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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son et al (US 20220328807). Regarding claim 1, Son et al. is directed to a nonaqueous secondary battery comprising a positive electrode, negative electrode and separator (Fig. 1). The positive electrode comprises a current collector (11), a first positive electrode mixture layer (12) comprising a first positive electrode material formed on a surface of the current collector, and a second positive electrode mixture layer (13) comprising a second positive electrode material formed on a surface of the first positive electrode mixture layer ([0056]). The first and second materials respectively have the formulas:
PNG
media_image1.png
67
300
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where y1>y2 ([0067]). In an embodiment, the Ni in the first material may be 0.6 or more and the Ni in the second material may be 0.6 or less ([0072]). However, it is also taught in [0071] that in Formulas 1-1 and 1-2 (it is explained in [0070] that the first and second cathode materials can be selected independently from Formulas 1-1 and 1-2, shown below, and be different from each other), y can be between 0.8 and 0.98.
PNG
media_image2.png
54
372
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Son et al. does not explicitly teach an embodiment wherein the first layer comprises a first active material (Formula 1-2) having a nickel fraction of 0.90-0.95 and the second layer comprises a second active material (also Formula 1-2) having a nickel fraction of 0.80-0.90, as recited in claim 1 (values cannot be both 0.9 as specified by “g<b” in the claim).
However, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing because the reference provides sufficient guidance that the artisan would readily be able to construct an embodiment having the recited nickel amounts. Throughout the disclosure, in particular [0068], the advantages of having a higher nickel content layer closer to the current collector are set forth. A skilled artisan would also reasonably understand the 0.8≤y≤0.98 disclosure in [0071] as applying to both the first and second active materials. Thus, one active material could have a nickel fraction in the range of e.g., 0.8 to 0.89 and the other could have a nickel fraction of e.g., 0.9 to 0.98 (0.9-0.95). Such materials would meet the limitations of instant claim 1. Accordingly, the claim is rendered obvious. (Note: M2 and M4 in the claim, each corresponding to Ti/Mg/Zr, can have subscripts of 0 and are thus optional, so long as the remaining metal elements including Ni add to 1.0).
Regarding claim 2, the thickness ratio of the first and second layer is 2:8 to 8:2 ([0080]), which overlaps the claimed range of 90:10 to 60:40. Accordingly, the claimed range is rendered obvious. 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, 191USPQ 90; In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan Crepeau whose telephone number is (571) 272-1299. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Nicole Buie-Hatcher, can be reached at (571) 270-3879. The phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 272-1700. Documents may be faxed to the central fax server at (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Jonathan Crepeau/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
August 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights