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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (US-20140158932-A1) in view of Takaki et al. (WO-2016002158-A1; see English translation provided 10/18/2024 for citations).
Regarding Claims 1-2 and 5-6, Sun discloses a positive electrode active material precursor (reads on lithium composite metal oxide; [0029]) comprising a secondary particle that is an aggregate of primary particles [0010, 0020, 0052].
The Examiner notes that the following limitations of Claim 1 (lines 3-6 and 11-20) merely define the how “a cross-section image”, “reference primary particles”, “a central part of the secondary particle” and “a surface part of the secondary particle” are required to be interpreted:
“wherein, when a cross-sectional image of the secondary particle is acquired, and the cross-sectional image is observed, primary particles that are observed in the cross-sectional image of the secondary particle and have an aspect ratio of 2.0 or more are reference primary particles…”
“wherein:
the central part refers to a part surrounded by an imaginary circle having a center at a centroid position of the cross-sectional image of the secondary particle, and the imaginary circle has a radius of r calculated from the following expression in which an area of the cross-sectional image is denoted by S,
r = (S/π)0.5/2
the surface part refers to a part of the cross-sectional image that is not surrounded by the imaginary circle
the central part and the surface part constitute the cross-sectional image of the secondary particle”.
Despite slight changes in the wording of Claim 2 (lines 3-5, 15-24), the same interpretation of “a cross-section image”, “reference primary particles”, “a central part of the secondary particle” and “a surface part of the secondary particle” is required. These limitations are mapped to Fig. 3 of Sun (see below).
PNG
media_image1.png
664
903
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sun Fig. 3 depicting central part and surface part.
Sun discloses the secondary particle may comprise a first interior wherein the a-axis direction length to c-axis direction length (corresponds to aspect ratio) of the primary particle is 0.5 to 2.0, and a second interior wherein the a-axis direction length to c-axis direction length (aspect ratio) of the primary particle is 2 to 30 [0016]. A primary particle with an aspect ratio of 2.0 or more corresponds to the reference primary particle as recited in Claims 1 and 2. Sun further discloses that aspect ratio of the primary particles increases from the center part to the surface part of the secondary particle [0010, 0138], and that the primary particles are arranged such that the longitudinal direction of the primary particles is oriented toward the center of the secondary particle [0010, 0012]. Accordingly, Sun renders obvious that “in a surface part of the secondary particle”, reference primary particles “are radially arranged and aggregated outward from a center of the secondary particle”, as required by Claim 2 (see Figs. 1, 3; [0014, 0016, 0056-0057]), and that “a content proportion of reference primary particles present in a central part of the secondary particle is lower than a content proportion of reference primary particles present in the surface part” as required by Claim 2.
Sun does not explicitly teach that the “content proportion of reference primary particles present in a central part of the secondary particle is 20% or more and 50% or less, and a content proportion of reference primary particles present in a surface part of the secondary particle is 30% or more and 90% more less, as required by Claims 1 and 2.
Takaki teaches a similar lithium-containing transition metal oxide positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (Pg. 2, Par. 1; Pg. 6, Par. 6) comprising secondary particles formed by an aggregation of a plurality of primary particles (Pg. 3, Par. 7). Takaki teaches that stress is especially concentrated in the central part of the secondary particles during charging / discharging (Pg. 2, Pars. 6-7; Pg. 16, Par. 7). When primary particles with a high aspect ratio exist in the central portion of the secondary particles, a large distortion is added inside the secondary particles during charge / discharge, and the collapse of the active material becomes more prominent (Pg. 3, Par. 5). To mitigate this effect, Takaki teaches that primary particles having a small aspect ratio (i.e. 1 or more and 2 or less) are arranged in the central part of the secondary particles, thereby relieving stress inside the particle a the time of charging/discharging (Pg. 5, first full paragraph and second to last paragraph; see Fig. 4b) and elongated primary particles with larger aspect ratios (i.e. 2 or more and 10 or less) are located on the peripheral part of the secondary particle, thereby suppressing peeling of the particles (Pg. 5, first two full paragraphs, second to last paragraph; see Fig. 4b). Advantageously, by arranging spherical primary particles in the central part of the secondary battery and elongated primary particles in the outer peripheral portion of the secondary battery, better cycle characteristics can be obtained (Pg. 5, last three paragraphs).
Takaki also teaches that when the appearance frequency of the aspect ratio of the elongated primary particles is greater than the aspect ratio of the spherical primary particles, it is possible to increase the contact area of the elongated primary particles with adjacent particles, thereby suppressing the occurrence of cracks at the grain boundary (Pg. 5, second full paragraph). This is advantageous for cycle characteristics at low load (Pg. 5, second full paragraph). On the other hand, when the appearance frequency of the aspect ratio of spherical primary particles is greater than the aspect ratio of the elongated primary particles, it is possible to shorten the distance for lithium diffusion, and the spherical primary particles are less affected by defects in the crystal plane (Pg. 5, third full paragraph). This is advantageous for high rate cycle characteristics (Pg. 5, third full paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have optimized both the aspect ratios and contents of the primary particles in the central part and surface part of Sun as taught by Takaki, including selecting the central part of the secondary particle to comprise “20% or more and 50% or less” of reference primary particles, and selecting the surface part to comprise “30% or more and 90% or less” of reference primary particles as required by Claims 1 and 2, with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful balance between reducing stress in the central part of the secondary particle, thereby preventing collapse, while ensuring sufficient adhesion and increased cycle characteristics, and a further balance between low load cycle characteristics and high rate cycle characteristics (MPEP 2144.05, II).
As laid out above, modified Sun renders obvious optimizing the aspect ratios and contents of primary particles in the central part and surface part of the secondary particle as taught by Takaki. Modified Sun renders obvious that the aspect ratio of the primary particles in the central part of the secondary particle is 1 or more and 2 or less (Takaki: Pg. 5, first full paragraph) and that the aspect ratio of the primary particles in the periphery portion of the secondary particle is 2 or more and 10 or less (Takaki: Pg. 5, first full paragraph).
Although modified Sun does not explicitly teach, as required by Claims 1 and 2, that
“in the cross-sectional image, a difference between an average value of aspect ratios of the primary particles present in the central part of the secondary particle and an average value of aspect ratios of the primary particles present in the surface part of the secondary particle is 0.30 or more and 1.0 or less”,
using the minimum and maximum aspect ratios disclosed in each region as the minimum and maximum possible average aspect ratios, the range of the difference in average aspect ratios between the central part and the surface part can be calculated. This results in a range of 0 (i.e. a central part and surface part which both have an aspect ratio of 2) to 9 (i.e. a central part aspect ratio of 1 and a surface part aspect ratio of 10), which encompasses the claimed range of 0.3 to 1.0. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the encompassed portion of the range with a reasonable expectation that such a difference in aspect ratios would result in a successful secondary particle (MPEP 2144.05, I).
The aspect ratios of the primary particles rendered obvious by modified Sun in the surface part (i.e. 2 to 10; Takaki: Pg. 5, first full paragraph) represent the boundaries (i.e. minimum and maximum) for the average aspect ratios of the primary particles in the surface part. This range encompasses the range of 1.85 or more to 3.00 or less required by Claim 5, thereby rendering the claimed range obvious since one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that selecting the encompassed portion would result in a successful secondary particle capable of use in a positive electrode active material (MPEP 2144.05, I).
The aspect ratios of the primary particles rendered obvious by modified Sun in the central part (i.e. 1 to 2; Takaki: Pg. 5, first full paragraph) represent the boundaries (i.e. minimum and maximum) for the average aspect ratios of the primary particles in the central part. This range encompasses the range of 1.66 or more to 2.00 or less required by Claim 6, thereby rendering the claimed range obvious since one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that selecting the encompassed portion would result in a successful secondary particle capable of use in a positive electrode active material (MPEP 2144.05, I).
Modified Sun renders obvious that primary particles in the central part have an aspect ratio in the range of 1 to 2 (Takaki: Pg. 5, first full paragraph), and Sun discloses that the aspect ratio of the primary particles increases from the center of the secondary particle to the surface of the primary particle [0010, 0138]. A particle with an aspect ratio of 2 corresponds to the claimed “reference primary particles”, while a particle with an aspect ratio of 1 is understood to be a primary particle having “a spherical shape”. Accordingly, it is understood that both reference primary particles and primary particles having a spherical shape are present in a mixed form in the central part as required by Claims 1 and 2. Here, a “mixed form” is broadly and reasonably interpreted as indicating that both particles exist together within the central part, as supported by the instant specification [instant specification: 0019].
Sun discloses that the primary particles have a longest diameter x (corresponds to a-axis) and a maximum diameter y (corresponds to c-axis) perpendicular to the longest diameter x [0015-0016].
Sun discloses that the secondary particle has an average particle diameter in a range of 4 to 20 µm (corresponds to a radius of 2-10 µm) [0010]. Sun further discloses that the a-axis direction length (i.e. diameter x) of the primary particle may be in the range of 0.01 to 0.95 of the secondary particle radius [0012, 0013], which corresponds to an a-axis (diameter x) of 0.02 µm to 9.5 µm.
Therefore, although modified Sun does not explicitly teach, as required by Claims 1 and 2, that:
“an average value of the maximum diameter y perpendicular to the longest diameter x of the primary particles in the central part of the cross-sectional image of the secondary particle is between 0.20 µm and 0.60 µm, and
an average value of the maximum diameter y perpendicular to the longest diameter x of the primary particles in the surface part of the cross-sectional image of the secondary particle is between 0.20 µm and 1.00 µm”,
such diameters are obvious over the teachings of modified Sun, as laid out below. Specifically, using the aspect ratio of the primary particles in the central part and surface part (see Takaki: Pg. 5, first full paragraph), the diameter of the c-axis length (i.e. r2 in Fig. 1; [0012]) is calculated.
In regards to the central part, the c-axis diameter (i.e. diameter y) of the central part is 0.01 µm (i.e. aspect ratio of 2 and a-axis length of 0.02 µm) to 9.5 µm (i.e. aspect ratio of 1 and a-axis length of 9.5 µm). This range encompasses the claimed range of 0.20 to 0.60 µm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected any portion of the range recited in the prior art, including the claimed portion, with a reasonable expectation that such an average diameter would result in a successful secondary particle for a positive electrode active material (MPEP 2144.05, I).
In regards to the surface part, the c-axis diameter (i.e. y diameter) of the surface part is 0.002 µm (aspect ratio of 10 and a-axis length of 0.02 µm) to 4.75 µm (aspect ratio of 2 and a-axis length of 9.5 µm). This range encompasses the claimed range of 0.20 to 1.00 µm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected any portion of the range recited in the prior art, including the claimed portion, with a reasonable expectation that such an average diameter would result in a successful secondary particle for a positive electrode active material (MPEP 2144.05, I).
Assuming, arguendo, that selecting the average maximum diameter y (i.e. c-axis) of the primary particles of the central part to be between 0.20 µm and 0.60 µm and selecting the average maximum diameter y (i.e. c-axis) of the primary particles in the surface part to be between 0.20 µm and 1.00 µm is persuasively shown by means of evidence or argument to be unreasonable, the claimed limitations would still have been obvious over the teachings of Takaki, as laid out below.
Specifically, Takaki teaches that the average particle size of the spherical primary particles (with a smaller aspect ratio) is 0.3 µm or more and 4 µm or less, and the average particle size of the elongated primary particles (reference primary particles) is 1.5 µm or more and 13 µm or less (Pg. 7, Par.6). The average particle size corresponds to the longest diameter x. When the particle diameter is less than 2 µm in the spherical primary particles, bonding strength is deteriorated (Pg. 7, Pars. 6-8). In contrast, if the particle diameter is larger than 14 µm, cycle characteristics are deteriorated (Pg. 7, Pars. 6-8). When the particle diameter is less than 1 µm in the elongated primary particles (i.e. reference primary particles), interface resistance is increased (Pg. 7, Par. 8 – Pg. 8, Par. 1). In contrast, if the particle diameter is larger than 26 µm, cycle characteristics are deteriorated (Pg. 7, Par. 8 – Pg. 8, Par. 1). Takaki teaches that the aspect ratio of the spherical primary particles can range from 1 or more and 2 or less and the aspect ratio of the elongated primary particles (reference primary particles) can range from 2 or more and 10 or less (Takaki: Pg. 5, first full paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have optimized the particle diameter (longest diameter x) in view of the aspect ratios of the primary particles in both the central and surface part, thereby inherently optimizing the average maximum diameter y, including selecting the primary particles in the central part to have an average value of the maximum diameter y between 0.20 µm and 0.60 µm and selecting the primary particles in the surface part to have an average value of the maximum diameter y between 0.20 µm and 1.00 µm, in order to strike a balance between bonding strength and cycle characteristics in the primary particles of the central part and a balance between interface resistance and cycle characteristics in the primary particles of the surface part, while taking into consideration the ranges of aspect ratios of primary particles of the central and surface parts which provide improvement in cycle conditions (MPEP 2144.05, II).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Sun renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including that providing primary particles with a small aspect ratio (i.e. with an aspect ratio of 1 or more and less than 2) in the central part of the secondary particle reduces stress inside the particle at the time of charging / discharging and that providing elongated primary particles (i.e. with an aspect ratio of 2 or more and 10 or less) in the peripheral part of the secondary particle results in increased contact between primary particles, suppressed peeling of the particles, and improved cycle characteristics (see rejection of Claim 2, above). Modified Sun further teaches that an increased content of elongated particles (reference primary particles) is advantageous for cycle characteristics at low load (Takaki: Pg. 5, second full paragraph), while an increased content of primary particles with a small aspect ratio is advantageous for high rate cycle characteristics (Takaki: Pg. 5, third full paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have optimized the aspect ratios and contents of the primary particles in the central part and surface part of Sun, including forming a secondary particle with a central part comprising 20% or more and 40% or less of reference primary particles and a surface part comprising 40% or more and 90% or less of reference primary particles, with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful balance between reducing stress in the central part of the secondary particle, thereby preventing collapse, while ensuring sufficient adhesion and increased cycle characteristics, and a further balance between low load cycle characteristics and high rate cycle characteristics (MPEP 2144.05, II).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Sun renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including that the secondary particles include a first interior and a second interior [0016]. The first interior includes the central part and the second interior includes the surface part. Sun teaches that the molar ratio of elements within the central part and the surface part can differ [0030].
Although Sun does not explicitly teach that the central part and the surface part are represented by Formula (I) as recited in instant Claim 7 (see below), Sun does teach the compositions of the first interior and second interior part of the secondary particle [0029].
L
i
L
i
x
N
i
1
-
y
-
z
-
w
C
o
y
M
n
z
M
w
1
-
x
O
2
Formula (I) of instant Claim 7.
As described in detail below, the compositions disclosed by Sun fall within/overlap Formula (I), thereby rendering Formula(I) obvious.
Regarding the central part of the secondary particle, Sun teaches that the molar ratio of elements within the first interior can be expressed by the following empirical formula [0029]:
L
i
δ
N
i
(
1
-
(
a
+
b
+
c
)
C
o
a
M
n
b
M
c
O
2
Empirical Formula for first interior of secondary particle.
Regarding the content of Li, in the empirical formula for the first interior part of the secondary particle, the molar ratio of Li is represented by δ, wherein 1.0≤δ≤1.2 [0029]. This is within the claimed total moles of Li of 0.9 to 1.2 as recited in Claim 7 (i.e. 1+x, wherein -0.1≤x≤0.2).
Regarding the content of Co, the molar ratio of Co in the first interior part of the secondary particle is represented by a, wherein 0.00≤a≤0.40 [0029]. A molar ratio of 0 to 0.4 falls within the claimed range of 0 to 0.5 as recited in Claim 7.
Regarding the content of Mn, the molar ratio of Mn in the first interior part of the secondary particle is represented by b, wherein 0.00≤b≤0.35 [0029]. A molar ratio of 0 to 0.35 falls within the recited range of 0 to 0.5 as recited in Claim 7.
Regarding the content of “M”, the molar ratio of “M” in the first interior part of the secondary particle is represented by c, wherein 0.00≤c≤0.05 [0029]. A molar ratio of 0 to 0.05 falls within the claimed ratio of 0 to 0.1.
Furthermore, Sun discloses that “M” can include at least one element from the group consisting of Al, Mg, Fe, Cr, V, Ti, Mo, Sc, Ce, and La [0029]. Of the ten elements listed, nine elements (Al, Mg, Fe, Cr, V, Ti, Mo, Sc, La) are recited as possible identities for the metal “M” of the instant application. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have had a reasonable chance of selecting a metal “M” from the prior art which reads on the identity of “M” of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of resulting in a successful positive electrode active material.
Regarding the content of Ni, Sun also teaches that Ni is present in the composition of the first interior part of the secondary particle. This satisfies the recited limitation of Claim 7 wherein the composition of Ni is (1-y-z-w).
Regarding the surface part of the secondary particle, Sun discloses that the molar ratio of elements within the second interior part can be expressed by the following empirical formula [0029]:
L
i
δ
N
i
(
1
-
(
x
+
y
+
z
)
C
o
x
M
n
y
M
z
O
2
Empirical Formula for second interior part of secondary particle.
Regarding the content of Li, in the empirical formula for the second interior part of the secondary particle, the molar ratio of Li is represented by δ, wherein 1.0≤δ≤1.2 [0029]. This is within the claimed total moles of Li of 0.9 to 1.2 as recited in Claim 7 (i.e. 1+x, wherein -0.1≤x≤0.2).
Regarding the content of Co, the molar ratio of Co in the second interior part of the secondary particle is represented by x, wherein 0.07≤x≤0.3 [0029]. A molar ratio of 0.07 to 0.3 falls within the claimed range of 0 to 0.5 as recited in Claim 7.
Regarding the content of Mn, the molar ratio of Mn in the second interior part of the secondary particle is represented by y, wherein 0.2≤y≤0.5 [0029]. A molar ratio of 0.2 to 0.5 falls within the claimed range of 0 to 0.5 as recited in Claim 7.
Regarding the content of “M”, the molar ratio of “M” in the second interior part of the secondary particle is represented by z, wherein 0.00≤z≤0.1 [0029]. A molar ratio of 0 to 0.1 corresponds to the claimed range of 0 to 0.1 as recited in Claim 7.
Furthermore, Sun discloses that “M” can include at least one element from the group consisting of Al, Mg, Fe, Cr, V, Ti, Mo, Sc, Ce, and La [0029]. Of the ten elements listed, nine elements (Al, Mg, Fe, Cr, V, Ti, Mo, Sc, La) are recited as possible identities for the metal “M” of the instant application. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have had a reasonable chance of selecting a metal “M” from the prior art which reads on the identity of “M” of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of resulting in a successful positive electrode active material.
Regarding the content of Ni, Sun also teaches that Ni is present in the composition of the second interior part of the secondary particle, therefore this satisfies the recited limitation of Claim 7 wherein the composition of Ni is (1-y-z-w).
Since each of the first interior part and the second interior part individually fall within the claimed molar compositions taught in Formula (I) of the instant application, the secondary particle of the prior art necessarily reads on the claimed Formula (I).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Sun renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Sun discloses that the composition of Li in both the central and surface parts can range from 1.0 to 1.2 moles [0029], which corresponds to an Li value (i.e. Li1 + Lix) within the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Sun renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Sun further discloses that the positive electrode active material precursor (reads on lithium composite metal oxide; [0029]) can be applied to a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery [0009, 0020, 0029]. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to have provided “a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery, comprising: the lithium composite metal oxide according to claim 1” with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful positive electrode active material.
Regarding Claims 10 and 11, modified Sun renders obvious all of the limitation as set forth above. Although Sun does not explicitly disclose that the positive electrode active material is used to form a positive electrode, Sun discloses a battery which is formed using the positive electrode active material particle powders (Table 13; [0135]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to have used the positive electrode active material to form a positive electrode (i.e. by application of the positive electrode active material to a current collector) in order to form a functional battery. Sun also discloses that the positive electrode active material can be used to form a lithium secondary battery [0009, 0034, 0135]. The use of a positive electrode comprising the previously disclosed positive electrode active material to form a lithium secondary battery corresponds to the recited limitations of Claims 10 and 11.
Regarding Claim 14, modified Sun renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including that the content of Co in the first interior part can range from 0.00≤a≤0.40 and that the content of Co in the second interior part can range from 0.07≤x≤0.3 [0029]. Notably, while Sun desires a high Ni content in the first interior part, and a low Ni content and high Mn content in the second interior part [0059-0060], Sun does not mention limitations regarding the content of Co, and therefore does not teach away from including very low concentrations of Co, or no Co in the particle. Additionally, the Examiner notes that the scope of the claimed content of Co (i.e. “y = 0”) in light of the instant specification appears to include values slightly larger than zero. Specifically, the Examiner notes that the instant specification only includes one significant digit when denoting the molar ratios of the metals of the lithium composite metal oxide [instant specification: 0006, 0035]. In contrast, the prior art Sun uses two significant digits [Sun: 0029, 0059]. Therefore, it would appear that any value of Co rendered obvious by Sun which rounds down to zero when only considering one significant digit would read on the claimed content of Co. Since Sun discloses that the content of Co is an average of the content of Co in the interior portion (which has a lower limit of 0) and the content of Co in the second interior portion (which has a lower limit of 0.07) [0029, 0059], the average content of Co reasonably includes values which would round down to 0 (e.g. 0.035). Therefore, although modified Sun does not explicitly teach that there is no Co in the lithium composite metal oxide (i.e. wherein y = 0), the content of Co disclosed in the prior art is so close to the claimed content of Co that one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have expected substantially the same properties between a lithium composite metal oxide wherein the content of Co ranges from 0<Co<0.07 and a lithium composite metal oxide wherein the value of Co is 0, absent persuasive argument or evidence to the contrary (MPEP 2144.05, I).
Assuming, arguendo, that Applicant is able to show by means of evidence or persuasively argue that a lithium composite metal oxide comprising a molar ratio of Co of 0<Co<0.7 does result in distinct properties from a lithium composite metal oxide without any Co, including no cobalt in the lithium metal oxide would have been obvious over the teachings of Takaki.
Specifically, Takaki teaches a similar lithium composite metal oxide (Pg. 3 – Pg. 4, second full paragraph; Pg. 5, last three paragraphs). Takaki teaches that the lithium composite metal oxide can be represented by the formula: Li1+xNiaMnbCocO2+d, and that 0≤c/(a+b)<0.6 (see last two full paragraphs of Pg. 6; see also [0039] of original document). Takaki teaches that the proportion of cobalt is reduced to reduce the material cost of the positive electrode active material (Pg. 6, last full paragraph). The content of cobalt includes no cobalt (i.e. in order for c/(a+b) to equal 0 in, 0≤c/(a+b)<0.6, c must equal 0).
Since Sun contemplates using a very small molar content of cobalt (i.e. a lower limit of 0<Co<0.07), and Takaki teaches that no cobalt can be successfully used in a lithium composite metal oxide, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the lithium composite metal oxide to comprise no cobalt with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful lithium composite metal oxide with a reduced material cost.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (US-20140158932-A1) in view of Takaki et al. (WO-2016002158-A1; see English translation provided 10/18/2024 for citations) as applied to Claim 7, above, and in further view of Kwon et al. (US-20180108940-A1; cited in IDS filed 09/17/2020).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Sun renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth, above, including that “M” in the lithium composite metal oxide material can include at least one element from the group consisting of Al, Mg, Fe, Cr, V, Ti, Mo, Sc, Ce, and La, and that the molar content of “M” in the lithium composite metal oxide can range from 0 to 0.1 [0029]. The molar ratio of “M” disclosed by Sun (i.e. 0 to 0.1) corresponds to the claimed range (i.e. “0<w≤0.1).
Sun does not teach that M represents one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Ca, Sr, Ba, Zn, B, Ga, Zr, Ge, Cu, W, Y, Nb, Ta, Tc, Ru, Rh, Pd, Ag, Cd, In, and Sn.
Kwon teaches a similar lithium composite metal oxide [0013, 0017, 0033-0038]. Kwon teaches that the lithium composite metal oxide is represented by the chemical Formula Lia1M1x1M2y1M3z1M4w1O2+∂1, wherein M1, M2 and M3 each independently include at least one of Ni, Co, and Mn [0037]. Kwon further teaches that M4 includes at least one element selected from the group consisting of Fe, Na, Mg, Ca, Ti, V, Cr, Cu, Zn, Ge, Sr, Ag, Ba, Zr, Nb, Mo, Al, Ga, and B [0037]. The Examiner notes that this establishes Ca, Cu, Zn, Ge, Sr, Ag, Ba, Zr, Nb, Ga, and B as substitutable alternatives to Fe, Mg, Ti, V, Cr, Mo and Al which can be successfully used in a lithium composite metal oxide material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included Ca, Cu, Zn, Ge, Sr, Ag, Ba, Zr, Nb, Ga and B in the lithium composite metal oxide instead of / in addition to the elements disclosed by Sun with a reasonable expectation that the inclusion of such elements would result in a successful lithium metal oxide (MPEP 2144.06 I-II; MPEP 2144.07). The elements Ca, Cu, Zn, Ge, Sr, Ag, Ba, Zr, Nb, Ga and B are all within the claimed list of possible elements of “M”.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (US-20140158932-A1) in view of Takaki et al. (WO-2016002158-A1; see English translation provided 10/18/2024 for citations) as applied to Claim 7 above, and in view of Lee et al. (US-20180013129-A1; cited in IDS filed 09/17/2020).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Sun renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth, above, including that “M” in the lithium composite metal oxide material can include at least one element from the group consisting of Al, Mg, Fe, Cr, V, Ti, Mo, Sc, Ce, and La, and that the molar content of “M” in the lithium composite metal oxide can range from 0 to 0.1 [0029]. The molar ratio of “M” disclosed by Sun (i.e. 0 to 0.1) corresponds to the claimed range (i.e. “0<w≤0.1).
Sun does not teach that M represents one or more elements selected from the group consisting of W, Y, Ta, Tc, Ru, Rh, Pd, Cd, In, and Sn, or that M represents one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Ca, Sr, Ba, Zn, B, Ga, Zr, Ge, Cu, Nb, Ag and one or more elements selected from the group consisting of W, Y, Ta, Tc, Ru, Rh, Pd, Cd, In, and Sn
Lee teaches a similar lithium composite metal oxide [0013, 0030-0035, 0039]. Lee teaches that the lithium composite metal oxide is represented by the chemical Formula LiaNi1-x-yCoxMnyM1zM2wO2, wherein 0≤z≤0.03 and 0≤w≤0.02 [0039-0041]. Lee further teaches that M1 includes at least one element selected from the group consisting of W, Mo, and Cr, and M2 includes at least one element selected from the group consisting of Al, Zr, Ti, Mg, Ta, and Nb [0040]. The Examiner notes that this establishes W as substitutable alternatives to Mo and Cr, and Ta as substitutable alternatives to Al, Ti, and Mg which can be successfully used in a lithium composite metal oxide material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included W and/or Ta in the lithium composite metal oxide instead of the elements disclosed by Sun with a reasonable expectation that the inclusion of W or Ta would result in a successful lithium metal oxide (MPEP 2144.06 I-II; MPEP 2144.07).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued amended Claim 1 now requires the diameter y of the primary particles in the central part to be between 0.20 and 0.60 µm, and the diameter y of the primary particles in the surface part to be between 0.20 and 1.00 µm, and that the previous rationales applied do not establish a prima facie case of obviousness (Remarks, Pg. 8). Specifically, Applicant has argued that the rejection of the maximum diameter y merely derives theoretical minimum and maximum values by combining the disclosed secondary particle size, the disclosed range of the longest diameter (x-axis of instant application), and the disclosed aspect ratios. Applicant has argued that these calculations merely identify possible values that individual primary particles could theoretically possess and do not establish, or reasonably suggest, the claimed average maximum diameter y of the primary particles in either the central part or the surface part of the secondary particle (Remarks, Pgs. 8-9).
The Examiner has carefully considered this argument, but respectfully does not find it persuasive. The Examiner notes that the average diameter y necessarily falls within the range encompassed by the maximum diameter y and the minimum diameter y. Since modified Sun renders obvious a range (minimum diameter –> maximum diameter) which encompasses the claimed average diameter, absent showings of criticality, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to have selected any portion of the range rendered obvious by the prior art, including a diameter which results in the average diameter which falls within the claimed range, (MPEP 2144.05, I).
Applicant has further argued that the claimed regional average maximum diameter was not established as a result-effective variable (Remarks, Pg. 9). Applicant has argued that the conclusion that it would have been obvious to optimize the particle diameter and the aspect ratio of the primary particles, thereby optimizing the claimed maximum diameter, lacks adequate factual support (Remarks, Pg. 10). Applicant argues that neither Sun nor Takaki identify the average maximum diameter y of the primary particles in the central part or the surface part as parameters affecting the properties relied upon by the office action (Remarks, Pg. 10). Applicant argues that Takaki discusses particle size and aspect ratio generally, and therefore does not suggest the claimed regional average maximum diameter y as a parameter that should be selected or optimized to obtain improved performance.
The Examiner has carefully considered this argument, but respectfully does not find it persuasive. The Examiner notes that, as laid out in the rejections of record (see rejection of Claims 1 and 2, above) Takaki establishes the following:
The average particle diameter of the regional primary particles is a result effective variable:
Takaki teaches that when the average particle diameter (corresponds to longest diameter x) of the spherical primary particles (located in the central region) is less than 2 µm the bonding strength is deteriorated, while if it exceeds 14 µm cycle characteristics are deteriorated (Pg. 7, Pars. 7-8). When the average particle diameter of the elongated primary particles (reference primary particles) is less than 1 µm interface resistance is increased while if it exceeds 26 µm cycle characteristics are deteriorated (Pg. 7, last paragraph – Pg. 8, first paragraph).
The regional aspect ratios of the primary particles is selected in view of improving cycle characteristics and suppressing peeling:
Takaki teaches that primary particles with a small aspect ratio (i.e. 1 or more and 2 or less) are arranged in the central part of the secondary particle and elongated primary particles with larger aspect ratios (i.e. 2 or more and 10 or less) are arranged at the peripheral part, thereby improving cycle characteristics and suppressing peeling (Pg. 3, Par. 5; Pg. 5, all; see also Fig. 4b).
Accordingly, the Examiner maintains that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized the average particle diameter (i.e. average longest diameter x) in each region of the secondary particle (i.e. the central part and the surface part) in view of the aspect ratios of the primary particles in each region, thereby inherently optimizing the average maximum diameter y, including selecting the primary particles in the central part to have an average value of the maximum diameter y between 0.20 µm and 0.60 µm and selecting the primary particles in the surface part to have an average value of the maximum diameter y between 0.20 µm and 1.00 µm, in order to strike a balance between bonding strength and cycle characteristics in the primary particles of the central part and a balance between interface resistance and cycle characteristics in the primary particles of the surface part, while taking into consideration the ranges of aspect ratios of primary particles of the central and surface parts which provide improved cycle characteristics and suppressed peeling (MPEP 2144.05, II).
Applicant has argued that the Office Action does not explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed combination of structural features (Remarks, Pg. 9). Applicant indicates other requirements of Claim 1, and argues that the Office Action analyzes these characteristics individually (Remarks, Pgs. 9-10). Applicant has argued that the rejection does not explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Sun in view of Takaki so as to simultaneously arrive at the particular combination of interrelated structural characteristics (Remarks, Pg. 10).
The Examiner has carefully considered this argument, but respectfully does not find it persuasive. The Examiner notes that each of the limitations noted by the Applicant are addressed in the rejections of record. Since Applicant has not pointed out a specific error in the rejections, and since there is currently no evidence on record to suggest that individually analyzing the limitations of Claim 1 has resulted in an incompatible combination of structures, the rejections are maintained. Additionally, the Examiner notes that the Sun discloses a secondary particle wherein the diameter of the primary particles increases from the center to the surface of the particle [Sun: 0010]. Absent showings of criticality, the limitations noted by the Applicant all appear consistent with such a structure.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 event a first 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DREW C NEWMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9873. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1292. 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.
/D.C.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 9/21/2026
Prosecution Insights