Application No.: 16/634,998
`
`Docket No.: P200092US00
`
`REMARKS
`
`By this Amendment, claims 1-3 are pending. Claim 1 is herein amendedtorecite that the
`
`complex oxide particles have a compressive strength of “570 MPa or more,” replacing the
`
`previously recited range of “250 MPa or more.” Support may be foundin the original disclosure,
`
`for example, at specific Examples 1 and 2. Further support is detailed below.
`
`
`
`Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US
`
`2015/0221943 Al (Nishioka) in view of US 2008/0213670 Al (Okada).
`
`In responsethereto, applicant respectfully submits that the claims as now presented are not
`
`obvious over Nishioka in view of Okadafor at least the reason that the combination does not
`
`provide for all the aspects of the claims, nor is there any rationale prompting a skilled artisan to
`
`modify the combination so as to derive the current invention.
`
`Specifically, Nishioka in view of Okadaat least fails to provide for the aspects of parent
`
`claim 1 as to wherein the complex oxide particles are unaggregated particles and have a
`
`compressive strength of 570 MPa or more.
`
`Per page 4 bridging page 5 of the Office Action, the rejection primarily relies on Nishioka,
`
`asserting that the primary reference teaches, inter alia, that “the complex oxide particles have a
`
`compressive strength of 250 MPa or more (preferably 300 MPa or more and 500 MPaorless)
`
`[0027].” The rejection acknowledges that “Nishioka does not teach that the complex oxide
`
`particles are unaggregated particles.” Okadais cited to fulfill this missing aspect.
`
`Applicant respectfully submits that Nishioka in view of Okada fails to provide for the
`
`compressive strength of the complex oxide particles being 570 MPaor more.
`
`

`

`Application No.: 16/634,998
`
`Docket No.: P200092US00
`
`Specifically, while Nishioka as noted in the rejection may teach “a compressive strength
`
`of 250 MPa or more (preferably 300 MPa or more and 500 MPaorless),” the referenceis silent
`
`as to controlling the compressive strength to the range of “570 MPa or more”asinstantly claimed.
`
`Further, the current rejection asserts that Nishioka teaching complex oxide particles having
`
`a certain compressive strength where said complex oxide particles have a secondary particle
`
`structure may be modified by incorporating teaching of Okada as to the use of “80 wt % or more
`
`of the positive electrode active material dispersed as primary particles” equated with unaggregated
`
`particles instantly claimed, so as to obtain the requisite structure as defined in instant claim 1.
`
`Applicant notes, however, that relied on Nishioka is limited to the disclosure of the
`
`compressive strength of the complex oxide particle in theform of a secondary particle. As such,
`
`assuming arguendo Nishioka is combined with Okada, the resultant positive electrode active
`
`material would simply contain the complex oxide primary particles in the concentration of 80wt%
`
`or more and the remainder being the complex oxide secondary particles having a compressive
`
`strength of 250 MPa, as opposed to the complex oxide particles which “are unaggregated particles”
`
`and simultaneously “have a compressive strength of 570 MPa or more” as required by amended
`
`claim 1.
`
`Amended claim 1 requires not only the complex oxide particles to “have a compressive
`
`strength of 570 MPa or more”butalso said particles to be “unaggregated particles.” As noted in
`
`paragraph [0012] of the specification as filed, the unaggregated configuration may help prevent
`
`breakage of the complex oxide particles, while allowing improved protection against pulverization
`
`and deterioration in the event of particle breakage, which ultimately leads to the increased
`
`capability to suppress a decrease in the capacity maintenancerate and a resistance increase upon
`
`repeated charge and discharge cycles. Furthermore, applicant’s disclosure includes experimental
`
`

`

`Application No.: 16/634,998
`
`Docket No.: P200092US00
`
`data summarized in Table 1, demonstrating efficacy of controlling the compressive strength of the
`
`complex oxide particles to be “570 MPa or more” (see, e.g., Examples 1 and 2) as well as
`
`synergetic effects of unaggregated particle configuration, compressive strength of a particular
`
`range, and presenceof fluorine-containing cyclic carbonate in the non-aqueoussolvent, as required
`
`by amended claim 1, in obtaining improved capacity maintenance rate and reduced rate of increase
`
`in resistance. Such special, beneficial effects would not have been predictable from the art of
`
`record.
`
`Accordingly, arguendo combining Nishioka with Okada would notsatisfy all the aspects
`
`of amended claim 1, including wherein the complex oxide particles are unaggregated particles and
`
`have a compressive strength of 570 MPa or more. And there would be norationale for a skilled
`
`artisan to modify the arguendo combination so asto arrive at the invention now presented.
`
`Wherefore, applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 as now presented, as well as its
`
`respective dependent claims are not obvious over Nishioka in view of Okada.
`
`Applicant’s Response to the Nonstatutory Double Patenting Rejection
`
`Claims 1-3 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting
`
`as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of copending Application No. 16/763700 (reference
`
`application).
`
`As noted above, amended claim 1 now requires that the complex oxide particles be
`
`unaggregated particles and have a compressive strength of “570 MPa or more.” Forat least this
`
`and other reasons, applicant respectfully submits that claims 1-3 as currently presented are
`
`distinguished from claims 1-8 of reference application.
`
`

`

`Application No.: 16/634,998
`
`Docket No.: P200092US00
`
`In view of the foregoing amendments and accompanying remarks, it is submitted that all
`
`pending claims are in condition for allowance. A prompt and favorable reconsideration of the
`
`rejection and an indication of allowability of all pending claims are earnestly solicited.
`
`If the Examiner believes that there are issues remaining to be resolved in this application,
`
`the Examineris invited to contact the undersigned attorney at the telephone number indicated
`
`below to arrange for an interview to expedite and complete prosecution ofthis case.
`
`If this paperis not timely filed, Applicants respectfully petition for an appropriate extension
`
`of time. The fees for such an extension or any other fees that may be due with respect to this paper
`
`may be charged to Deposit Account No. 50-2866.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`WHDA, LLP
`
`/MichaelJ. Caridi/
`
`MichaelJ. Caridi
`Attorney for Applicants
`Registration No. 56,171
`Telephone: 703-827-3800
`Facsimile: 571-395-8753
`
`MJC/fo
`
`