LITHIUM METAL COMPLEX OXIDE POWDER, POSITIVE ELECTRODE ACTIVE MATERIAL FOR LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERIES, POSITIVE ELECTRODE FOR LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERIES, AND LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 13, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 14 and 15 are newly added, but are hereby withdrawn for examination on the merits. Applicant has elected Al as M recited in Composition Formula (I) (See “Election/Restrictions” in the office action mailed Feb. 14, 2024). All other non-elected species, including those recited in claims 14-15, were/are withdrawn.
No amendments are made to previously-examined claims 1, 3-8 and 13. After careful consideration again of Applicant’s arguments, the office maintains the previous rejections of claims 1, 3-8 and 13 because the rejections are not improper. A reply to the Applicant’s remarks/arguments is presented after addressing the claims.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. References cited in the current Office action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The “CO” recited in Composition Formula (I) in claims 1 and 11 does appear to read “Co”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 6-8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsumoto et al. (US 20140329147 A1, hereafter Mitsumoto) in view of Sugiura et al. (US 20170155135 A1, hereafter Sugiura).
Regarding claim 1, Mitsumoto teaches a lithium metal complex oxide powder represented by the formula Li1+x(MnαCo[Symbol font/0x62]Ni[Symbol font/0x67])1-xO2 ([0021]), which reads on the claimed formula Li[Lix(Ni[Symbol font/0x67] Co[Symbol font/0x62]MnαMw)1-xO2 when w=0 and M=Al, because 0≤x(for Li)≤0.07, 0.30≤[Symbol font/0x67](for Ni)≤0.75, 0.10≤[Symbol font/0x62](for Co)≤0.40, and 0.10≤α(for Mn)≤0.40 overlaps the claimed -0.1≤x(for Li)≤0.2, 0.20≤(1-y-z-w)(for Ni)≤1, 0.2≤[Symbol font/0x62](for Co)≤0.40, and 0≤α(for Mn)≤0.40, respectively. 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).
Claim 1 requires 0<w≤0.1 (i.e., wǂ0) after previous claim amendments, and Mitsumoto fails to satisfy this requirement. However, in the same field of endeavor, Sugiura discloses a similar lithium metal complex oxide represented by the formula (I) Li1+xNiyCozMn(1-y-z)MαO2-[Symbol font/0x62]A[Symbol font/0x62], wherein when M is Al and [Symbol font/0x62] is zero (See [0023]), the formula (I) becomes Li1+xNiyCozMn(1-y-z)AlαO2. The α in the resulting formula satisfies 0≤ α ≤0.1 ([0023]), meaning that the metal complex oxides, when α=0 and 0< α ≤0.1, respectively, are equivalents as positive electrode active materials of a battery (at least: Tilte, Abstract). When α=0, the formula (I) becomes Li1+xNiyCozMn(1-y-z)O2, which is similar to Mitsumoto’s formula, Li1+x(MnαCo[Symbol font/0x62]Ni[Symbol font/0x67])1-xO2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have used Sugiura’s lithium metal complex oxide represented by the formula Li1+xNiyCozMn(1-y-z)AlαO2, wherein 0< α ≤0.1, as an alternative to Mitsumoto’s Li1+x(MnαCo[Symbol font/0x62]Ni[Symbol font/0x67])1-xO2, since the substitution of known equivalents for the same purpose is prima facie obvious. See MPEP § 2144.06. As a result, the formula Li1+xNiyCozMn(1-y-z)AlαO2, wherein 0< α ≤0.1, reads on the claimed Li[Lix(Ni[Symbol font/0x67] Co[Symbol font/0x62]MnαAlw)1-xO2, wherein 0< w ≤0.1. The molar fraction range of each element in the two formulae overlaps each other, respectively. 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).
Mitsumoto as modified further teaches an average primary particle is in the range of 0.05 µm to 5.0 µm ([0049], Mitsumoto), overlapping the range of 1 µm or more and 7 µm or less as instantly claimed. 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).
Mitsumoto as modified further teaches R1/Ra, which is a ratio of the average primary particle diameter represented by R1 to an average crystallite diameter represented by Ra, is 5.7 to 18.5 ([0023], Mitsumoto), which overlaps the range of more than 5.0 and 20 or less as instantly claimed. 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).
Mitsumoto as modified further teaches a BET specific surface area of the lithium metal complex oxide powder 1.8 m2/g (Table 1, Comparative Example 1, Mitsumoto), which is close to the upper end of the claimed range of 0.2 to 1.7 m2/g as claimed. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of Amer. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claims 6-8, Mitsumoto as modified teaches a positive electrode active material for lithium secondary batteries comprising the lithium metal complex oxide powder according to claim 1, a positive electrode for lithium secondary batteries comprising the said positive electrode active material, and a lithium secondary battery comprising the said positive electrode for lithium secondary batteries (See at least Abstract, Mitsumoto).
Regarding claim 13, Mitsumoto teaches a lithium metal complex oxide powder represented by the formula Li1+x(MnαCo[Symbol font/0x62]Ni[Symbol font/0x67])1-xO2 ([0021]), which reads on the claimed Li[Lix(Ni[Symbol font/0x67] Co[Symbol font/0x62]MnαMw)1-xO2 when w=0 and M=Al, because 0≤x(for Li)≤0.07, 0.30≤[Symbol font/0x67](for Ni)≤0.75, 0.10≤[Symbol font/0x62](for Co)≤0.40, and 0.10≤α(for Mn)≤0.40 overlaps the claimed -0.1≤x(for Li)≤0.2, 0.20≤(1-y-z-w)(for Ni)≤1, 0.2≤[Symbol font/0x62](for Co)≤0.40, and 0≤α(for Mn)≤0.40, respectively. 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).
Claim 13 requires 0<w≤0.1 (i.e., wǂ0), and Mitsumoto fails to satisfy this requirement. However, in the same field of endeavor, Sugiura discloses a similar lithium metal complex oxide represented by the formula (I) Li1+xNiyCozMn(1-y-z)MαO2-[Symbol font/0x62]A[Symbol font/0x62], wherein when M is Al and [Symbol font/0x62] is zero (See [0023]), the formula (I) becomes Li1+xNiyCozMn(1-y-z)AlαO2. The α in the resulting formula satisfies 0≤ α ≤0.1 ([0023]), meaning that the metal complex oxides, when α=0 and 0< α ≤0.1, respectively, are equivalents as positive electrode active materials of a battery (at least: Tilte, Abstract). When α=0, the formula (I) becomes Li1+xNiyCozMn(1-y-z)O2, which is similar to Mitsumoto’s formula, Li1+x(MnαCo[Symbol font/0x62]Ni[Symbol font/0x67])1-xO2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have used Sugiura’s lithium metal complex oxide represented by the formula Li1+xNiyCozMn(1-y-z)AlαO2, wherein 0< α ≤0.1, as an alternative to Mitsumoto’s Li1+x(MnαCo[Symbol font/0x62]Ni[Symbol font/0x67])1-xO2, since the substitution of known equivalents for the same purpose is prima facie obvious. See MPEP § 2144.06. As a result, the formula Li1+xNiyCozMn(1-y-z)AlαO2, wherein 0< α ≤0.1, reads on the claimed Li[Lix(Ni[Symbol font/0x67] Co[Symbol font/0x62]MnαAlw)1-xO2, wherein 0< w ≤0.1. The molar fraction range of each element in the two formulae overlaps each other, respectively. 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).
Mitsumoto as modified further teaches an average primary particle is in the range of 0.05 µm to 5.0 µm ([0049], Mitsumoto), overlapping the range of 1 µm or more and 7 µm or less as instantly claimed. 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).
Mitsumoto as modified further teaches R1/Ra, which is a ratio of the average primary particle diameter represented by R1 to an average crystallite diameter represented by Ra, is 5.7 to 18.5 ([0023], Mitsumoto), which overlaps the range of more than 5.0 and 20 or less as instantly claimed. 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).
Mitsumoto as modified further teaches R1 may be in the range of 0.3 µm to 3 µm ([0049], Mitsumoto) and R1/Ra may be in the range of 6.0 to 13.0 ([0041]), which results in an average crystallite diameter (Ra) being in the range of 0.0231 µm to 0.5 µm (i.e., 0.3/13.0 to 3/6.0). The instantly claimed range of 0.154 to 0.316 µm overlaps that of 0.0231 µm to 0.5 µm. 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).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsumoto in view of Sugiura, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20190334170 A1 to Takamori et al. (hereafter, Takamori).
Regarding claim 3, Mitsumoto as modified teaches the lithium metal complex oxide powder according to claim 1, but is silent as to the D10 as instantly claimed.
In the same field of endeavor, Takamori discloses that a higher energy density and a high discharge capacity at a high current rate can be achieved if the 10% cumulative particle size D10 of the lithium metal complex oxide powder is in the range of 2 to 12 µm ([0088]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have used lithium metal complex oxide particles having a size ranging from 2 µm to 12 µm, as taught by Takamori, in order to achieve benefits mentioned above.
Regarding claim 4, Mitsumoto as modified teaches the lithium metal complex oxide powder according to claim 1, but is silent as to the instantly claimed amount, measured by a neutralization titration method, of residual lithium contained in the lithium metal composite oxide being 0.3 mass% or less.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Takamori discloses a lithium metal complex oxide having an amount of residual lithium measured by a neutralization titration method being about 0.299 wt% (the calculation is based on data for Example 2 in Table 2: 0.38%*(14/74) + 0.39%*(14/24) [Symbol font/0xBB] 0.299%), wherein the said lithium metal complex oxide included in a positive electrode active material for lithium secondary batteries can bring about high cycle characteristic under high voltage ([0011]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have employed a lithium metal complex oxide of the modified Mitsumoto containing residual lithium in an amount, measured by a neutralization titration method, of 0.299 wt%, as taught by Takamori, in order to achieve a high cycle characteristic under high voltage. The 0.299 wt% reads on the instantly claimed 0.3 mass% or less.
The limitations recited in the last paragraph of claim 4 represent a process to obtain the amount of residual lithium contained in the lithium metal composite oxide powder. However, since Mitsumoto as modified does teach the claimed amount of residual lithium, it teaches the invention as claimed in claim 4. This is similar to a situation of a product-by-process claim, wherein the patentability of a product-by-process claim is determined on the basis of product characteristics, not process steps.
Regarding claim 5, Mitsumoto as modified teaches the lithium metal complex oxide powder according to claim 1, but is silent as to a coating material that coats a surface of core particles, as instantly claimed.
In the same field of endeavor, Takamori discloses that a high thermal stability can be achieved if the primary particles (reading on “core particles” as claimed) of lithium metal complex oxide is covered with a coating material containing element Al ([0095]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have covered the core particles with a coating material containing element Al, as taught by Takamori, in order to achieve benefit of high thermal stability.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
1) In response to the Applicant’s arguments with “functional equivalents”, it is noted that the lithium metal complex oxides represented by the formula (I) in Sugiura, when α=0 and when 0 < α ≤ 0.1, respectively, are functional equivalents as positive electrode active materials. The equivalency is recognized in Sugiura and is supported by 0 ≤ α ≤ 0.1. That is, when α=0 the lithium metal complex oxide functions as a positive electrode active material; when 0 < α ≤ 0.1, the lithium metal complex oxide also functions as a positive electrode active material. The functional equivalency does not depend whether or not they are structurally equivalents (i.e., doped or undoped).
2) In response to the argument with respect to “(2) Sugiura Does Not Teach Equivalence Between α=0 and 0 < α ≤ 0.1”, see 1) above.
In addition, the functional equivalency is obvious, as explained in 1) above. The requirements by the Applicant to show in the Sugiura reference a) the presence or absence of Al has no material effect, or b) compositions where α=0 and 0 < α ≤ 0.1 exhibit the same structural or electrochemical behavior, are unreasonable. The features a) and b) are not claimed. Further, Applicant’s argument that “… functional similarity alone does not establish obviousness of structural substitution” is incorrect. Substitution of art-recognized known equivalents for the same purpose is prima facie obvious. See MPEP § 2144.06.
3) In response to Applicant’s arguments presented in Section “(3)”:
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (in this case, the Mitsumoto reference, the Sugiura reference, or the Takamori reference), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument that “The chemical formulas in the cited references represent different structural concepts”, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Applicant did not specifically point out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. The same structure is not required for the rationale based on functional equivalents.
4) In response to Applicant’s arguments presented in Section “(4)” with respect to motivation for combining the references, it is noted that the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation to combine the references has been clearly provided in the rejections presented above.
5) The entire content of previous “Response to Arguments” in the office action mailed on Sep. 15, 2025 is also herein incorporated by reference.
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/
ZHONGQING WEI, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727