www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`17/430,083
`
`08/11/2021
`
`Yasunobu Kawamoto
`
`P210697US00
`
`4267
`
`WHDA, LLP
`8500 LEESBURG PIKE
`SUITE 7500
`TYSONS, VA22182
`
`WEST, ROBERT GENE
`
`1721
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`06/03/2024
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`
`patentmail @ whda.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`17/430,083
`Kawamotoetal.
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF)StatusExaminer
`ROBERT G WEST
`1721
`Yes
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORYPERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensionsof time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s)filed on 08 May 2024.
`C) A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`2a)[¥) This action is FINAL.
`2b) (J This action is non-final.
`3) An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4)(2) Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-8 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) _ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`C] Claim(s)
`is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected.
`(] Claim(s)__ is/are objectedto.
`C] Claim(s
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`Application Papers
`10) The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)0) The drawing(s) filedon__ is/are: a)(J accepted or b)( objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121(d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)7) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d)or (f).
`Certified copies:
`c)Z None ofthe:
`b)() Some**
`a)C All
`1.1.) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.2) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.1.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`*“ See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1) [[] Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) (J Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3)
`
`4)
`
`(LJ Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`(Qj Other:
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20240520
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/430,083
`Art Unit: 1721
`
`Page 2
`
`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. If status of
`
`the application as subject to 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 a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon,
`
`and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either
`
`status.
`
`Response to Amendment
`
`The amendment filed May 8, 2024 has been entered. Claims 1-8 remain
`
`in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome all
`
`objections and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the non-final office
`
`action mailed February 27, 2024.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`Applicant's arguments filed May 8, 2024 have been fully considered but
`
`they are not persuasive. Applicant amended claim 1 to recite “coarse
`
`primary particle". Applicant then stated, without further argument, that “In
`
`view of the amendment, Kaseda clearly fails to anticipate the presently
`
`claimed invention”.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/430,083
`Art Unit: 1721
`
`Page 3
`
`The present specification defines “coarse” as follows:
`
`“a coarse primary particle 32a is present, which has a much larger
`particle size than the average value of the particle sizes of the primary
`particles 32... The coarse primary particle 32a refers to a primary
`particle 32 having a particle size larger than d + 60, wherein d
`represents the average value of the particle sizes of the primary
`particles 32 included in the secondary particle 34 and o represents the
`standard deviation of the particle size distribution of the primary
`particles 32. ” (paragraph 20)
`
`Kaseda teaches a shell part 1 [claimed primary particles excluding the
`
`coarse primary particle| and a core part 2 [claimed coarse primary particle]
`
`(Kaseda paragraph 46 and figures 1A and 1B). Kaseda’s core part 2 is much
`
`larger than Kaseda’s shell part 1. Furthermore, Kaseda’s core part 2 fulfills
`
`core part > d + 60 (13.8 > 0.9 + 6*0.19) as described below. Thus,
`
`Kaseda’s core part 2 is “coarse” according to the definition of “coarse” in the
`
`present specification.
`
`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.
`(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued
`under section 151, or in an application for patent published or
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/430,083
`Art Unit: 1721
`
`Page 4
`
`deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or
`application, as the case may be, names another inventor and
`was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed
`invention.
`
`Claims 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2)
`
`as being anticipated by US20160006031A1 (Kaseda).
`
`Kaseda teachesthe following claim 1 limitation:
`
`“An non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery including a positive
`electrode (title, paragraphs 70-72, and figure 2), a negative electrode
`(paragraphs 70-72 and figure 2), and a non-aqueous electrolyte
`(paragraph 72 and figure 2), the positive electrode including a positive
`electrode current collector (paragraph 59) and a positive electrode
`mixture layer located on the positive electrode current collector
`(paragraph 59)”
`
`Kaseda’s positive electrode active substance is equivalent to the positive
`
`electrode mixture layer of claim 1.
`
`Kaseda teachesthe following claim 1 limitation:
`
`“the positive electrode mixture layer includes a lithium complex oxide
`in a form of secondary particles, each of the secondary particles being
`agglomerated primary particles”
`
`Specifically, Kaseda teaches that the positive electrode active substance
`
`includes a lithium composite oxide (paragraph 23), which is equivalent to
`
`the lithium complex oxide of claim 1. Kaseda also teaches an “aggregation of
`
`primary particles” (paragraph 22 and figures 1A-1B), which are equivalent
`
`to the agglomerated primary particles of claim 1. Kaseda’s aggregation of
`
`primary particles form larger, secondary particles (paragraph 22 and figures
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/430,083
`Art Unit: 1721
`
`Page 5
`
`1A - 1B), which are equivalent to the secondary particles being
`
`agglomerated primary particles of claim 1.
`
`Kaseda teachesthe following claim 1 limitation:
`
`“the secondary particles includes a secondary particle in which a
`primary particle having a particle size larger than d+6a is present,
`wherein d represents an average value of particle sizes of the primary
`particles and o represents a standard deviation of a particle size
`distribution of the primary particles”
`
`Specifically, Kaseda teaches the following:
`
`Meaning
`Present claim
`Kaseda
`
`secondary particle|secondary particle large agglomerate
`particles within the
`agglomerate
`smaller particles in the
`agglomerate
`largest particle in the
`
`primary particles
`primary particles not
`coarse primary particle
`
`agglomerate
`
`Drimary particles
`
`shell part 1
`
`core part 2
`
`coarse primary particle
`
`See Kaseda paragraphs 29 & 46 and figures 1A - 1B. Kaseda’s particles in
`
`the shell part 1 and in the core part 2, are called primary particles
`
`(paragraph 22).
`
`Kaseda teachesthe following formula:
`
`D1
`= 2 24
`oO
`
`where D1 is the average particle diameter of the primary particles and o is
`
`the standard deviation of the average particle diameter D1 of the primary
`
`particles (paragraph 29). The average particle diameter D1 is the diameter
`
`in long axis direction (paragraph 123).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/430,083
`Art Unit: 1721
`
`Page 6
`
`Kaseda teaches that the average particle diameter D1 [claimed d] of the
`
`primary particles can be 0.9 um or less (paragraph 29). Rearranging the
`
`above equation and solving for the standard deviation o gives the following
`
`result:
`
`D1
`24
`
`[2o) j—>0,019>0
`
`0.9
`24
`
`Kaseda fails to directly provide a value for the core part 2 (equivalent to
`
`the coarse primary particle of claim 1). This value, however, can be
`
`determined from additional Kaseda teachings. Kaseda teaches average
`
`particle diameter D2 of the secondaryparticles (aggregation of primary
`
`particles) is 5 um to 20 um (paragraph 30). The average particle diameter
`
`D2 is the diameter in long / major axis direction (paragraph 123).
`
`Measuring and comparing the core part 2 to the secondary particle
`
`diameter in figure 2 indicates that the diameter of the core part 2 is about
`
`69%of the secondary particle diameter. Therefore, the core part 2 can have
`
`a diameter equal to 3.45 um to 13.8 um (0.69*5 um to 0.69*20 pm).
`
`Referring again to the equation of claim 1 (larger particle diameter >
`
`d+6o0), Kaseda’s particle dimensions match this requirement:
`
`3.45 and 13.8 > 0.9 + 6*0.19 , thus 3.45 and 13.8 > 2.04. Note that
`
`Kaseda’s particle dimensions also match this requirement if values less than
`
`0.9 are selected (paragraph 29: Kaseda’s D1 [claimed d] can be 0.9 um or
`
`less).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/430,083
`Art Unit: 1721
`
`Page 7
`
`Furthermore, the largest primary particle in Kaseda (figures 1A-1B) is
`
`larger, compared to the other primary particles, than the largest primary
`
`particle in figure 2 of the present application. Thus, assuming that the
`
`present application is enabled and includes in the figures a structure that
`
`meets the d+6o claim limitation, then Kaseda also teaches this claim
`
`limitation by the figures alone.
`
`Kaseda also teaches that it is beneficial to have a larger particle, which is
`
`very large compared to the average particle diameter of the other particles.
`
`Thus, Kaseda also provides a motivation to achieve the claimed invention
`
`(paragraphs 10-11 and 16).
`
`With regard to claim 2, Kaseda teaches the non-aqueous electrolyte
`
`secondary battery of claim 1 as noted above. Claim 2 recites:
`
`“the lithium complex oxide includes a lithium nickel complex oxide
`represented by Li,NiyM(1-y)O2, wherein 0.95<x<1.10, 0.65<y<1.0, and
`M is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Co, Mn,
`Al, Mg, Ti, Sr, Zr, Y, Mo, and W"
`
`Kaseda teachesLiNio.sMno.1Co00.102, which includes y=0.8, and two elements
`
`from the list in claim 2 (Mn and Co), each with a stoichiometric value which
`
`equal 0.2 when combined (y-0.8=0.2) (paragraph 27).
`
`With regard to claim 5, Kaseda teaches the non-aqueous electrolyte
`
`secondary battery of claim 1 as noted above. Claim 5 recites:
`
`“the particle size of the coarse primary particle is larger than d + 140”
`
`As described under claim 1, Kaseda teaches a diameter of 3.45 um to 13.8
`
`um for the core part 2 [claimed coarse primary particle| and 0.19 for the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/430,083
`Art Unit: 1721
`
`Page 8
`
`standard deviation o. Kaseda thus meets the claim 5 limitation:
`
`140=14*0.19=2.66 and 3.45 and 13.8 > 2.66.
`
`With regard to claim 6, Kaseda teaches the non-aqueous electrolyte
`
`secondary battery of claim 1 as noted above. Claim 6 recites:
`
`“a numberof the coarse primary particles present in the secondary
`particle is 1 to 3”
`
`Kaseda showsone core part 2 [claimed coarse primary particle] in figures 1A
`
`and 1B.
`
`With regard to claim 8, Kaseda teaches the non-aqueous electrolyte
`
`secondary battery of claim 1 as noted above. Claim 8 recites:
`
`“an average particle size of the secondary particles is within the range
`from 3 um to 20 um"
`
`Kaseda teaches an average particle diameter D2 of the secondary particlesis
`
`20 um (paragraph 30), as described under claim 1. Kaseda also teaches a
`
`preferred range of 5 to 15 um average particle diameter D2 of the secondary
`
`particles (paragraph 30).
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/430,083
`Art Unit: 1721
`
`Page 9
`
`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 betweenthe prior art and the claims at
`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 ownedas 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 3-4 and7is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
`
`over US20160006031A1 (Kaseda).
`
`With regard to claim 3, Kaseda teaches the non-aqueous electrolyte
`
`secondary battery of claim 1 as noted above. Claim 3 recites:
`
`“the average value of the particle sizes of the primary particles, d, is
`0.3 pm to 2.0 ym"
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/430,083
`Art Unit: 1721
`
`Page 10
`
`Kaseda teaches that the average particle diameter D1 of the primary
`
`particles can be 0.9 um or less (paragraph 29). MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)
`
`provides the law for this issue:
`
`“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)”.
`
`Given that thereis only a slight difference between Kaseda’s 0.9 um or less
`
`range and the 0.3 um to 2.0 um range in claim 3, and further given the fact
`
`that no criticality is disclosed for 0.3 um to 2.0 um, the range in claim 3 is
`
`an obvious variant of Kaseda’s range.
`
`With regard to claim 4, Kaseda teaches the non-aqueous electrolyte
`
`secondary battery of claim 1 as noted above. Claim 4 recites:
`
`“the particle size of the coarse primary particle is larger than d + 10”
`
`As described under claim 1, Kaseda teaches a diameter of 3.45 um to 13.8
`
`um for the core part 2 [claimed coarse primary particle| and 0.9 um or less
`
`average particle diameter Di [claimed d].
`
`Kaseda thus meets the claim 4 limitation with 13.8 um and d= 0.9 um:
`
`d+10=0.9+10=10.9 and 13.8 > 10.9. Note that Kaseda, with 13.8 um, also
`
`meets this limitation for all values of d (< 0.9).
`
`Kaseda, however, fails to meet the claim 4 limitation with 3.45 um and
`
`d= 0.9 um: d+10=0.9+10=10.9; 3.45 is not greater than 10.9. Kaseda,
`
`with 3.45 um, fails to meets this limitation with all values of d (< 0.9).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/430,083
`Art Unit: 1721
`
`Page 11
`
`Thus, Kaseda meets the claimed range with diameter of the core part 2
`
`from 10.9 um to 13.8 um, for all values of d less than 0.9. Kaseda, however,
`
`teaches 3.45 um to 13.8 um. Therefore, Kaseda’s range overlaps the
`
`claimed range.
`
`MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A) provides the law for this issue:
`
`“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)”.
`
`Given that much of the teaching of Kaseda for the core part 2 diameter
`
`falls within the claimed range, and further given the fact that no criticality is
`
`disclosed for the claimed range, the range in claim 4 is an obvious variant of
`
`Kaseda’s range.
`
`With regard to claim 7, Kaseda teachesthe limitations of claim 1 as
`
`described above. Claim 7 recites:
`
`“each of the secondary particles is composed of 300 to 1000 primary
`particles”
`
`Kaseda teaches that the shell part can be formed in one, two, or more layers
`
`(paragraph 49). The total number of primary particles in Kaseda’s figures 1A
`
`and 1B is one core part plus the number of shell part particles. The number
`
`of layers of the shell part can be changed to achieve the 300 to 1000
`
`particles. Following is an example of achieving the number of primary
`
`particles with a single layer of the shell part.
`
`Kaseda teaches 0.20 to 0.6 um average particle diameter of the primary
`
`particle. The shell part must have a diameter less than the average, due to
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/430,083
`Art Unit: 1721
`
`Page 12
`
`the effect of the core part. As described above under claim 1, the core part
`
`can have a diameter equal to 3.45 um to 13.8 um.
`
`Selecting 6 um as the diameter of the core part, a surface area of the
`
`core part would be 113 ym2. Selecting 0.5 um for the shell part and
`
`assuming a simple cubic unit cell packing, each shell part particle would
`
`cover 4r2 = 4*(0.25um)2 = 0.25 um? of the core part. Thus, about 452 shell
`
`part particles (113 um? / 0.25 um? per particle) can surround the core part
`
`particle. There would therefore be 453 primary particles (452+1), which is
`
`within the claimed range of 300-1000. .
`
`These calculations are based on specific values within Kaseda’s ranges.
`
`Every value within Kaseda’s ranges do not achieve the claimed range. Thus,
`
`Kaseda’s range overlaps the claim 7 range. MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A) provides
`
`the law for this issue:
`
`“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)”.
`
`Given that Kaseda’s range overlaps the claimed range and no criticality is
`
`disclosed for the claimed range; therefore, the range in claim 7 is an obvious
`
`variant of Kaseda’s range.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/430,083
`Art Unit: 1721
`
`Page 13
`
`Conclusion
`
`THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension
`
`of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
`
`A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire
`
`
`
`THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the eventafirst
`
`reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and
`
`the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH
`
`shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire
`
`on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to
`
`37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory
`
`action.
`
`In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later
`
`than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications
`
`from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT WEST whosetelephone
`
`number is 703-756-1363 and email address is Robert.West@uspto.gov. The
`
`examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8 am - 6 pm ET.
`
`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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/430,083
`Art Unit: 1721
`
`Page 14
`
`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.
`
`/R.G.W./
`Examiner, Art Unit 1721
`
`/ALLISON BOURKE/
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
`
`