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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 27, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received January 27, 2026:
Claims 1-15 and 17-19 are pending. Claim 16 has been cancelled as per applicant’s request. Claims 1-12 are withdrawn.
The previous rejection has been withdrawn. However, a new prior art rejection has been made in view of Belharouak et al. (US 2014/0151598).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 13 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belharouak et al. (US 2014/0151598) in view of Yamauchi et al. (US 2017/0271653).
Regarding Claim 13, Belharouak et al. teaches a lithium transition metal oxide comprising Ni, Co and Al (Para. [0007]) (i.e. a lithium nickel cobalt aluminum composite oxide) which is free of sodium contaminants (Para. [0007]) (i.e. wherein a sodium content contained in the lithium nickel cobalt aluminum composite oxide is less than 0.0005% by mass).
Belharouak et al does not explicitly teach the composite oxide composed of secondary particles to which primary particles containing lithium, a nickel, a cobalt, and an aluminum are aggregated or composed of the primary particles and the secondary particles, nor wherein, when observing 100 or more particles of the lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide selected randomly by scanning electron microscope, a number that an aggregation of secondary particles is observed is 5% or less with respect to a total number of observed secondary particles.
However, Yamauchi et al. a positive electrode active material including a lithium nickel cobalt aluminum composite oxide including secondary particles aggregated with overlaps between plate surfaces of multiple plate-shaped primary particles (Para. [0144]) (i.e. composed of secondary particles to which primary particles containing a lithium, a nickel, a cobalt and an aluminum are aggregated or composed of primary particles and secondary particles) wherein mechanical energy is input to aggregates composed of secondary particles, thereby separating the secondary particles almost without destroying the secondary particles themselves, thus loosening the aggregates (i.e. reducing a number that an aggregation of secondary is observed)., therefore one of ordinary skill in the rat would have been motivated to optimize the number that an aggregation of secondary particle is observed with respect to a total number of observed secondary particles in the positive electrode active material of Belharouak et al., as such an operation can provide a lithium composite oxide with a narrow particle size distribution while the secondary particles are kept (Para. [0204]), thereby improving cycle characteristics and output characteristics (Para. [0165], [0166]). Thus, the number that an aggregation of secondary particle is observed with respect to a total number of observed secondary particles as claimed is a result effective variable (i.e. a variable that achieves a recognized result) and modifying the number that an aggregation of secondary particles is observed to achieve a number of 5% or less would be discovering the optimum range through routine experimentation. It has been held that when the general conditions are disclosed in the art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (See MPEP §2144.05).
Absent any showing of critical or unexpected results, such limitations appear to be routine optimization within the skill of the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the invention are therefore prima facie obvious.
Regarding the method of measuring the number that an aggregation of secondary particles is observed with respect to a total number of observed secondary particles, as the variable claimed is a result-effective variable which has been rendered obvious as explained above, the structural limitations of the claim are met and the method in which the number is measured does not change the underlying structural property or the fact that the property is a result-effective variable.
The combination of the lithium nickel-composite oxide particles being composed of secondary particles to which primary particles as taught by Yamauchi et al. with the lithium composite oxide of Belharouak et al. would yield the predictable result of a lithium composite oxide material comprising nickel, aluminum and cobalt (see Belharouak et al. – Para. [0007] and Yamauchi et al. – Para. [0144]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to combine of lithium nickel-composite oxide particles being composed of secondary particles to which primary particles as taught by Yamauchi et al. with the lithium composite oxide of Belharouak et al. as the combination would yield the predictable result of a lithium composite oxide material comprising nickel, aluminum and cobalt (see Belharouak et al. – Para. [0007] and Yamauchi et al. – Para. [0144]). The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 18, Belharouak et al. and Yamauchi et al. teaches all of the elements of the lithium nickel cobalt aluminum composite oxide in claim 13 as explained above.
Belharouak et al. further teaches the transition metal oxide used in a cathode (i.e. a positive electrode at least containing the lithium nickel cobalt aluminum composite oxide) (Para. [0033]) cathode is used in an electrochemical device (Para. [0034]) such as lithium ion batteries (abstract) (i.e. a lithium ion secondary battery comprising the positive electrode)
Regarding Claim 19, Belharouak et al and Yamauchi et al. teaches all of the elements of the lithium nickel cobalt aluminum composite oxide in claim 13 as explained above.
Belharouak et al. further teaches the process of obtaining a lithium composite oxide comprises washing with water (Para. [0041]) (i.e. wherein a formation of the composite oxide includes a washing process).
Belharouak et al. does not teach the washing process includes ammonium hydrogen carbonate as a washing liquid.
However, the limitation of the instant claim is a product by process limitation. The manner in which the product is formed (via a washing process including ammonium hydrogen carbonate as a washing liquid) is a product by process limitation which does not further limit the claimed product.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)(citations omitted).
“The Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature” than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Ex parte Gray, 10 USPQ2d 1922 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). See MPEP section 2113.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belharouak et al. (US 2014/0151598) in view of Yamauchi et al. (US 2017/0271653) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Aida et al. (US 2017/0110726) and Oshita et al. (US 2017/0305757).
Regarding Claim 14, Belharouak et al. as modified Yamauchi et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 13 as explained above.
Belharouak et al. does not teach a sulfate radical content, a chloride radical content or a Li site occupancy factor.
However, Aida et al. further teaches the composite oxide comprises a sulfate group (i.e. sulfate radical) content of 0.4% by mass or less (Para. [0090]) (overlapping with the claimed range of a sulfate radical content contained in the lithium nickel cobalt aluminum composite oxide is 0.15% by mass or less) and a chlorine content (i.e. chloride radical content) content of 0.05% by mass or less (Para. [0089]) (overlapping with the claimed range of a chloride radical content contained in the lithium nickel cobalt aluminum composite oxide is 0.005% by mass or less).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Belharouak et al. to incorporate the teaching of sulfate radical content and chloride radical content as taught by Aida et al., as it would obtain a battery having improved safety (Para. [0092]) and also improved irreversible capacity (Para. [0094]). 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Belharouak et al. as modified by Yamauchi et al. et al. does not explicitly teach a lithium (Li) site occupancy factor is 99.0% or more.
However, Oshita et al. teaches a lithium nickel cobalt aluminum composite oxide (Para. [0107]) wherein the Li site occupancy factor is higher than 99.0% (i.e. 99.0% or more).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Belharouak et al. to incorporate the teaching of an Li site occupancy factor higher than 99.0% or more as it would result in a use positive electrode active material with excellent crystallinity (Para. [0170]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belharouak et al. (US 2014/0151598) in view of Yamauchi et al. (US 2017/0271653) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Oshita et al. (US 2017/0305757).
Regarding Claim 15, Belharouak et al. as modified by Yamauchi et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 13 as explained above.
Belharouak et al. further teaches nickel cobalt aluminum precursors such as transition metal hydroxide (Para. [0033]).
Belharouak et al. does not teach a ratio of an average particle size of the lithium nickel cobalt aluminum composite oxide divided by an average particle size of a nickel cobalt aluminum precursor is 0.95 to 1.05.
However, Oshita et al. teaches a lithium nickel cobalt aluminum composite oxide (Para. [0107]) wherein the average particle diameter of the nickel composite hydroxide (i.e. the average particle size for a nickel cobalt aluminum composite hydroxide which is a precursor) is 3 to 20 micrometers (Para. [0038]) and the average particle diameter of the positive electrode material (i.e. the average particle size of the lithium nickel cobalt aluminum composite oxide) is 3 to 25 micrometers (Para. [0113]) and thus, teaches an overlapping ratio of an average particle size of the lithium nickel cobalt aluminum composite oxide divided by an average particle size of a nickel cobalt aluminum composite hydroxide (as for example the average particle size of the composite hydroxide may be 3 micrometers, and the average particle size of the composite oxide may be 3 micrometers, resulting in a ratio of 1.00.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the composite oxide and hydroxide of Belharouak et al. to incorporate the teaching of the average particle size ratio as taught by Oshita et al., as such average particle sizes provide a positive electrode active material having a high battery capacity per volume, a high level of safety and an excellent cycle characteristics (Para. [0038], [0113]). 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belharouak et al. (US 2014/0151598) in view of Yamauchi et al. (US 2017/0271653) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Mitsumoto et al. (US 2017/0288215).
Regarding Claim 17, Belharouak et al. as modified by Yamauchi et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 13 as explained above.
Belharouak et al. as modified by Yamauchi et al. does not explicitly teach a content of at least one of a potassium, a calcium, and a magnesium contained in the lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide is less than 0.0005% by mass.
However, Mitsumoto et al. teaches a lithium composite oxide comprising manganese, nickel, cobalt (Para. [0037]) and aluminum (Para. [0040]) wherein the amount of K (i.e. potassium) is preferably 20 ppm or smaller (Para. [0107]) (i.e. a content of potassium is less than 0.002% by mass, overlapping with the claimed range of less than 0.0005% by mass).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Belharouak et al. to incorporate the teaching of the potassium content as taught by Mitsumoto et al. when the amount of K is made in this range, the low-temperature output characteristics can be improved (Para. [0107]). 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed January 27, 2026 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of the references being used in the current rejection in light of the amendment.
Applicant’s arguments are drawn to a previous prior art combination and thus, are not persuasive in light of the newly cited prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARMINDO CARVALHO JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-5292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a.m.-5p.m..
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571 272-1481. 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.
/ARMINDO CARVALHO JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729