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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s response (dated 04 February 2026) has not amended the claims; claims 1, 3-4, and 9-20 are pending, with claims 1, 3-4, and 9-15 being considered in the present Office action.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive for the reasons detailed below; the rejections of claims 1, 3-4, and 9-15 are maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant details the instant application’s motivation for excluding Co, while providing W, Mg, Ti, and S elements in the first region (core), and reasoning for utilizing a Co concentration gradient region in the second region, and argues Kim “only confirms the effect of a concentration gradient layer in cathode active materials having Co in its core, and fails to provide any technical disclosure, teaching or suggestion regarding the introduction of dopant elements and a concentration gradient layer for resolving structural instability when Co is absent from its core”. Applicant concludes Kim provides no motivation to modify to active material thereof, hence suggests the rejection is based on hindsight. Applicant dismisses the secondary references (Choi, Choi II, Hirai, and Shin) for failing to provide any useful teachings.
In response to Applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant appears to be arguing against the reference (Kim) individually; 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). Further, 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). Finally, the reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. MPEP 2144, IV.
In this case, the claims were rejected over a combination of references (e.g., Kim in view of Choi, Choi II, Hirai and Shin), not Kim alone. In fact, the secondary references are particularly germane to the motivation to modify Kim. Specifically, Kim suggests a material comprising two regions, a first region absent Co (i.e., 0 ≤ a), and a second region having a Co concentration gradient. The secondary references provide motivation to implement various doping elements. For example, the substitution of sulfur in the oxygen sites would have been appreciated from the standpoint of improving cycling characteristics, since metal elution is suppressed owing to the higher bond strength the substitution of sulfur offers, as suggested by Choi II. Further, Kim suggests Mg and Ti, but does not suggest W; however, Hirai suggests Ti, W, and Mg stabilize the crystal structure, hence there is an expectation of improved cycle characteristics with repeat cycling. In other words, Hirai suggests a reason the Ti and Mg elements were used by Kim (i.e., stabilize crystal structure) and offers an additional element (W) to achieve the same effect, i.e., W. Thus, Kim would have appreciated the inclusion of Ti, W, Mg, and S from the standpoint of improving cycling characteristics owing to the expectation of improved structural stability of the active material, as suggested by Choi II and Hirai. In view of the foregoing, the rejections from the last action are maintained.
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, 3-4, 9-11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim US 2016/0359165, in view of Choi et al. (US 2016/0211518), Choi (WO 2017204428), Hirai et al. (US 2016/0013486), and Shin et al. (US 20180287135), hereinafter Kim, Choi, Choi II, Hirai, and Shin (all of record).
Regarding Claims 1, 9, 10, and 13, Kim suggests a cathode active material (see e.g., claims 1, and 9, Fig. 1, and Examples) comprising: a lithium transition metal oxide particle which comprises a first region (i.e., core layer) and a second region (i.e., concentration gradient layer), wherein the first region forms an inner portion of the lithium transition metal oxide particle, and the second region forms an outer portion of the lithium transition metal oxide particle (see Fig. 1), wherein the first region (i.e., core layer) comprises an element other than a Co element (e.g., core layer comprises Formula (1): LiNiCoMnMeO2X, thereby includes an element other than Co (i.e., Ni, Mn), see e.g., [0027-0028] and claims 1, and 9), the second region (e.g., concentration gradient layer) comprises the Co element and a concentration gradient region in which a concentration of Co atoms changes (e.g., concentration gradient layer has a concentration gradient due to a continuous change in concentration of one or more transition metals; examples ([0038-0047]) show Co increase from core to shell), wherein the lithium transition metal oxide particle has an average particle diameter (D50) in a range of 5 µm to 20 µm (e.g., about 10 µm, see e.g., Table 1), and the concentration gradient region (i.e., concentration gradient layer) has a thickness of 500 nm or less (e.g., 10-500 nm, see e.g., claim 1).
Kim does not disclose part of Li is substituted with Na. However, Choi discloses a lithium transition metal oxide in which a part of the lithium is substituted by sodium. Specifically, Li1-aAa is suggested where A is sodium (Na) and 0.0025 ≤ a ≤ 0.02; improved structural stability and improved cycle characteristics are expected by partial substitution of lithium sites with Na. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the lithium is substituted by small amounts of sodium since there is an expectation of improved structural stability.
Kim does not disclose sulfur substituted in the oxygen sites. However, Choi II discloses a lithium transition metal oxide (i.e., LixM1-m-zAmDzO2-tXt, where M is Ni, Co, Mn, etc., A is Mg, etc, D is Ti, etc., and X is S and t is between 0 and 0.2) and suggests sulfur in the oxygen sites strengthens the bond with the transition metal, thereby contributing to the improvement of cycling characteristics by suppressing transition metal elution, page 5/36. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include sulfur in the amount of greater than 0 and less than 0.01 with the expectation of strengthening the bond with the transition metals, thereby improving cycling characteristics by suppressing transition metal elution, as suggested by Choi II.
Kim suggests the first region (i.e., core region) excludes Co (i.e., Coa in Formula (1) is 0≤a≤0.10, thereby suggest Co is excluded, see e.g., claim 9) and includes one or more of Mg and Ti (see e.g., Mec in Formula (1) is between 0-0.2). Kim does not disclose the element W in the first region of the lithium metal oxide formula. However, Hirai suggests replacing the transition metals (i.e., Ni, Mn, etc.) with Ti, W, and Mg (i.e., Mx in General Formula (1) includes Ti, W, and Mg, 0 ≤ x ≤ 0.3); using Ti, W, and Mg is desirable from the viewpoint to the cycle characteristics because the elements stabilize the crystal structure so that a decrease in capacity is prevented with repeated charge/discharge, thereby achieving excellent cycle characteristics, [0028-0029]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include, W, along with Ti and Mg, in the first region of Kim with the expectation of preventing a decrease in capacity with repeated cycling, thereby achieving excellent cycle characteristics, as suggested by Hirai. Kim was modified with Hirai to suggest Ti, W, and Mg; the amount thereof is more than 0 to 0.3 from the standpoint of stabilizing crystal structure to prevent capacity decreases, thereby achieving excellent cycle characteristics, [0028-0029]. Further, Shin suggests the value of W is between 0.002 to 0.03 from the standpoint of output characteristics and obtaining significant battery characteristics, [0045-0046], while Ti and Mg substituted for Ni, and Mn are kept from 0 to 0.2 because they do not degrade characteristics of the active material, [0052-0053]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for Kim to select the claimed values of Ti (above 0 to 0.005, or above 0 to 0.003), W (above 0 to 0.005), and Mg (above 0 to 0.005, or above 0 to 0.003) to stabilize the crystal structure, thereby achieving excellent battery characteristics, without degrading the active material characteristics, as suggested by Hirai and Shin.
The values of Na, S, Mg, Ti and W suggested in the prior art overlap with those claimed or are close. 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). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See also Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865 (1997). MPEP 2144.05, I. See also MPEP 2144.05, II. Routine Optimization, A.: Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages", Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Regarding Claim 3, Kim suggests the concentration of cobalt atoms in the concentration gradient region increases toward the outside, see e.g., Example 1 has Co increasing from about 0 to 0.2, see also the other examples in [0043-0047].
Regarding Claim 4, Kim suggests the concentration gradient region includes Ni atoms which decrease toward the outside, see e.g., Example 1 where Ni decreases from 0.97 to 0.6, see also the other examples in [0043-0047].
Regarding Claim 11, Kim suggests the lithium transition metal oxide is a single particle, see e.g., Fig. 1.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Choi, Choi II, Hirai, and Shin, in view of Celasun et al. (US 2021/0119204, of record), hereinafter Celasun.
Regarding Claim 12, Kim does not disclose whether the lithium transition metal oxide is a single crystal. However, Celasun suggests a lithium transition metal oxide powder comprising a single monolithic particle having a center and a surface whose Co content is higher at the surface, see e.g., EEX1.1-FE in Figs. 2-3 and 6.2, claim 18 [0100-0101]; the single crystal monolithic particle can endure volume change better than polycrystalline particles, as evidenced from the lack of micro-cracks, thereby resulting in improved cycling stability, [0101]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the lithium transition metal oxide particle of Kim is a single crystal with the expectation of improved cycling stability from being able to endure volume changes without microcracking, as suggested by Celasun.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Choi, Choi II, Hirai, and Shin in view of Hiroka et al. (JP2015118898, of record), hereinafter Hiroka.
Regarding Claim 14, Kim suggests the second region (i.e., concentration gradient layer, Formula (2)) includes an element other than Co, W, Mg, and Ti (e.g., Ni, Mn) in an amount of greater than 0 and less than 1 (e.g., Ni is present based on the amount of the other elements, e.g., 0.97 to 0.6 in Example 1, 0.9 to 0.3 in Example 6, etc), Co in an amount greater than 0 and less than 1 (e.g., Coa varies from about 0 to 0.2 in Example 1, see also claim 9, and [0027-0029, 0042-0044], and rejection of claim 1), and at least one element selected from W, Mg, and Ti (e.g., Mec is Mg, Ti and present in an amount from 0 to 0.2, see [0027-0029]).
Kim does not disclose sulfur substituted in the oxygen sites. However, Choi II discloses a lithium transition metal oxide (i.e., LixM1-m-zAmDzO2-tXt, where M is Ni, Co, Mn, etc., A is Mg, etc, D is Ti, etc., and X is S and t is between 0 and 0.2) and suggests sulfur in the oxygen sites strengthens the bond with the transition metal, thereby contributing to the improvement of cycling characteristics by suppressing transition metal elution, page 5/36. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include sulfur in the amount of greater than 0 and less than 0.01 with the expectation of strengthening the bond with the transition metals, thereby improving cycling characteristics by suppressing transition metal elution, as suggested by Choi II.
Kim does not suggest the inclusion of sodium for lithium. However, Hiroka suggests the inclusion Na for Li sites where the amount of Na is between 0.001 and 0.03 from the standpoint of promoting grain growth without deteriorating capacity and cycle life, and has the effect of suppressing structural collapse, [0029]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include Na in lithium sites were the amount of Na is above 0 to 0.01 to promote grain growth without deteriorating capacity and cycle life, and to suppress structural collapse.
Regarding Claim 15, the broader disclosure of Kim suggests the inclusion of Mec (e.g., Mg, Ti, etc., see e.g., claim 9), where the ratio of Coa/(Coa+Ni1-a-b-c+Mnb+Mec) is greater than 0 and less than or equal to 0.2 (e.g., amount of Coa = 0.2 in example 2).
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 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 ANNA KOROVINA whose telephone number is (571)272-9835. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 6 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 5712721481. 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.
/ANNA KOROVINA/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729