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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 2 October 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serous search burden. This is not found persuasive because Applicant has not pointed out any error in the examiner's reasons for distinctness, i.e., the cathode can be made by a materially different process.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2)as being anticipated by US2006/0263690A1(Suhara).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Suhara teaches a positive electrode for a secondary lithium battery comprises a current collector and a positive electrode active material coating on the current collector ([0055]), wherein the positive active material coating comprises a conductive material, a binding material such as polytetrafluoroethylene, and a powder of a lithium composite oxide ([0055]).
Suhara teaches the powder of the lithium composite oxide comprises a mixture of first particles and second particles ([0034]), wherein the first particles and the second particles have a different secondary particle distribution ([0016] and [0035]).
Regarding claim 2 and 3, Suhara exemplifies the first secondary particle has D50 of 13.4 µm and D90 of 17.4 µm ([0063]), which meets the claimed D50 and D90, respectively.
Regarding claim 4, Suhara teaches that the first and the second particles comprise secondary particles ([0035], [0063] and [0065]-[0066]).
Regarding claim 6, Suhara exemplifies the second secondary particle has D50 of 2.6 µm ([0065]-[0066]), which meets the claimed particle size.
Regarding claim 7, Suhara exemplifies 40 parts of the second particles mixed with 60 parts of the first particles ([0066]), and the mixture was then combined with conductive agent and a binder in a ratio of 90/5/5 to make a coating slurry([0067]), thus the second particles are present in an amount of about 36 wt.% estimated by the examiner , i.e., 40%X90%, which meets the claimed amount.
Regarding claim 8, Suhara exemplifies combining the first and second particles of the active material with conductive agent and a binder in a ratio of 90/5/5 to make a coating slurry([0067]), thus the active material is present in an amount of 90 wt.%, the conductive agent is present in an amount of 5 wt.%, and the binding agent is present in an amount of 5 wt.%, which meets the claimed amount of active material, conductive agent and binder, respectively.
Regarding claim 9, Suhara teaches that the second particles fill the space among the first particles and have a compacted dense structure ([0011]), which meets the claimed cluster.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2)as being anticipated by US2022/0367852A1(Takahashi).
Regarding claims 1, 4-5 and 10, Takahashi teaches a positive electrode for a secondary battery comprises a positive electrode core of a metal foil ([0024]), which meets the current collector, and a positive electrode active material mixture layer on the surface of the core ([0024] and Fig. 2), wherein positive electrode mixture layer includes a positive electrode active material, a binder such as polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) ([0025]), and a conductive agent ([0024]).
Takahashi teaches that the positive electrode active material includes a lithium-transition metal composite oxide (A) and a lithium-transition metal composite oxide (B) ([0026]), wherein the composite oxide (A) is a composite oxide particle being a secondary particle of D50 of 0.6 µm to 3 µm or being composed of substantially single crystal particles ([0009], [0026], [0028] and [0037]), which meets the claimed second active material; and the composite oxide (B) is a secondary particle having D50 of 6 μm to 25 μm ([0026] and [0028]), which meets the claimed first active material.
Regarding claims 2 and 6, Takahashi exemplifies the composite oxide (B) has a D50 of 11 μm ([0076]), and the composite oxide (A) has a D50 of 2.3 μm ([0067]), which meets the claimed D50 of first and second active material, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 3 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi.
The teachings of Takahashi are set forth above.
Regarding claim 3, Takahashi exemplifies the composite oxide (B) has a D70 of 14 μm ([0076]), thus D90 is greater than D70, i.e., greater than 14 μm, which encompasses the claimed range and a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 f. 2d 257,191 USPQ 90(CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Regarding claim 7, Takahashi teaches that a content rate of the composite oxide (A) based on a mass of the positive electrode active material is preferably 20 to 55 mass % ([0057]), and exemplified the positive electrode active material, acetylene black, and a binder mixed at a mass ratio of 96.3:2.5:1.2 ([0078]), thus the composite oxide (A) is present in an amount of about 19% to 53 wt.% estimated by the examiner, i.e., 20%X96.3% to 55% X96.3%, which overlaps the claimed range.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have found it obvious to include composite oxide (A), i.e., the second active material, at the instantly claimed range since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside range disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 f. 2d 257,191 USPQ 90(CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. See MPEP 2144.05, In re Boesch, 617 F2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Aller, 220 F2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and In re Hoeschele, 406 F2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Regarding claim 8, Takahashi exemplified the positive electrode active material, acetylene black, and a binder mixed at a mass ratio of 96.3:2.5:1.2 ([0078]), thus the positive active material is present in an amount of about 96.3%, the conductive additive is present in an amount of about 2.55, which meets the claimed amount of cathode active material and conductive additive, respectively; and the binder in an amount of 1.2%, which abuts the claimed amount.
It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 Titanium Metals Corp of Am v Banner, 778 F2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed Cir 1985).
Regarding claim 9, Takahashi illustrates the smaller particle of composite oxide (A) fill the spaces between the larger particle of composite oxide (B) (Fig. 2). As to the limitation of “greater than 90 wt.% of the second active material particles are connected to clusters including the fibrillating binder and the conductive additive”, since Takahashi teaches the same configuration, i.e., particles sizes, of the cathode active material, the same binder and the conductive additive in the same mixing content rate applied to a current collector in the same manner ([0078]), absent evidence to the contrary, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the claimed effects of cluster structure would naturally arise and be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP § 2112.01.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suhara.
The teachings of Suhara are set forth above.
Regarding claim 11, Suhara teaches the positive active material layer has an average particle size D50 is from 8 to 12 µm([0054]), which meets the claimed D50, thus D90 is greater than that of D50, i.e. greater than 8 to 12 µm, which encompasses the claimed range and a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 f. 2d 257,191 USPQ 90(CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Suhara teaches that the specific surface area is from 0.3 to 0.7 m2/g ([0015] and [0054]), which overlaps with the claimed range and a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 f. 2d 257,191 USPQ 90(CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. See MPEP 2144.05, In re Boesch, 617 F2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Aller, 220 F2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and In re Hoeschele, 406 F2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIQUN LI whose telephone number is (571)270-7736. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am -4:00 pm.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-2721302. 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.
/AIQUN LI/ Ph.D., Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights