution compound secondary particles (110G) as large particles which read on the second lithium manganese-based oxide and layered solid solution compound secondary particles (120G) as small particles which read on the first lithium manganese-based oxide. In Fig. 7, Nakabayashi also teaches that the first and second lithium manganese-based oxides comprise of both the secondary particle formed by aggregating the plurality of large-diameter primary particles and the secondary particle formed by aggregating the plurality of small-diameter primary particles. Fig. 7 is shown below.
PNG
media_image1.png
446
811
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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, 8-9, 15-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakabayashi et al. (JP-2016051504-A, Translation used for citation) in view of Choi et al. (US 20180145322 A1).
PNG
media_image2.png
446
811
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 1, Nakabayashi teaches a bimodal-type positive electrode active material comprising a first lithium manganese-based oxide as a small particle ( 120G) and a second lithium manganese-based oxide as a large particle (110G) (page 7 and Fig. 7). Fig. 7 is shown below.
Nakabayashi goes on to teach that the first lithium manganese-based oxide and the second lithium manganese-based oxide each independently comprises at least one type of secondary particle selected from a secondary particle formed by aggregating a plurality of large-diameter primary particles (101G” or 102” and 101G or 120G) and a secondary particle formed by aggregating a plurality of small-diameter primary particles (101G’’’ or 102G’’’ and 101G’ or 102G’) (page 7 and Fig. 7). Fig. 7 is shown below.
PNG
media_image1.png
446
811
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As shown above, Nakabayashi also teaches at least one selected from the first lithium manganese-based oxide and the second lithium manganese-based oxide comprises the secondary particle formed by aggregating the plurality of large-diameter primary particles (101G” or 102” and 101G or 120G) and the secondary particle formed by aggregating the plurality of small-diameter primary particles ( 101G’’’ or 102G’’’ and 101G’ or 102G’) (page 7 and Fig. 7).
Nakabayashi does not specifically mention the first lithium manganese-based oxide and the second lithium manganese-based oxide are oxides in which a phase belonging to a C2/m space group and a phase belonging to a R3-m space group are dissolved or complexed. On page 4, Nakabayashi teaches that the composite oxide has a layered structure (e.g.: Li2MnO3—LiMnO2); However, Nakabayashi is silent on the specific crystalline structure of the oxides, prompting one of ordinary skill in the art to look to prior art.
In a similar field of endeavor, Choi teaches bimodal type positive electrode active material comprising two different sized lithium manganese-based oxide (¶ 0054). Choi also teaches Li2MnO3—LiMnO2 as a composite oxide with a phase belonging to a C2/m space group and a phase belonging to a R3-m space group, dissolved or complexed (¶ 0045 - ¶ 0047). Choi goes on to teach that having both phases present provides an additional charge/discharge capacity (¶ 0092).
As Nakabayashi and Choi teach the same composite oxide, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to recognize that using the structure as taught by Choi in the active material taught by Nakabayashi would predictably yield a positive electrode active material that improves a battery’s charge/discharge capacity.
With regards to claim 2, Nakabayashi teaches the positive electrode active material of claim 1, wherein, in the first lithium manganese-based oxide, the secondary particle formed by aggregating a plurality of large-diameter primary particles and the secondary particle formed by aggregating a plurality of small-diameter primary particles are comprised in a weight ratio of 20:80 to 90:10 which overlaps with the claimed range of 10:90 to 100:0 (page 8). 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, Nakabayashi teaches that the average particle diameter of the first lithium manganese-based oxide may be 1 to 4 µm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 2 to 5 µm (page 15). 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 9, Nakabayashi teaches the positive electrode active material of claim 1, wherein, in the second lithium manganese-based oxide, a secondary particle formed by aggregating a plurality of large-diameter primary particles and a secondary particle formed by aggregating a plurality of small-diameter primary particles are comprised in a weight ratio of 20:80 to 90:10 which overlaps with the claimed range of 10:90 to 100:0 (page 8). 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 15, Nakabayashi does not specifically teach that the average particle diameter of the second lithium manganese-based oxide is 6 to 14 µm. On page 16, Nakabayashi teaches an example where the particle size may be 30 µm. However, Nakabayashi also teaches D1 / D2 ≧ 2 where D1 is a large particle diameter and D2 is a small particle diameter (page 5). In this case, the second composite oxide (D1) may be any size as long as it is at least twice the size of the first composite oxide. Nakabayashi teaches an example where the first composite oxide (D2) is 4 µm (page 15). Based on this equation, D1 / D2 ≧ 2, D1 can be at least 8, which falls within the claimed range.
Through routine experimentation, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to recognize that any particle size at least twice the size of the first composite oxide would suffice as the second composite oxide.
With regard to claim 16, Nakabayashi teaches that in the positive electrode active material, the first lithium manganese-based oxide and the second lithium manganese-based oxide are comprised in a weight ratio of 10:90 to 80:20 (pages 5).
With regards to claim 17, Nakabayashi teaches that the first lithium manganese-based oxide and the second lithium manganese-based oxide each independently comprise at least one selected from nickel, cobalt, and manganese (Page 9).
With regards to claim 20, Nakabayashi teaches the positive electrode active material wherein the first lithium manganese-based oxide and the second lithium manganese-based oxide is each independently represented by Formula 1 below: [Formula 1] rLi2MnO3-b’Xb' .(1-r)LiaM1xM2yM3zO2-bXb Wherein, M1 is at least one selected from Ni and Mn, M2 is at least one selected from Ni, Mn, Co, Al, P, Nb, B, Si, Ti, Zr, Ba, K, Mo, Fe, Cu, Cr, Zn, Na, Ca, Mg, Pt, Au, Eu, Sm, W, Ce, V, Ta, Sn, Hf, Gd and Nd, M3 is at least one selected from W, Mo and Nb, Ml to M3 do not overlap with each other, X and X’ are halogens that can substitute for at least some of the oxygens present in the lithium manganese-based oxide, 0<r≤0.7, 0<a≤1, 0≤b≤0.1, 0≤b'≤0.1, 0<x≤1, 0≤y<1, 0≤z≤0.1, and 0<x+y+z≤1 (page 9).
Claim(s) 3-4, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakabayashi et al. (JP-2016051504-A, Translation used for citation) in view of Choi et al. (US 20180145322 A1) as applied to claims 2 above, and in further view of Sakai et al. (US 20160043396 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Nakabayashi teaches that an average particle diameter value of the large-diameter primary particles may be 100 nm or more and 500 nm or less (page 16, particle B: 450 nm). Nakabayashi also teaches that an average particle diameter value of the small-diameter primary particle is 50 nm or more and 300 nm or less (page 15, particle A: 170 nm).
Nakabayashi also teaches that the diameter of the large-diameter primary particles is at least twice the size of the small-diameter primary particles (page 5). This means the average value of the minor axis lengths of the small-diameter primary particles is smaller than that of the large-diameter primary particles. However, Nakabayashi is silent on the minor axis length of the particle, prompting one of ordinary skill in the art to look to prior art.
In a similar field of endeavor, Sakai teaches a cathode active material comprising secondary particles having a plurality of different sized primary particles of a lithium-manganese composite oxide in which a phase belonging to a C2/m space group and a phase belonging to a R3-m space group are dissolved or complexed (¶ 0009 - ¶ 0012). Sakai also teaches an aspect ratio of the primary particles from 2.5 to 10 (¶ 0026). In a case where the aspect ratio is 2.5, the minor axis lengths of the large- and small-diameter primary particles, based on the major axis lengths taught by Nakabayashi (450 nm and 170 nm), are 180 and 68 respectively; These values fall within the claimed ranges.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed to form the primary particles to have an aspect ratio within the range taught by Sakai as there are no unpredicted results and mere changes in size or relative dimension present a case of prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.04.IV.A.
PNG
media_image3.png
446
811
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 4, Nakabayashi teaches the positive electrode active material of claim 1, wherein the first lithium manganese-based oxide comprises the secondary particle formed by aggregating the plurality of large-diameter primary particles (101G” or 102” and 101G or 120G) and the secondary particle formed by aggregating the plurality of small-diameter primary particles ( 101G’’’ or 102G’’’ and 101G’ or 102G’) (page 7 and Fig. 7). Fig. 7 is shown below.
Nakabayashi in view of Choi and Sakai does not specifically teach that the interparticle porosity between the primary particles measured from the cross-sectional SEM image of the secondary particle formed by aggregating large-diameter primary particles is smaller than that of the secondary particle formed by aggregating small-diameter primary particles. However, Nakabayashi in view of Choi and Sakai teaches the same primary and secondary particles in the same amounts and sizes as the claimed invention. As a material is inseparable from its properties, the active material taught by the prior art would inherently have the interparticle porosity between the primary particles measured from the cross-sectional SEM image of the secondary particle formed by aggregating large-diameter primary particles smaller than that of the secondary particle formed by aggregating small-diameter primary particles. 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 6, Nakabayashi teaches the positive electrode active material of claim 1, wherein the first lithium manganese-based oxide comprises the secondary particle formed by aggregating the plurality of large-diameter primary particles (101G” or 102” and 101G or 120G) and the secondary particle formed by aggregating the plurality of small-diameter primary particles ( 101G’’’ or 102G’’’ and 101G’ or 102G’) (page 7 and Fig. 7). Fig. 7 is shown above.
Nakabayashi in view of Choi and Sakai does not specifically teach that when the distance from the center to surface of the secondary particle, set from the cross- sectional SEM image of the secondary particle, is r, and a region with a distance from the center of the secondary particle of 0.5r to 1.Or is an external bulk region, a porosity in the external bulk region measured from the cross-sectional SEM image of the secondary particle formed by aggregating large-diameter primary particles is smaller than that of secondary particles formed by aggregating the small-diameter primary particles. However, as discussed earlier, Nakabayashi in view of Choi and Sakai teaches the same primary and secondary particles in the same amounts and sizes as the claimed invention. As a material is inseparable from its properties, the active material taught by the prior art would inherently have a porosity in the external bulk region measured from the cross-sectional SEM image of the secondary particle formed by aggregating large-diameter primary particles that is smaller than that of secondary particles formed by aggregating the small-diameter primary particles when the distance from the center to surface of the secondary particle, set from the cross- sectional SEM image of the secondary particle, is r, and a region with a distance from the center of the secondary particle of 0.5r to 1.Or is an external bulk region. 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).
Claim(s) 10-11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakabayashi et al. (JP-2016051504-A, Translation used for citation) in view of Choi et al. (US 20180145322 A1) as applied to claims 9 above, and in further view of Sakai et al. (US 20160043396 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Nakabayashi teaches that an average particle diameter value of the large-diameter primary particles is 100 nm or more and 500 nm or less (page 16, particle B: 450 nm). Nakabayashi also teaches that an average particle diameter value of the small-diameter primary particle is 50 nm or more and 300 nm or less (page 15, particle A: 170 nm). Nakabayashi also teaches that the diameter of the large-diameter primary particles is at least twice the size of the small-diameter primary particles (page 5). This means the average value of the minor axis lengths of the small-diameter primary particles is smaller than that of the large-diameter primary particles. However, Nakabayashi is silent on the minor axis length of the particle, prompting one of ordinary skill in the art to look to prior art.
In a similar field of endeavor, Sakai teaches a cathode active material comprising secondary particles having a plurality of different sized primary particles of a lithium-manganese composite oxide in which a phase belonging to a C2/m space group and a phase belonging to a R3-m space group are dissolved or complexed (¶ 0009 - ¶ 0012). Sakai also teaches an aspect ratio of the primary particles from 2.5 to 10 (¶ 0026). In a case where the aspect ratio is 2.5, the minor axis lengths of the large- and small-diameter primary particles, based on the major axis lengths taught by Nakabayashi (450 nm and 170 nm), are 180 and 68 respectively; These values fall within the claimed ranges.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed to form the primary particles to have an aspect ratio within the range taught by Sakai as there are no unpredicted results and mere changes in size or relative dimension present a case of prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.04.IV.A.
PNG
media_image4.png
446
811
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 11, Nakabayashi teaches the positive electrode active material of claim 1, wherein the second lithium manganese-based oxide comprises the secondary particle formed by aggregating the plurality of large-diameter primary particles (101G” or 102” and 101G or 120G) and the secondary particle formed by aggregating the plurality of small-diameter primary particles ( 101G’’’ or 102G’’’ and 101G’ or 102G’) (page 7 and Fig. 7). Fig. 7 is shown below.
Nakabayashi in view of Choi and Sakai does not specifically teach that the interparticle porosity between the primary particles measured from the cross-sectional SEM image of the secondary particle formed by aggregating large-diameter primary particles is smaller than that of the secondary particle formed by aggregating small-diameter primary particles. However, Nakabayashi in view of Choi and Sakai teach the same primary and secondary particles in the same amounts and sizes as the claimed invention. As a material is inseparable from its properties, the active material taught by the prior art would inherently have the interparticle porosity between the primary particles measured from the cross-sectional SEM image of the secondary particle formed by aggregating large-diameter primary particles smaller than that of the secondary particle formed by aggregating small-diameter primary particles. 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 13, Nakabayashi teaches the positive electrode active material of claim 1, wherein the second lithium manganese-based oxide comprises the secondary particle formed by aggregating the plurality of large-diameter primary particles (101G” or 102” and 101G or 120G) and the secondary particle formed by aggregating the plurality of small-diameter primary particles ( 101G’’’ or 102G’’’ and 101G’ or 102G’) (page 7 and Fig. 7). Fig. 7 is shown above.
Nakabayashi in view of Choi and Sakai does not specifically teach that when the distance from the center to surface of the secondary particle, set from the cross- sectional SEM image of the secondary particle, is r, and a region with a distance from the center of the secondary particle of 0.5r to 1.Or is an external bulk region, a porosity in the external bulk region measured from the cross-sectional SEM image of the secondary particle formed by aggregating large-diameter primary particles is smaller than that of secondary particles formed by aggregating the small-diameter primary particles. However, as mentioned earlier, Nakabayashi in view of Choi and Sakai teach the same primary and secondary particles in the same amounts and sizes as the claimed invention. As a material is inseparable from its properties, the active material taught by the prior art would inherently have a porosity in the external bulk region measured from the cross-sectional SEM image of the secondary particle formed by aggregating large-diameter primary particles that is smaller than that of secondary particles formed by aggregating the small-diameter primary particles when the distance from the center to surface of the secondary particle, set from the cross- sectional SEM image of the secondary particle, is r, and a region with a distance from the center of the secondary particle of 0.5r to 1.Or is an external bulk region. 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).
Claim(s) 5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakabayashi et al. (JP-2016051504-A, Translation used for citation) in view of Choi et al. (US 20180145322 A1) and Sakai et al. (US 20160043396 A1) as applied to claims 4 and 11 above, and in further view of Sakai-‘072 et al. (US 20160028072 A1).
With regards to claim 5, modified Nakabayashi does not teach the interparticle porosity between the primary particle. In a similar field of endeavor, Sakai-‘072 teaches a cathode active material comprising secondary particles having a plurality of primary particles of a lithium-manganese composite oxide in which a phase belonging to a C2/m space group and a phase belonging to a R3-m space group are dissolved or complexed (¶ 0032 - ¶ 0041). Sakai-‘072 goes on to teach that an interparticle porosity between the primary particles measured from the cross-sectional SEM image of the secondary particle formed by aggregating large-diameter primary particles is 10% or less (¶ 0048).
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 Nakabayashi in view of Choi to have an interparticle porosity of 10% or less as taught by Sakai-‘072 as there are no unpredictable results.
With regards to claim 12, Nakabayashi in view of Choi does not teach the interparticle porosity between the primary particle. As discussed above, Sakai-‘072 teaches that an interparticle porosity between the primary particles measured from the cross-sectional SEM image of the secondary particle formed by aggregating large-diameter primary particles is 15% or less (¶ 0048).
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 Nakabayashi in view of Choi to have an interparticle porosity of 10% as taught by Sakai-‘072 as there are no unpredictable results.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakabayashi et al. (JP-2016051504-A, Translation used for citation) in view of Choi et al. (US 20180145322 A1) and Sakai et al. (US 20160043396 A1) as applied to claims 6 and 13 above, and in further view of Sakai-‘072 et al. (US 20160028072 A1) and Yoo et al. (US 20190260017 A1).
With regards to claim 7, Nakabayashi in view of Choi and Sakai is silent on the porosity in the external bulk region measured from the cross-sectional SEM image of a secondary particle formed by aggregating large-diameter primary particles is 1% or less.
In a similar field of endeavor, Sakai-‘072 teaches a cathode active material comprising secondary particles having a plurality of primary particles of a lithium-manganese composite oxide in which a phase belonging to a C2/m space group and a phase belonging to a R3-m space group are dissolved or complexed (¶ 0032 - ¶ 0041). Sakai-‘072 teaches that an interparticle porosity between the primary particles measured from the cross-sectional SEM image of the secondary particle formed by aggregating large-diameter primary particles is 10% or less (¶ 0048).
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 Nakabayashi in view of Choi to have an interparticle porosity of 10% or less as taught by Sakai-‘072 as there are no unpredictable results.
In a similar field of endeavor, Yoo teaches a positive electrode active material comprising a first and second lithium composite oxide (¶ 0022). Yoo teaches the composite oxides in the form of a secondary particle formed by agglomerating a plurality of primary particles (¶ 0048 and ¶ 0067). Additionally, Yoo teaches that the porosity of the external part of the secondary particle may be less than the porosity of the internal part (¶ 0065). As discussed previously, modified Nakabayashi teaches an internal porosity of 10% or less (¶ 0048) which is more than the 1% being claimed, aligning with Yoo’s teachings.
Through routine experimentation, it would have been prima obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to form the active material taught by modified Nakabayashi to have an external porosity less than 10% as taught by Yoo as there are no unpredictable results.
With regards to claim 14, Nakabayashi, Choi and Sakai are silent on the porosity in the external bulk region measured from the cross-sectional SEM image of a secondary particle formed by aggregating large-diameter primary particles is 6% or less.
As discussed by Yoo in ¶ 0065, the porosity of the external part of the active material may be less than the porosity of the internal part. Sakai-‘072 also teaches an internal porosity of 10% or less (¶ 0048) which is more than the 1% being claimed, aligning with Yoo’s teachings.
Through routine experimentation, it would have been prima obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to form the active material taught by modified Nakabayashi to have an external porosity less than 10% as taught by Yoo as there are no unpredictable results.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakabayashi et al. (JP-2016051504-A, Translation used for citation) in view of Choi et al. (US 20180145322 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Nakano et al. (JP 2020155335 A, Translation used for citation).
With regards to claim 18, Nakabayashi teaches that at least one selected from the first lithium manganese-based oxide and the second lithium manganese-based oxide comprises a secondary particle doped with at least one dopant selected from a metal cation dopant (page 9-10; additive element(M)). Nakabayashi does not teach the dopant selected from a halogen anion dopant.
In a similar field of endeavor, Nakano teaches a lithium-manganese oxide as a positive electrode active material (page 4). Nakano also teaches the complex oxide in the form of secondary particles formed by aggregating primary particles (page 5). On pages 4 and 15, Nakano goes on to teach fluorine as a dopant that can reduce the resistance increase rate of a battery in which the active material is used.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to include fluorine as a dopant in the active material taught by Nakabayashi in view of Choi as this would predictably yield an active material that may improve the lifespan of a battery.
With regards to claim 19, Nakabayashi teaches that the secondary particle formed by aggregating the plurality of large-diameter primary particles is doped with at least one dopant selected from a metal cation dopant (page 9-10; additive (M)).
As discussed by Nakano on page 15, it is known in the art that fluorine can be used as a dopant to reduce the resistance increase rate of a battery in which the active material is used. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to include fluorine in the secondary particle formed by aggregating a plurality of large-diameter primary particles taught by Nakabayashi in view of Choi. This would predictably yield an improved active material that can reduce the resistance rate of a battery.
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