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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on Aug. 9, 2024 has been 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 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki et al. (US 20230032577 A1, hereafter Aoki) in view of Saegusa et al. (JP 2019169286 A, whose English machine translation is being employed for citation purposes, hereafter referred to as Saegusa).
Regarding claim 1, Aoki teaches a positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, including a lithium-containing composite oxide represented by LiaNixMnyMzCaαSr[Symbol font/0x62]O2-b ([0054]). When M is Co and b=0, the formula becomes LiaNixMnyCozCaαSr[Symbol font/0x62]O2-b, which is similar to LinNixMnwCoyCasSrtO2 (when M1 is Mn, z=0 and b=0, see [0038]) having a layered rock-salt structure ([0024]). Thus, it is reasonably expected that LiaNixMnyMzCaαSr[Symbol font/0x62]O2-b of Aoki has a layered rock-salt structure.
Aoki teaches the lithium-containing composite oxide contains at least Ni, Ca, and Sr, as show in the formula, and a mole ratio of a content of Ca to a content of Sr (Ca/Sr ratio) in the lithium-containing composite oxide is 5 (See Example 5 in Table 2), which reads on the claimed “greater than or equal to 1”.
Aoki teaches a sum of the content of Ca and the content of Sr in the lithium-containing composite oxide is 0.6 mol% relative to a total amount of moles of metal elements in the lithium-containing composite oxide excluding Li, Ca, and Sr (See data for Example 5 in Table 2), reading on the claimed “greater than or equal to 0.05 mol% and less than or equal to 1 mol%.
Aoki further teaches the lithium-containing composite oxide includes secondary particles each formed by aggregation of primary particles (e.g., [0022] and [0031]).
Aoki is silent as to the presence of a sulfonate on surfaces of the secondary particles or on interfaces between the primary particles of the lithium-containing composite oxide.
In the same field of endeavor, Saegusa discloses a lithium sulfonate (such as, lithium methanesulfonate or lithium ethanesulfonate, see Examples 15 and 16 in column 3 of Table 1) is scattered or dispersed ([0009], [0011], [0013], [0032], etc.) on the surface (both of primary particles and secondary particles, [0032], [0035], [0041], etc.) of a lithium composite oxide (such as a lithium composited oxide containing Li, Ni, Co, Mn and doped with other elements, [0019]) included in a positive electrode active material to improve output characteristics of the battery and achieve high output without forming a resistive film ([0007]-[0008], [0010]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Aoki to scatter or disperse a sulfonate (such as, lithium methanesulfonate or lithium ethanesulfonat) on the surface of particles of lithium-containing composite oxide of Aoki, as taught by Saegusa, in order to achieve a battery with improved output characteristics and high output without forming a resistive film ([0007]-[0008], [0010]), etc., Saegusa). As a result, Aoki in view of Saegusa teaches “on surfaces of the secondary particles or on interfaces between the primary particles, a sulfonate compound by the formula I is present”.
Regarding claims 2-4, Aoki in view of Saegusa teaches the positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1, and further teaches the claimed content of Ni, Ca, or Sr, respectively. See Example 5 in Table 2 of Aoki.
Regarding claim 6, Aoki in view of Saegusa teaches the positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1, and further teaches an amount of the sulfonate compound present on the surfaces of the secondary particles and on the interfaces between the primary particles is 0.014 mass% to 1.2 mass% relative to a mass of the lithium-containing composite oxide ([0035], Saegusa). The claimed range of greater than or equal to 0.1 mass% to less than or equal to 1 mass% lies inside the above range of Saegusa. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 7, Aoki in view of Saegusa teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, comprising:
a positive electrode including the positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary according to claim 1;
a negative electrode; and
a non-aqueous electrolyte. See [0007] of Aoki.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki in view of Saegusa, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakura (US 8236449 B2, hereafter Nakura).
Regarding claim 5, Aoki in view of Saegusa teaches the positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1, but is silent as to “a ratio of an outer circumferential length of the primary particles divided by an outer circumferential length of the secondary particles is less than or equal to 0.12” as instantly claimed.
However, the instantly claimed ratio is not patentable distinguishable because it involves merely ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. For instance, in the same field of endeavor, Nakura discloses a similar positive electrode active material comprising a lithium composite oxide, wherein the primary particles have an average particle size (D1) of 0.1 µm to 3.0 µm and the secondary particles have an average particle size (D2) of 10 µm to 30 µm (See claim 1), and the D1/D2 ratio is in the range of about 0.003 to about 0.3. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily achieved a ratio through routine experimentation, for example, a ratio of about 0.003 to about 0.3 taught by Nakura. The instantly claimed ratio of less than or equal to 0.12 overlaps the range of about 0.003 to about 0.3. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHONGQING WEI whose telephone number is (571)272-4809. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ZHONGQING WEI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights