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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-10 are pending and presented for examination on the merit.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The instant claim allows subscripts b and c to include 0, which means that Co and Mn may be optional. This makes the limitation broader than parent claim 1 requiring the “lithium-nickel-cobalt-manganese composite oxide”. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7, 9, and 10 are allowed. Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the above claims are allowable over the closest prior art of record. US 2012/0270093 to Isozaki et al. (cited by Applicant) teaches an electrode comprising an active material-containing layer containing an active material, the active material including a lithium-nickel-cobalt-manganese composite oxide ([0019]), wherein a pore volume (corresponding to the claimed VHg) is 0.06 mL or more and 0.25 mL or less per 1 g of a weight of the positive electrode layer excluding a weight of the current collector and a pore surface area (corresponding to the claimed SHg) within the pore volume range is 2.4 m2/g or more and 8 m2/g or less (abstract; [0020]). The prior art satisfies the claimed relationship of 20 m2/mL < SHg/VHg < 60 m2/mL.
Isozaki et al. teaches that the lithium nickel cobalt manganese composite oxide may preferably have a primary particle diameter of 100 nm or more and 1 µm or less ([0041]), which is outside the claimed range of 2 µm or more and 7 µm or less. Further, Isozaki et al. does not disclose a specific surface area SBET of the active material-containing layer according to a N2 gas adsorption method, which makes it impossible to determine a relationship between SBET and the pore specific surface area SHg as claimed.
Although related prior arts were found, for example, US 2015/0180034 to Sano et al. (cited by Applicant) discloses that a positive electrode containing a lithium nickel cobalt composite oxide has a BET specific surface area of 1.3 to 3.5 m2/g as an electrode (abstract) and US 2013/0029216 to Kim et al. (cited by Applicant) teaches a lithium-transition metal compound powder having an average primary particle diameter of 0.1 µm or more and 3 µm or less (abstract; [0104]), there was no motivation to combine these references to arrive at the claimed electrode having the specific features. As a result, the claims are allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENG M CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5859. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 5:30 pm on Monday, 9 am - 3 pm on Tuesday, and 9 am to 1 pm on Wednesday and Thursday.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/Heng M. Chan/Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/Sean P Cullen, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
