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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2023-127491, filed on August 4, 2023.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Niwata et al.
(US10522832B2), henceforth, Niwata.
Regarding Claim 1, Niwata teaches a positive electrode active material particle (Niwata, Column 30, line 39 and 51, “positive electrode active material” and “particle”), the positive electrode active material particle includes a magnesium-containing lithium composite oxide (Li0.97Co1Mg0.15O2, see Column 30, Line 49), wherein the positive electrode active material particle has a crystal structure of lamellar rock salt type (Formula 13 and Column 9 Line 16-18 teach that for a composition to be of lamellar rock salt type, “a” to “d” satisfy 0.9≤a≤1.1, 0≤b≤0.6, 0.1≤c≤0.2 and 0≤d≤0.1 for LiaCo(1-b)MgbO(2-c)Fd. Niwata then teaches the molar mixing ratio of lithium, cobalt, and magnesium for examples 1-15 was 1.01:0.985:0.015, which is within the bounds of Formula 13 meaning a rock-salt lamellar structure for the experimental examples 1-15 in Column 30 line 46) and a magnesium concentration in an internal portion of the positive electrode active material particle is higher than a magnesium concentration in a surface portion of the positive electrode active material particle (See Table 2, Increase/Decrease column for example 9 or 12).
Regarding Claim 2, Niwata teaches the positive electrode active material particle according to claim 1 wherein the magnesium concentration in the internal portion is from 0.5 mol % to 8 mol% (2.2 mol% Table 2, Example 12, Depth from surface to center proportion D=0.3, magnesium molar fraction R = 0.022) and the magnesium concentration in the surface portion is from 0 mol % to 5 mol% (2.1 mol% See Table 2, Example 12, Depth from surface to center proportion D=0.05, magnesium molar fraction R = 0.021).
Regarding Claim 3, Niwata teaches the positive electrode active material particle of claim 1, wherein a difference between the magnesium concentration in the internal portion and the magnesium concentration in the surface portion is 1.0 mol% or more (See Table 2, Example 9, magnesium molar fraction, R = 0.082 depth from surface proportion D=0.3 is more than 0.01 from magnesium molar fraction R = 0.07 at depth from surface proportion D=0.05).
Regarding Claim 4, Niwata teaches a positive electrode (test electrode 51, Fig. 13) comprising the positive electrode active material particle according to claim 1. (The positive electrode active material in Column 30 line 39 is the “foregoing positive electrode active material” referenced in Column 33 line 22 to 24 to fabricate test electrode 51)
Regarding Claim 6, Niwata teaches a lithium-ion battery (coin type lithium-ion secondary battery, Column 33, Line 12 and Fig. 13) comprising the positive electrode according to claim 4.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niwata et al. (US10522832B2), in view of Sato et al (US20240387810A1), henceforth, Sato.
Regarding Claim 5, Niwata does not teach that the positive electrode of claim 4 further comprises carbon nanotubes.
Niwata does teach the positive electrode of claim 4 (test electrode 51 Fig 13) further comprises a positive electrode conductive agent called ketjen black (Column 33, Line 26).
Sato teaches a positive electrode (11 Figure 2) further comprising carbon nanotubes
((fibrous carbon nanotubes, see [0023] and [0039]-[0040]) the positive electrode may have a multilayer structure like the negative electrode).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the positive electrode taught by Niwata by substituting the ketjen black taught by Niwata for fibrous carbon nanotubes as taught by Sato to make the effect of improving the cycle characteristics more conspicuous for the positive electrode (see [0039]). Further, Niwata teaches that changes and modifications may be made to the device (Column 39 Lines 5-12).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PABLO JOSE ARIZA whose telephone number is (571)270-7795. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5pm.
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, Nicholas Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/PABLO JOSE ARIZA/Examiner, Art Unit 1752 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights