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 Species A, directed to a battery as exemplified by claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 3/30/26 is acknowledged.
3. Claims 8-37 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/30/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
7. Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Momma et al. (US 2018/0145317) as cited in IDS dated 9/18/23.
Regarding claim 1, Momma discloses a battery (abstract, [0189], Fig. 5B) comprising a positive electrode(604, Fig. 5B), wherein the positive electrode comprises a positive electrode active material(100, Fig. 1, [0055]-[0080]), wherein the positive electrode active material comprises a first region (second region 102 and third region 103, Fig. 1) and a second region (first region 101, Fig. 1), wherein the first region comprises lithium, cobalt, magnesium, and oxygen([0064], [0069]-[0080]), wherein the second region comprises lithium, cobalt, and oxygen([0062]-[0068]), wherein the first region is closer to a surface of the positive electrode active material than the second region is(Fig. 1), wherein the first region has a thickness in a range of 0.5 nm to 20 nm (second region 102 is preferably a depth of 15 nm, in a depth direction [0074] and third region 103 is preferably 0.5 nm to 5 nm or less [0079]) thus overlapping the range of greater than or equal to 1 nm and less than or equal to 20 nm, thus reading on the limitation.
Continuing with claim 1, Momma discloses wherein the magnesium has a concentration preferably 5 atomic % or more and 20 atomic % or less ([0096]) which overlaps the claim range of higher than 0 atomic % and lower than or equal to 10 atomic %, thus reading on the limitation.
Momma is explicitly silent to the claimed ranges however “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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 2, Momma discloses the first region further comprises nickel([0064], [0069]).
Regarding claim 3, Momma discloses the first region further comprises nickel and fluorine([0064], [0069]-[0070], [0076]).
Regarding claim 4, Momma discloses the second region further comprises aluminum([0063]).
Regarding claim 5, Momma discloses the first region extends 0.5 nm to 20 nm from the surface (second region 102 is preferably a depth of 15 nm, in a depth direction [0074] and third region 103 is preferably 0.5 nm to 5 nm or less [0079]) which overlaps the first region extends 5 nm from the surface, thus reading on the limitation.
Momma is explicitly silent to the claimed range however “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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05.
8. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Momma et al. (US 2018/0145317) as cited in IDS dated 9/18/23 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takano et al. (US 2013/0130113).
Regarding claim 6, Momma discloses the first region and the second region may each have a layered rock-salt crystal structure and the third region may have a rock-salt crystal structure([0016]). Momma discloses the cycle characteristics of the secondary battery including the positive electrode active material 100 can be improved and when charging and discharging are carried out at a voltage exceeding 4.3 V (vs. Li/Li+), especially 4.5 V (vs. Li/Li+) or more, the constitution of one embodiment exerts its significant effect([0077]) but does not explicitly disclose volume resistivity of powder of the positive electrode active material is higher than or equal to 1.0×105 Ω·cm under a pressure of 64 MPa.
Takano teaches from the standpoint of diffusion of lithium ions that the lithium-transition metal compound powder should be a powder which has an olivine structure, spinel structure, or lamellar structure([0108]). Takano teaches the positive electrode for lithium secondary battery, wherein the active material comprises a lithium-nickel-manganese-cobalt composite oxide which includes a crystal structure that belongs to a lamellar structure ([0042] [A10]). Takano teaches the volume resistivity of the lithium-transition metal compound powder which is in the state of being compacted at a pressure of 40 MPa is as follows([0135]). Takano teaches the lower limit thereof is preferably 1×105 Ω·cm or higher, more preferably 3×105 Ω·cm or higher, most preferably 5×105 Ω·cm or higher and the upper limit thereof is preferably 1×107 Ω·m or less, more preferably 8×106 Ω·cm or less, even more preferably 5×106 Ω·cm or less, most preferably 3×106 Ω·cm or less([0135]). Takano teaches in case where the volume resistivity thereof exceeds the upper limit, there is a possibility that the battery obtained using this powder might have reduced load characteristics and in case where the volume resistivity thereof is less than the lower limit, there is a possibility that the battery obtained using this powder might be reduced in safety, etc. ([0135]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the battery of Momma with volume resistivity of powder of the positive electrode active material is higher than or equal to 1.0×105 Ω·cm under a pressure of 64 MPa in order to balance load characteristics and safety as taught by Takano, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP §2144.05 (II-A).9. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Momma et al. (US 2018/0145317) as cited in IDS dated 9/18/23 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fujikawa et al. (US 2008/0143337).
Regarding claim 7, Momma discloses a highly safe or reliable secondary battery([0009]) but does not explicitly disclose an increment ΔT of a temperature of the battery is less than or equal to 50 ° C when the battery undergoes a nail penetration test in which a voltage of the battery is 4.5 V, a nail diameter is 3 mm, and a nail penetration speed is 5 mm/sec.
Fujikawa teaches a cylindrical lithium secondary battery was produced as a battery to be subjected to a safety evaluation under an internal short-circuit condition([0112]). Fujikawa teaches a positive electrode mixture paste was prepared by stirring 3 kg of nickel manganese cobalt lithium oxide (LiNi1/3Mn1/3Co1/3O2) powder (median diameter 15 μm) serving as a positive electrode active material ([0113]). Fujikawa teaches the battery was charged to 4.25 V, placed in a 60° C. constant temperature oven without disassembling, and kept until the battery temperature reached 60° C([0145], Example 12). Fujikawa teaches an iron nail (φ 3 mm) was used as the pressing member and stuck into the center of radius of the bottom of the battery([0145]). Fujikawa teaches after the battery voltage reached 4.0 V or less due to the occurrence of a short-circuit, the nail was further stuck 300 μm and stopped ([0145]). Fujikawa teaches the battery surface was measured with a thermocouple, and the amount of battery temperature increase in 5 seconds after the occurrence of the short-circuit was evaluated([0145], Examples 12 & 13, Table 3). Fujikawa teaches the use of the methods and devices for evaluating an internal short-circuit of a battery enables accurate evaluation of safety under an internal short-circuit condition and it is thus possible to provide highly reliable batteries, which is commercially advantageous ([0154]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the battery of Momma with an increment ΔT of a temperature of the battery is less than or equal to 50 ° C when the battery undergoes a nail penetration test in which a voltage of the battery is 4.5 V, a nail diameter is 3 mm, and a nail penetration speed is 5 mm/sec in order to balance safety and reliability as taught by Fujikawa, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP §2144.05 (II-A).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA HOM LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-0489. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST M-F.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
/VICTORIA H LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights