POSITIVE ELECTRODE ACTIVE MATERIAL FOR NON-AQUEOUS ELECTROLYTE SECONDARY BATTERIES, AND NON-AQUEOUS ELECTROLYTE SECONDARY BATTERY
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 3/20/2024, 9/25/2025, and 3/25/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimano et al. (US 2012/0244413 A1) and further in view of Ukumori et al. (JP 2018/129221 A).
Regarding claim 1, Shimano et al. teach a positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (Abstract), including a lithium-transition metal composite oxide having a layered structure and represented by the general formula LixNiaMnbAlcCodMeO2-y, wherein 0.95<x<1.05, 0.75≤a≤0.95, 0.05≤b≤0.25, 0≤c≤0.02, 0≤d<0.05, 0≤e≤0.03, 0≤y≤0.05, a+b+c=1 (Paragraph 0034 discloses a lithium mixed metal oxide with a layered rock salt-type crystal structure represented by the formula LiaMO2 wherein M is one or more elements selected from the group consisting of nickel, cobalt, and manganese, 0.9≤a≤1.3, M=Ni+Co+Mn=1.) and M represents at least one element selected from the group consisting of Fe, Ti, Si, Nb, Mo, W, and Zr, wherein the lithium-transition metal composite oxide is of secondary particles formed by aggregation of primary particles (Paragraphs 0027; 0089), and a compound containing: at least one selected from the group consisting of Ca and Sr; and at least one selected from the group consisting of W, Mo, Ti, and Zr (Abstract; paragraph 0066 discloses addition of an inactive flux comprising a tungstate such as CaWO4.).
However, Shimano et al. do not specifically teach wherein the compound adheres to at least an interface between the primary particles inside the secondary particles.
Ukumori et al. teach a lithium transition metal oxide comprising Mn, Ni, and Co which has, on its particle surface, an alkaline earth metal and W (Abstract). Further, through an electron beam microanalyzer, one can observe the alkaline earth metals and W in the cross-section of the lithium transition metal composite oxide particles with concentrations of each being higher at the surface than at the center of the secondary particles. It is presumed that Ca and W form an equimolar compound CaWO4 at the surface (Paragraph 0028).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Shimano with Ukumori in order to enhance charge/discharge cycles.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Shimano and Ukumori et al. teach the positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1. Further, Shimano et al. teach wherein a total amount of Ca and Sr in the compound is less than or equal to 2 mol% relative to a total molar amount of metal elements excluding Li in the lithium- transition metal composite oxide (Paragraph 0069 discloses CaWO4 is present in an amount of 1 part by weight or more per 100 parts by weight of the lithium transition metal composite oxide.).
The skilled artisan would recognize that with a molecular mass of 287.918 g/mol for CaWO4 and 97.2825 g/mol for LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2, 1 part by weight CaWO4 to every 100 parts by weight of LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 would result in 0.003 mol CaWO4 for every 1.028 mol LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2. And, therefore, Shimano in view of Leng discloses wherein the content of element A (wherein A is Ca) in the compound CaWO4 is at least 0.29 mol% (which overlaps the claimed range of 3 mol% or less)2 relative to the total molar amount of elements excluding Li and O in the lithium transition metal composite oxide and the compound.
2 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).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Shimano and Ukumori et al. teach the positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1. Further, Shimano et al. teach wherein the compound is an oxide (Paragraph 0066 discloses CaWO4 which is an oxide.).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Shimano and Ukumori et al. teach the positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1. Further, Shimano et al. teach wherein a composition of the oxide is represented by the general formula AαBβOγ, wherein 1≤α≤2, 1≤β≤2, 3≤γ≤6, A represents at least one selected from the group consisting of Ca and Sr, and B represents at least one selected from the group consisting of W, Mo, Ti, and Zr (Paragraph 0066 discloses CaWO4 which overlaps with the limitation.).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Shimano and Ukumori et al. teach the positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1. Further, Shimano et al. teach a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a non-aqueous electrolyte (Paragraphs 0101 and 0102).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, and 5 of copending Application No. 18/282,606 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of claims 1-5 of the present application are disclosed and/or overlapped in claims 1, 2, and 5 of ‘606.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, and 10 of copending Application No. 18/730,957 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of claims 1-5 of the present application are disclosed and/or overlapped in claims 1, 2, 4, and 10 of ‘957.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 of copending Application No. 18/998,681 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of claims 1-5 of the present application are disclosed and/or overlapped in claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 of ‘681.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S GATEWOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-7958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
Daniel S. Gatewood, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1729
/DANIEL S GATEWOOD, Ph. D/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729 August 10th, 2026
Prosecution Insights